`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.;
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and IBFX, INC.;
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`Patent No. 7,676,411
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation
`
`Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., and IBFX, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) object to the admissibility of the following evidence Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. (“TT” or “Patent Owner”) filed on either June 15,
`
`2016, or June 16, 2016; and served on June 16, 2016. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64.
`
`Petitioners ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny the admission and
`
`consideration of the following documents on the following bases:
`
`
`
`TT Exhibit 2142 – Trading Techs. Int’l v. BGC Partners, Inc., Case No. 10-C-
`715 (N.D. Ill.), Transcript of Proceedings (May 12, 2016)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2143 – TS0028765
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was served after
`
`the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016 conference
`
`call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2144 – TS0107054
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was served after
`
`the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016 conference
`
`call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2145 – TS0024612
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was served after
`
`the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016 conference
`
`call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2146 – TS1261405
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was served after
`
`the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016 conference
`
`call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`TT Exhibit 2147 – TS1268720
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was served after
`
`the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016 conference
`
`call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2148 – TS1533977
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was served after
`
`the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016 conference
`
`call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2149 – TS152667
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2150 – Video Deposition Transcript of John Bartleman, dated
`June 8, 2016 in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. BGC Parnters, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:10-cv-715 (Consolidated) (N.D. Ill.).
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`TT Exhibit 2151 – Draft Video Deposition Transcript of John Bartleman,
`dated June 9, 2016 in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. BGC
`Parnters, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-715 (Consolidated) (N.D. Ill.).
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2152 – Listing of Additional Discovery Sought: Produced
`Documents and Transcripts
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`TT Exhibit 2153 – Listing of Additional Discovery Sought: Documents
`Withheld in District Court
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`TT Exhibit 2154 – Video Deposition Transcript of Milan Galik, dated June 13,
`2016 in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. BGC Parnters, Inc., Case
`No. 1:10-cv-715 (Consolidated) (N.D. Ill.).
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2155 – Relevance of Additional Discovery Sought
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`TT Exhibit 2156 – IBG_00026004
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`TT Exhibit 2157 – IBG_00040515
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`TT Exhibit 2158 – IBG_00014726
`
`Petitioners object to this document as untimely because it was filed and
`
`served after the June 15, 2016 due date set by the Board during the June 13, 2016
`
`conference call. (Exhibit 2040, 32:5-13.)
`
`Petitioners object to this document as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403,
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`because cited portions are not relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding,
`
`such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims, obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or any secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of this document for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`These objections are made within five business days from the June 16, 2016
`
`filing and service of TT’s exhibits.
`
`
`
`Date: 6/22/2016
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Robert Sokohl/
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,633
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2015-00181
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 22, 2016, the attached
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1) were served electronically via e-mail upon the following counsel for
`
`Patent Owner, TT:
`
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`Erika H. Arner, Reg. No. 57,540
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Reg. No. 59,369
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`Kevin D. Rodkey, Reg. No. 65,506
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`Rachel L. Emsley, Reg. No. 63,558
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Trading-Tech-CBM@finnegan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`gannon@mbhb.com
`Michael D. Gannon
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr.
`MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Robert Sokohl/
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 6/22/2016
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`