Paper No. ____
` Filed: August 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION AND BRIEFING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Filed: August 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION AND BRIEFING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner (“TT”) moves to submit supplemental information and
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`briefing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b), as authorized by the Board. Paper 91.1
`
`Although TT has been trying to submit this information for months, Petitioners
`
`have objected due to the district court protective order (“PO”) under which the
`
`information was produced. Because Petitioners only recently withdrew their PO
`
`objections, TT could not have provided this information earlier.
`
`It is in the interests of justice for TT to be permitted to submit supplemental
`
`information and briefing because Petitioners’ documents and testimony directly
`
`support TT’s positions on non-obviousness and patent eligibility, while
`
`contradicting the position of Petitioners and their experts. Petitioners’ experts
`
`falsely claim that GUIs are not technological in nature, GUIs are not functional and
`
`instead are merely an arrangement of known elements on a computer screen that
`
`have no purpose beyond aesthetics, and that there is no inventive concept disclosed
`
`and claimed in TT’s patents. And yet, evidence from Petitioners’ files tells a
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Board’s order, TT has only summarized the supplemental
`
`information without directly filing them and interprets the Board’s order to
`
`preclude quoting from the documents as well. However, the language of the
`
`documents strongly supports TT’s position and TT would welcome the opportunity
`
`to submit quotes, excerpts, and the documents themselves.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`different story. There is no burden or prejudice to Petitioners that will result from
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`TT submitting such information as they may address it in their Reply due
`
`September 9, 2016. Thus, TT seeks to submit the documents described below
`
`along with a 10-page supplemental brief.
`
`I.
`
`THE INFORMATION REASONABLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
`SUBMITTED EARLIER DUE TO PETITIONERS’ REPEATED
`CONFIDENTIALITY OBJECTIONS AND THE TIMING OF
`RECEIPT OF THE INFORMATION
`
`TT could not have reasonably submitted the information it seeks to
`
`supplement the record with earlier. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b). First, TT did not
`
`receive all of the documents, testimony, or authentication of the evidence until the
`
`second week of June, after TradeStation (“TS”) and IB depositions from June 8-13,
`
`2016. See infra § II. Thus, the earliest TT could have possibly submitted this body
`
`of evidence (if not for Petitioners’ PO objections) was after those depositions.
`
`Second, TT could not submit this information in its Patent Owner Responses
`
`(“PORs”) due two weeks later because Petitioners have continuously, and
`
`strategically objected to TT’s reliance or filing of any of Petitioners’ confidential
`
`information based on the fact that Petitioners produced such information under the
`
`district court’s PO2, and not the PTAB’s. Indeed, TT has acted diligently from even
`
`
`2 Petitioners have objected based the district court PO that provides that
`
`confidential information “shall not be used for any purpose other than in this
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`before the date discovery was completed (June 13) to make this evidence of record,
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`engaging Petitioners numerous times to try to resolve the PO issues to use the
`
`documents produced in the litigation in the PTAB. For example, in early May, TT
`
`requested that Petitioners produce this information in the PTAB proceedings under
`
`the default PO (see Ex. 2395), but Petitioners refused this streamlining, demanding
`
`TT instead seek the information as Additional Discovery (see Ex. 2396).
`
`In late May, TT’s litigation counsel again requested that Petitioners agree
`
`that TT could use the information at the PTAB notwithstanding the PO, but
`
`Petitioners again objected, delaying weeks to confer on this point. Ex. 2397. TT’s
`
`PTAB counsel repeated its request to Petitioners’ PTAB counsel on May 31 (Ex.
`
`2398), and held conferrals on June 2 (Ex. 2399 at 1-3) and June 7 (Ex. 2400). The
`
`disagreement culminated with the Board call on June 13, where Petitioners
`
`admitted that “documents that are merely proprietary to [TS] could be reproduced
`
`separate from the litigation without violating that protective order.” Ex. 2140,
`
`18:22-19:9. The Board authorized TT to file a Motion for Additional Discovery by
`
`June 15, but Petitioners’ objections based on the PO still stood in the way of TT
`
`filing or referencing Petitioners’ information in that motion.
`
`
`Proceeding.” Ex. 2407, ¶11. The PO was entered more than a year before
`
`enactment of the AIA creating CBM and IPR proceedings, and the PTAB itself.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`As such, TT filed an emergency motion with the district court, noticed for
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`June 15, seeking permission to bring such documents to the Board’s attention. On
`
`June 14, Petitioners reached out to TT and offered to “moot” TT’s district court
`
`motion (see Ex. 2401) and later agreed that TT could reference and file a
`
`representative sample of the documents in its Motion. TT agreed to the proposal
`
`and withdrew its district court motion. However, this Board denied TT’s motion
`
`for Additional Discovery on Friday, June 24. As TT’s PORs were due the
`
`following Monday, on June 27, there was no time for TT to seek relief from the
`
`district court prior to filing the PORs.
`
`On July 1, TT sought relief from the district court PO to file the materials in
`
`an offer of proof before the PTAB. The district court granted the motion on July 7,
`
`stating that the basis was “because the PTAB has to have all material, relevant
`
`information, to make its determination. And to have all of this relevant information
`
`that I’ve deemed to be appropriate in this litigation and not have it in front of them
`
`doesn’t move the proceeding . . . .” Ex. 2402, 13:17-21.
`
`TT requested a call with the Board on July 8 to seek authorization to file an
`
`offer of proof. The Board held the call on July 15 and on July 19, the Board denied
`
`TT’s request but suggested that TT seek supplemental information and briefing at
`
`this stage of the proceeding. Paper 82 at 6.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Thus, the week of July 25, TT notified Petitioners that TT would file a
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`motion with the district court seeking leave to file the requested materials with the
`
`Board as supplemental information. On July 29, Petitioners notified TT that they
`
`would not object to TT’s request to file the transcripts and documents as
`
`supplemental information/briefing on the basis of the PO, and that TT could
`
`reference such material in a motion, so long as any confidential material was filed
`
`under the default PO for the CBM proceedings. Ex. 2403 at 2-3. On August 1,
`
`Petitioners clarified that TT could refer to confidential material on the Board call
`
`as well. Id. at 1. TT requested a board call on August 8, 2016. Id. The Board
`
`authorized TT’s filing of the present motion on August 10, 2016. Paper 91.
`
`Petitioners are responsible for TT’s not submitting the information sooner.
`
`Had Petitioners simply agreed earlier that their confidential information could be
`
`protected by the default PO, TT could have submitted the documents and
`
`arguments with its PORs. It was only after TT had already filed its PORs and the
`
`district court made clear that it believed this information should be submitted to the
`
`PTAB that Petitioners’ concerns with confidentiality dissolved without
`
`explanation. Ex. 2393 at 11. TT cannot now be faulted for respecting the orders of
`
`this tribunal denying the Additional Discovery, and seeking to minimize, not
`
`duplicate, its efforts to achieve the same result with the district court. TT should be
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`permitted to rely on and affirmatively submit the testimony and documents in
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`supplemental briefing now that the PO issues have been resolved.
`
`II. THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT TT SHOULD
`BE ABLE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING
`PETITIONERS’ POSITIONS
`
`Here, the interests of justice require that TT be permitted to submit evidence
`
`that is highly relevant to this case. The PTAB has explained that “[w]ith respect to
`
`the issue of whether submission of the supplemental information is in the interests
`
`of justice, we are mindful that a trial is, first and foremost, a search for the truth.”
`
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., IPR2014-00599, Paper 44 (granting request
`
`for supplemental information) (citing Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 166 (1986)).
`
`The ten documents and transcripts TT identifies below are unique because
`
`they provide the Petitioners’ true perspective on issues central to this proceeding,
`
`such as objective indicia of nonobviousness and the technological nature of the
`
`claimed invention, all in contravention of Petitioners’ positions before this Board:
`
`
`
`Ex. # Title
`21503 6/8/16 30(b)(6) Deposition Tr. of TradeStation (John Bartleman,
`CEO)
`6/9/16 30(b)(6) (cont.) & Personal Deposition Tr. of John
`Bartleman, CEO (“6/9/16 Bartleman Tr.”)
`2144 TradeStation Matrix Requirements, dated May 19, 2003
`
`3 TT has included exhibit numbers for documents that were previously filed with
`
`its Motion for Additional Discovery.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`
`
`(TS0107054 – TS0107075)
`Trading Technologies Webpage describing MD Trader, dated
`April 11, 2003 (“PDX 3043”)
`2145 Trading Options with TradeStation OptionStation, dated April 13,
`2010 (TS0024612 – TS0024677)
`2143 Barron’s Presentation dated February 15, 2011 (TS0028765 –
`TS0028808)
`Email from J. Bartleman, dated December 20, 2008 (TS1533975 –
`TS1533976) (“PDX 3046”)
`2154 6/13/16 30(b)(6) Deposition Tr. of IB (Milan Galik, President of
`IB)
`2156 Email from M. Galik, dated June 14, 2010 (IBG_00026004 –
`IBG_00026005)
`2158 Email from M. Galik dated July 19, 2011 (IBG_00014726 –
`IBG_00014731)
`
`
`Many of the documents were produced as a result of the district court’s order
`
`in May of 2016, staying the litigation but ordering additional discovery despite the
`
`stay because, as the district judge stated, “I believe the discovery materials will be
`
`beneficial, both when the case resumes and also before the PTAB.” Ex. 2142
`
`(emphasis added). As this Board moved the deadline for TT’s PORs so that this
`
`information could be raised in this proceeding, the interests of justice favor
`
`consideration. Further, the district court has reiterated that this information should
`
`be considered. Ex. 2402 at 13:17-21 (“to have all of this relevant information that
`
`I’ve deemed to be appropriate in this litigation and not have it in front of [the
`
`PTAB] doesn’t move the proceeding”).
`
`There is no burden or prejudice to Petitioners if TT submits this as
`
`supplemental information or briefing as Petitioners have known TT’s positions on
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`these documents for months (see, e.g., Ex. 2398-2400), and have prevented TT’s
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`submission due to alleged confidentiality concerns that they have since withdrawn.
`
`In any event, as the Board has limited TT’s request to only 10 documents out of 97
`
`that it originally sought to submit, Petitioners should have no issue responding to
`
`this evidence in their Reply. Thus, the interests of justice strongly support that TT
`
`be permitted to submit this evidence to provide a full and accurate view of
`
`Petitioners’ true perspective on the claimed inventions and their value.
`
`Petitioners will likely argue that evidence related to the Matrix and
`
`BookTrader are not relevant to the claims-at-issue in this proceeding. However,
`
`this is not accurate. By way of background, there can be no dispute that TT’s
`
`MD_Trader product embodies the patents-in-suit. See, e.g., Trading Tech. v.
`
`eSpeed, Int’l, Inc., 595 F.3d. 1340, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“MD_Trader, one of
`
`TT’s commercial embodiments of the [‘304 and ‘132] patents-in suit . . . .”).
`
`Likewise, Petitioners’ Matrix and BookTrader windows also embody the patent-in-
`
`suit, a fact TT would specifically address in supplemental briefing. Indeed, the
`
`Bartleman testimony and documents TT seeks to submit show that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`, against the Matrix and BookTrader. Thus, the evidence below is
`
`directly related to the claims-at-issue. See, e.g., Nike Inc., 812 F.3d at 1339;
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refrac., Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985) (objective indicia “may be the most pertinent, probative, and revealing
`
`evidence available to the decision maker in reaching a conclusion on the
`
`obviousness/nonobviousness issue”); In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Patent
`
`Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (fact finder “must withhold judgment
`
`on an obviousness challenge until it considers all relevant evidence, including that
`
`relating to objective considerations”). Even Petitioners admitted on the June 13
`
`Board call that “most of these requests relate to secondary considerations . . . .” Ex.
`
`2140 at 19.
`
`A. TS Testimony and Documents
`
`
`1. 30(b)(6) Deposition Transcripts of TS and Personal Deposition of
`John Bartleman, TS CEO (6/8/16 and 6/9/16 Transcripts)
`
`Mr. Bartleman, CEO of TS, gave binding corporate testimony on June 8,
`
`2016 (Ex. 2150) and corporate and personal testimony on June 9, 2016. Exhibit
`
`2150 authenticates Exhibits 2144 (Tr. at 255:9-25)4 and 2149 (Tr. at 333:2-14).
`
`
`4 Although TT is not filing exhibits per the Board’s instruction, TT has included
`
`pin cites to the documents for the benefit of Petitioners’ response to TT’s motion.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`The June 9, 2016 Bartleman Transcript authenticates Exhibits 2143 (Tr. at 658:4-
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`20), 2145 (Tr. at 633:23-635:19), and 2147 (Tr. at 675:24-676:3).
`
`TT’s POR explains that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it
`
`improves the computer functionality. Paper 75, at 8. The June 9, 2016 Bartleman
`
`Transcript is relevant because Mr. Bartleman admits that
`
`
`
`. 6/9/16
`
`Bartleman Tr. at 472:22-473:2. This supports that the claims are not abstract as the
`
`structure, makeup, and functionality of Matrix improves the computer functioning.
`
`TT’s POR states that the claimed invention is deeply rooted in technology.
`
`Paper 75, at 11. Exhibit 2150 confirms this, as Mr. Bartleman testified that
`
`
`
`2150, 90:21-92:2; see also id. at 91:22-25; 6/9/16 Bartleman Tr. at 580:11-24,
`
`. Ex.
`
`559:6-12, 668:22-669:11. At the time Matrix was developed in 2003,
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`6/9/16 Bartleman Tr. at 566:23-567:9; Tr. at 649:21-650:20.
`
`TT’s POR argues that the claimed invention goes against conventional
`
`wisdom, and that problems with conventional GUI tools went unrecognized. Paper
`
`75, at 28. Exhibit 2150 and the June 9, 2016 Bartleman transcript are directly
`
`relevant to this position because Mr. Bartleman describes
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`. Ex. 2150 at 22:18-24:7,
`
`73:25-74:16, 96:7-97:12, 169:22-173:5, 270:22-272:5. TT’s POR also asserts that
`
`TT’s invention was demanded by traders and became a commercial success. Paper
`
`75 at 40, 43. The June 9, 2016 transcript includes admissions by Bartleman that the
`
`, showing both commercial success
`
`and that it went against conventional wisdom even in 2003. 6/9/16 Bartleman Tr. at
`
`689:21-690:16. The June 9, 2016, Bartleman transcript includes other admissions
`
`by Bartleman that show commercial success (id. at 668:15-669:11; 674:7-675:12).
`
`Further, TT argues in its POR that
`
`
`
`. Paper 75, at 51-2. Mr. Bartleman’s
`
`testimony, paired with Exhibits 2144 and PDX 3043 (detailed below), strongly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidences
`
`. 6/9/16 Bartleman Tr., 604:7-13.
`
`2. Exhibit 2144, May 2003 Matrix Requirements & PDX 3043, April
`2003 TT Webpage of TT’s Commercial Embodiment, MD_Trader
`
`Exhibit 2144 is a May 2003 Matrix Requirements document that details the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`technical specifications for TS’s Matrix. TS produced this document to TT on
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`December 23, 2015, but it was not authenticated until June 8, 2016. Additionally,
`
`TT seeks to submit PDX 3043, a printout of TT’s website describing and showing
`
`MD_Trader as of April 2003 that TT did not discover the relevance of until June 8,
`
`2016. TT’s POR asserts that
`
`. Paper 75 at 51-52.
`
`Exhibit 2144 and PDX 3043 are relevant to this assertion because
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2144 also touts the claimed features of the commercial embodiment,
`
`namely,
`
`
`
` (id. at TS01707057). Further, the document acknowledges
`
`that Matrix (which embodies the claimed invention) is both
`
`
`
`. This further supports TT’s
`
`position that the invention was not obvious and recites an inventive concept, and
`
`which went against conventional wisdom at the time.
`
`
`
`3. Exhibit 2145, “Trading Options with TradeStation OptionStation
`
`TS produced Exhibit 2145 on November 5, 2015, and TT authenticated it on
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`June 9, 2016. Exhibit 2145 is a TS Options Manual
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`
`
` (id. at
`
`TS0024612). TT’s POR states that the claimed invention is deeply rooted in
`
`technology and that the claimed inventions solve technological problems. Paper 75
`
`at 11. Exhibit 2145 supports that position,
`
`
`
`
`
`. Exhibit 2145 further supports that TT’s
`
`position that the claimed invention is not abstract, and the benefits from the Matrix
`
`are directly attributable to the claimed features, as it highlights that Matrix
`
`embodies the claimed combination (id. at TS0024667).
`
`4. Exhibit 2143, February 15, 2011 “Barron’s Presentation—2011”
`
`
`
`TS produced Exhibit 2143 on November 5, 2015 and TT authenticated it on
`
`June 9, 2016. Exhibit 2143 is an interview TS gave to Barron’s
`
`
`
`
`
` (id. at TS0028765). TT’s POR discusses that the claimed
`
`invention was commercially successful. Paper 75 at 43-47. Exhibit 2143 supports
`
`
`
`that contention because it acknowledges that
`
`
`
`.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`5. PDX 3046, December 20, 2008 Email re “Matrix Taking Over”
`
`PDX 3046 is an email from TS employee Hans Stimming to John Bartleman
`
`(and others) entitled “Matrix Taking Over” that TS produced on May 4, 2016, and
`
`TT authenticated on June 9, 2016. PDX 3046 at 667:7-668:8. TT’s POR states that
`
`TT’s claimed invention enjoyed commercial success, including by competitors
`
`who adopted it. Paper 75 at 46. PDX 3046 supports TT’s argument because the
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`B. IB Testimony and Documents
`
`1. Exhibit 2154, 30(b)(6) Deposition Tr. of IB (Milan Galik, President)
`
`Exhibit 2154 is the 30(b)(6) deposition testimony of Milak Galik, President
`
`and head of software development for IB. Exhibit 2154 authenticates Exhibit 2156
`
`(331:10-25), and rebuts Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Román, who opined that electronic
`
`trading screens are purely aesthetic. Ex. 1019, ¶71. Specifically, Mr. Galik,
`
`
`
`. Ex. 2154 at 404:12-407:21.
`
`
`
`2. Exhibit 2156, June 14, 2010 Email regarding Booktrader
`
`Exhibit 2156 is an internal IB email sent by Mr. Galik that IB produced on
`
`June 2, 2016. Exhibit 2156 shows that the claimed invention is not abstract, and
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`also that there is a nexus between the claimed inventions’ features and commercial
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`success. Exhibit 2156
`
`3. Exhibit 2158, June 14, 2010 Email regarding Booktrader
`
`Exhibit 2158 is an email sent by Mr. Galik regarding
`
`. Exhibit 2158
`
`also supports TT’s argument that the claimed GUIs are technological in nature, and
`
`not pure aesthetics as argued by Petitioners’ expert, Mr. Roman. Ex. 1019, ¶71.
`
`This document is thus directly related to patent eligibility.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`As Petitioners’ PO objections have been resolved, TT may finally introduce
`
`this information; it is in the interests of justice that it be made of record. The
`
`evidence and briefing will show that Petitioners’ GUIs embodying the claimed
`
`elements were superior to conventional GUI tools and enjoyed commercial
`
`success. Further, the evidence will show that Petitioners viewed it as important
`
`technology that improves the functioning of the computer over prior art GUI’s, and
`
`not just an arrangement of known elements driven by aesthetics.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 16, 2016
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Rachel L. Emsley/
`Rachel L. Emsley, Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 63,558
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`
`AND BRIEFING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b) was served on August 16,
`
`2016, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioners at the following:
`
`Robert Sokohl
`rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Lori Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Richard Bemben
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`John C. Phillips
`CBM41919-0008CP1@fr.com
`
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 16, 2016
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
