throbber
5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 1
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS ) Case No.
`LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., ) CMB2015-00179
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., )
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) PATENT No.
`IBFX, INC., CQG, INC., and CQGT, ) 7,533,056 B2
`LLC, )
` ) Case No.
` Petitioner, ) CMB2015-00181
` )
` v. )
` ) 7,676,411 B2
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Case No.
` ) CMB2015-00182
` Patent Owner. )
` ) PATENT No.
`__________________________________) 6,772,132 B1
`
` TELECONFERENCE
`
` May 2, 2016 - 2:00 p.m.
`
` BEFORE:
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` JEREMY PLENZLER, Administrative Patent
` Judge
`
`---------------------------------------------------
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street NW, Suite 812
` Washington, DC 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0001
`
`IBG 1042
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2015-00181
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Page 2
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 1100 New York Avenue
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: LORI GORDON, ESQ.
` - and -
` ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQ.
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
` DUNNER, LLP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
` BY: RACHEL EMSLEY, ESQ.
`
` STEVEN BORSAND
` Trading Technologies International,
` Inc.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0002
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Page 3
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon.
` This is Judge Petravick, with me on
` the phone is Judge Plenzler.
` We are here for conference call for
` CMB 2015-00179, 181 and 182.
` Could I know who's on the line from
` Petitioner.
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor.
` This is Lori Gordon for Petitioner,
` and I'll be arguing on behalf of
` Petitioners today.
` Also with me is Rob Sokohl from
` Sterne, Kessler.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` From the Patent Owner?
` MS. EMSLEY: Good afternoon, Your
` Honor.
` This is Rachel Emsley for patent
` owners, and Steve Borsand is also in the
` room with me.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0003
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
` Is anybody else on the line?
` MS. GORDON: Your Honor, we have
` a court reporter on the line.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Who arranged
` for the court reporter?
` MS. GORDON: Petitioners did.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you, and
` you'll file a transcript afterward?
` MS. GORDON: Yes.
` Would you like that in the 3,000
` series?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Sure.
` MS. GORDON: Okay, thank you.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And you have
` enough numbers, you can use one of
` yours, too.
` MS. GORDON: Yeah, okay, I think
` we have plenty of numbers.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, so
` we received an e-mail from Petitioner
` regarding a dispute as to whether the 1
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0004
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` -- the deposition in the 179 case will
` occur tomorrow and the deposition for
` the 181 and the 182 will occur on
` Thursday.
` This is a dispute about whether on
` May 3rd the topics will be limited to the
` 179 case.
` Petitioner, is that correct?
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor, the
` first issue is whether based on the
` parties' agreement the first deposition
` will be limited to the 179 case and the
` second deposition to the 181 and 182
` case, and then depending on the
` resolution of that issue, there may be a
` follow-on dispute that we could use some
` clarification regarding.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay, so let's
` hear from you on the first issue, then
` Patent Owner will have a chance to speak
` on that issue.
` MS. GORDON: Okay, thank you,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0005
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Your Honor.
` So, I would like to first start by
` going through the facts related to this
` issue.
` On March 29th the Patent Owner
` requested a deposition of our expert,
` Mr. Roman, on two different dates, and we
` provided this e-mail for the Board's
` convenience.
` The first date in the Patent
` Owner's e-mail is intended to cover the
` topics in CMB2015-00179 and the second was
` designated to cover the topics in
` CMB2015-00181 and 182 proceedings.
` It's important to note when you
` look at that first e-mail from the Patent
` Owner with their proposal, the original
` proposal contemplated a minimum of four
` days, a maximum of eight days between
` those two depositions, and that was what
` Patent Owner proposed to Petitioners.
` On April 7th, Petitioner agreed to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0006
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 7
` split the dates of the deposition between
` the 179 and the 181 and 182 depositions,
` and proposed May 3rd and May 5th for the
` two deposition dates.
` The reason that Petitioners agreed
` to the split was really three-fold.
` First, the patent in the 179 proceeding is
` in a completely different family than the
` 181 and 182 patents.
` Therefore they cover different --
` they have different specifications.
` Second, the grounds for
` patentability in the first proceeding, the
` 179 proceeding are TSE, Togher and Schott
` in combination and Silverman, Gutterman
` and Togher, and those grounds are
` different than the grounds in the 181 and
` 182 proceeding which rely on the
` combination of TSE and Belden, combined
` with Togher, May and Gutterman in various
` combinations.
` Third, it's important to note that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0007
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` each of these patents have different
` claims, so Petitioners felt that a single
` day in between depositions permits the
` witness to handle the different
` specifications, prior art, claims in
` issue, without increasing the expense of
` multiple trips for the expert to D.C.
` So we agreed to the Patent Owner's
` proposal, sent an e-mail on April 11th
` which we provided to the Board, Patent
` Owner clearly agreed to May 3 and May 5th
` for the dates, and our expert, Mr. Roman,
` made his travel arrangements and we made
` our arrangements according to this
` agreement to prepare him.
` Now, later Patent Owner
` unilaterally decided to change the agreed
` upon scope of deposition to consolidate
` the three depositions into a single
` deposition.
` When we realized what the Patent
` Owner had done, we contacted them to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0008
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 9
` correct the deposition notice, and counsel
` stated in an e-mail that they noticed the
` depositions based on our desire to take a
` single deposition spanning the three
` proceedings.
` In other words, Patent Owner
` admitted they unilaterally changed the
` agreement, did not ask Petitioners whether
` they agreed to this change, then they
` tried to back door it into a notice that
` they filed over a week after the parties'
` initial agreement, during a time when
` Petitioners were dealing with various
` other e-mails and challenges that the
` Patent Owner raised, as the Board knows
` from the various e-mails you received
` during that time period.
` Your Honor, this is not how the
` proceedings are supposed to be run.
` When parties make an agreement, we
` expect the other side to abide by that
` agreement.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0009
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Therefore for the first point
` Petitioners asked the Board to sua sponte
` change the notice of deposition to reflect
` the actual agreement of the parties to
` depose Mr. Roman on May 3rd for CMB 179
` and on May 5th for the combined 181 and
` 182 proceedings, or alternatively, to
` compel the Patent Owner to file a
` corrected notice of deposition reflecting
` that agreement.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK:: Would you tell
` me in the 179 case what paper the notice
` is?
` MS. GORDON: Let me see.
` It might take me a minute, but I
` will get that for you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` While that is occurring, Patent
` Owner, we will hear from you on this topic
` right now.
` MS. EMSLEY: Sure, Your Honor,
` thank you very much.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0010
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` This is Rachel Emsley again.
` Petitioner's allegation that we
` have unilaterally changed an agreement
` misrepresents the facts.
` We apparently didn't have a meeting
` of the minds about the format of the
` deposition, and there was no grand
` discussion about the format of the
` depositions, and in the past, in the TD
` Ameritrade proceeding, we had always
` combined the depositions into one for the
` sake of efficiency, and when possible, we
` have always done it that way.
` In those proceedings there was the
` same expert, nearly the same declarations,
` the same patents, the same counsel and we
` deposed Mr. Roman once, as we did with the
` other witnesses, and those five patents
` actually included the three that are in
` dispute now, and it was never a problem to
` do them as one.
` When we originally proposed a split
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0011
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` we did so because at the time back on
` March 29th when we made our initial
` request for witness availability the
` schedule in these proceedings wasn't
` aligned.
` So, we had a Patent Owner response
` due on May 5th, and then two more due on
` May 13th, so what we had proposed was some
` dates at the end of April for one
` deposition and dates in early May for the
` following week for the response that was
` due a week later.
` That's not what we normally would
` have done, but we were in a different
` circumstance at that point.
` When they proposed new dates, one
` of the dates was actually outside the
` discovery period for the 179 proceeding,
` and we began the conversation of having an
` extension in these cases.
` And we said that we couldn't agree
` to all of the -- to the dates of May 3rd
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0012
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 13
` and 5th without an extension in all of the
` cases.
` At that point we started
` negotiating the extensions among the
` parties.
` We filed the stipulation and then
` the dates became aligned to have all three
` Patent Owner responses due on May 27th, so
` we no longer had this situation with the
` staggered dates.
` That same day, on April 20th, which
` is about 13 days from the beginning of
` what would be the start of this deposition
` tomorrow, we filed the notices and that
` reflected the intent which went with the
` past course of dealings with the parties
` to take one deposition spanning the two
` days that the witness was available.
` Now, last week we were trying to
` make our travel arrangements and realized
` that we had a day in between the
` depositions, and asked if they would
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0013
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 14
` rather do the deposition on Wednesday and
` Thursday rather than have the day in
` between.
` That's when it became apparent that
` there was a misunderstanding between the
` parties.
` And to the extent that for the
` communications that the Board is missing,
` are the ones that occurred after that
` point.
` To the extent that there was any
` misunderstanding of our intent to take a
` single deposition, we tried to accommodate
` any possible prejudice to the Petitioners.
` We offered to move the deposition
` by one day so that it would be taken on
` Wednesday and Thursday, and even offered
` to do the deposition on Thursday and
` Friday so that they would have even one
` more day to prepare their witness.
` We explained that we would be very
` clear on the record about which
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0014
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 15
` proceedings we were talking about, which
` declarations and patents when something
` didn't pertain to all three patents, and
` we asked what their issue was.
` In response, we only got a response
` that said it's just simply separate
` proceedings.
` We believe that in this case, as we
` have done in the past for all of these
` proceedings, taking one single deposition
` makes sense.
` I know that they mentioned that the
` patent for the 179 proceeding is in a
` different family, but the declaration has
` a lot of overlap, and the prior art as
` applied has a lot of overlap.
` For example in the TSE reference
` the Board is now intimately familiar with,
` is used as a base reference in all of
` these patents.
` For one of the grounds, as well as
` the witnesses' background information, his
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0015
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 16
` take on the ordinary skill in the art and
` the priority date of these patents may be
` about a year apart.
` So his understanding of what was
` going on in the industry at the time of
` the invention is relevant to all of the
` cases.
` So, because of the significant
` overlap and the issues, it makes sense to
` do this deposition all as one.
` And from where we sit, we feel very
` prejudiced by having the deposition
` separated, whereas it doesn't seem like
` there is any prejudice to the Petitioners
` in that regard, especially given the
` combinations that we were willing to make.
` And that was -- we are talking
` about a discussion that happened last
` week, so to the extent there was any
` misunderstanding, there was time to come
` to agreement on how to make this work for
` all of the parties.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0016
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` We are trying to finish the
` deposition in as little time as possible,
` and with this overlap in the issues, you
` can see that there is a scenario created
` here if we separate the depositions where
` it's very unclear as to how we are
` supposed to take the witness' testimony
` when they have a day in between that they
` have now said they are going to prepare
` their witness during that day.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Isn't there a
` rule that precludes the Petitioner from
` preparing a witness separately for a
` separate proceeding, as opposed to
` speaking to them during the same
` deposition?
` MS. EMSLEY: There isn't a rule,
` per se, Your Honor, but it seems like
` this is set up in a way that are we
` supposed to reask the questions about
` TSE and its application to very similar
` claim terms and how he's reading the TSE
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0017
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 18
` reference, or do we have to ask that on
` both days, and then they have a chance
` to prepare the witness and do what they
` may, and that circumvents the Board's
` rule you are not supposed to talk to a
` witness during the deposition, and
` effectively where he's --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: What rule
` precludes talking to a witness in
` between separate proceedings?
` MS. EMSLEY: There isn't a rule
` on that, per se, Your Honor, but we feel
` that the overlap, that's the effect of
` it in these proceedings.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
` Petitioner?
` MS. GORDON: Your Honor, I would
` like to -- thank you, Your Honor, yes, I
` would like to address a couple of
` points.
` First, I believe counsel mentioned
` prior practice by the parties, and that's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0018
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` completely misleading.
` They are referring to an original
` set of CMB petitions filed by TD
` Ameritrade, who is not a party to this
` proceeding, so anything that related to an
` agreement with TD Ameritrade just is
` irrelevant for the Petitioners in this
` case.
` The second thing, counsel mentioned
` e-mails related to the scheduling change,
` but we didn't see in any of those e-mails
` was any indication that Patent Owner was
` changing their position and consolidating
` these depositions into one to be spanning
` across two days, and that's what we did
` not see.
` The fact that TSE may span across
` these two proceedings again is irrelevant,
` because it's used in different
` combinations, so we are dealing with two
` separate grounds of unpatentability, the
` first involving TSE, Togher and Schott in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0019
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` combination, the second involving to
` Belden and various combinations with
` Togher, May and Gutterman.
` So I think they are misrepresenting
` the significance in their overlap.
` And a final point I would like to
` make, they refer to these prior
` proceedings with TD Ameritrade.
` I would note that in that
` proceeding they noticed the deposition for
` Mr. Roman for two days for four
` proceedings, so we spent two plus days
` preparing him for two days of deposition
` and Patent Owner spent less than one hour
` total deposing Mr. Roman.
` That is gamesmanship, it was
` inconvenient, increased the expense for
` Mr. Roman.
` So in this proceeding we would ask
` that they be held to their original
` agreement to split the depositions in two,
` they have brought in their litigation team
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0020
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` into these proceedings and the last
` deposition of our expert, Mr. Roland
` lasted 7 full days.
` So our witnesses, we are entitled
` to let our witness rest between
` depositions and to prepare him for the
` next day of deposition in two different
` proceedings so he doesn't confuse and mix
` up the issues, which is entirely possible
` when you are dealing with so many
` different specifications, claims and
` grounds of unpatentability.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, I
` have one question for each of the
` parties.
` You both can agree on having the
` 181 and the 182 depositions consolidated,
` is that correct?
` MS. GORDON: That is correct,
` Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ms. Emsley?
` MS. EMSLEY: That is correct.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0021
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 22
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, the
` panel has discussed this issue, and
` absent an agreement between the parties,
` which we don't see there is an agreement
` between the parties, our rules provide
` for a deposition in each proceeding for
` the witness.
` So, we don't see any reason, absent
` an agreement between the parties, to
` consolidate the 179 deposition into the
` 181 and 182 depositions or to go away from
` our rule to do that.
` So, in light of that, it seems like
` the 179 deposition should continue to
` proceed on May 3rd, and the 181 and 182
` consolidated depositions should continue
` to proceed on May 5th.
` They will be separate.
` MS. EMSLEY: Your Honor, this is
` Patent Owner, and we have noted that
` here.
` If that is the way that we are
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0022
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 23
` going to proceed for Tuesday and Thursday,
` we would like to do the 181 and the 182
` first, if it has to be on those days
` because of the preparation day in between,
` or alternatively because the Board gives
` the guidance that -- I don't know what the
` witness' availability is, but they have
` mentioned travel schedule, but we know
` he's here through Thursday, maybe this is
` something that can be done on Wednesday
` and Thursday so that there is not --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, it seems
` that you put in there that it was going
` to be May 3rd and May 5th.
` If you didn't specify which
` proceeding it was going on which day, but
` you did seem to come to an agreement as to
` May 3rd and May 5th.
` MS. EMSLEY: That was when the
` understanding that it would be one
` deposition.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Petitioner, do
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0023
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` you agree to have the 181 and 182
` tomorrow?
` MS. GORDON: No, Your Honor,
` because from the beginning there is an
` indication by Patent Owner that they
` wanted the 179 first, and that's what we
` prepared our witness today for.
` So it would be entirely prejudicial
` for Petitioners at 3:00 the day before a
` deposition to switch topics.
` So, Patent Owner is prepared for
` both depositions, as they have indicated,
` so we would like to proceed with 179
` tomorrow as the parties agreed and as we
` prepared our witness, and then 181 and 182
` on Thursday.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, as
` we have said, that is how this will
` proceed.
` All right, next issue.
` Ms. Gordon, do you have the next
` issue?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0024
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 25
` MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor, we
` would just like clarification from the
` Board that we will be able to speak to
` our witness between the depositions in
` order to prepare him for the 181 and 182
` proceeding.
` As the Board noted, and counsel
` acknowledged, there is no rule that
` permits a party from talking with and
` preparing a witness after a first
` deposition has closed and the next
` deposition has started.
` So we would just like clarification
` from the Board that we are, in fact,
` permitted to do that, and also an
` instruction to the Patent Owner to not
` play any games to try and hold the 179
` deposition open to prevent us from
` preparing our witness on Wednesday.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Ms. Emsley?
` MS. EMSLEY: Yes, Your Honor,
` it's starting to feel like they -- that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0025
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 26
` Petitioners are using one deposition to
` get a preview of our questions for the
` next deposition, which is for us, we
` would like to reverse the order.
` We understand that that's not the
` order that we believe they have prepared
` their witness for, but to the extent that
` they feel that he would be confused, I
` still think that it would make sense to
` not be able to talk to the witness in
` between, and if that's offensive to the
` preparation time, to move the deposition
` to Wednesday and Thursday.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We have already
` decided the issue about moving it to
` Wednesday and Thursday.
` We don't find --
` MS. EMSLEY: We are fine to do it
` Tuesday and Thursday, but if we have to
` do in the 179 and then the 182 and 181,
` then what we are saying is we don't want
` them talking to their witness in between
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`0026
`
`

`
`5/2/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc. Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` and using the first day as a test run.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: But you know of
` no rule of ours that precludes that from
` happening?
` MS. EMSLEY: Right, I mean from
` our perspective, we did not reach an
` agreement about the order of these, I
` know that's how they viewed that initial
` correspondence, but there is a lot of
` circumstances in between.
` As I pointed out earlier, that was
` not our intent and that was not our
` agreement, and we noticed the deposition
` clea

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket