throbber
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
`____________________
`
`CBM2015-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of Relevant Facts ............................................................................ 3
`
`III. TT’s motion fails to establish good cause under the Garmin/Bloomberg
`factors, and thus additional discovery is not warranted. ................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`TT has not shown more than a mere possibility or allegation that
`something useful will be found (first Garmin/Bloomberg factor). ....... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The first statement TT relies on merely indicates that the co-
`defendants were coordinating some aspects of their defense
`against the numerous patents that TT asserted against them. ..... 5
`
`The second statement that TT relies on merely indicates that
`CQG was preparing a petition against the ’411 patent, not the
`petition that was filed in this proceeding. ................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`TT’s request is overly broad because it seeks communications related
`to anticipated filings, which have no bearing on whether CQG is an
`RPI in this proceeding (second Garmin/Bloomberg factor). ..............10
`
`C.
`
`RPX and Reflectix are inapposite. .......................................................11
`
`IV. Conclusion .....................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`Bloomberg, Inc. v. Market-Alerts Pty, Ltd.,
`CBM2013-00005 (PTAB May 29, 2013) ....................................................1, 4
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) ........................................................1, 4
`
`Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Courtesy Products, LLC
`IPR2014-01257 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2014) .........................................................10
`
`Petroleum Geo-Servs. Inc. v. WesternGenco LLC,
`IPR2014-00687 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2014) .......................................................... 6
`
`Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Technology LLC
`IPR2015-00039 (PTAB April 24, 2015) .......................................... 11, 12, 13
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00171 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) .....................................................9, 11
`
`TradeStation Group, Inc. v. TT,
`CBM2015-00161 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2015) ..................................................2, 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 ............................... 6
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.224 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`The Board should deny Trading Technologies International, Inc.’s (TT)
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery (“Motion”) because TT provides no support for
`
`its argument that CQG is a real-party-in-interest (“RPI”). The Board requires a
`
`party seeking additional discovery to demonstrate: (i) more than a “mere allegation
`
`that something useful will be found” and (ii) that the requested discovery is not
`
`“overly burdensome to answer” or is “sensible and responsibly tailored according
`
`to a genuine need.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-
`
`00001, Paper 26 at 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (“Garmin”) (informative), as
`
`modified by Bloomberg, Inc. v. Market-Alerts Pty, Ltd., CBM2013-00005, Paper
`
`32 at 4 (PTAB May 29, 2013) (“Bloomberg”). TT has not met these factors, failing
`
`to identify any relevant evidence that discovery will uncover anything “useful.” Id.
`
`TT premises its entire motion on two statements made by Petitioners1 in a
`
`joint filing in the district court. Specifically, Petitioners and CQG informed the
`
`district court that they were coordinating to file petitions at the PTAB to challenge
`
`the numerous patents that TT asserted against them and that CQG was preparing a
`
`1 IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC (collectively “IBG”); and
`
`TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation
`
`Technologies, Inc., and IBFX, Inc. (collectively “TradeStation”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`petition to challenge the ’411 patent (as well as petitions to challenge other TT
`
`patents). TT twists and contorts these two statements to create the false impression
`
`that CQG participated as an RPI in the present proceeding.
`
`This argument is not new for the Board. TT made the same argument in
`
`CBM2015-00161. The Board considered TT’s position and denied the request for
`
`additional discovery stating “we are persuaded that Patent Owner fails to show a
`
`threshold amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation
`
`that something useful will be discovered.” TradeStation Group, Inc. v. TT,
`
`CBM2015-00161, Paper 20 at 7 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2015).
`
`Moreover, like its requests in CBM2015-00161, TT’s requests fail the
`
`second Garmin/Bloomberg factor. TT seeks communications between Petitioners
`
`and CQG related to anticipated filings against the ’411 patent. Such
`
`communications have no bearing on whether CQG is an RPI in this proceeding.
`
`TT presents nothing that even hints at any funding and control by CQG over
`
`this proceeding. For these reasons, TT has not shown that the requested additional
`
`discovery meets the Garmin/Bloomberg factors that require more than a mere
`
`allegation that something useful will be found, and that the requested discovery is
`
`reasonably tailored to a genuine need. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Relevant Facts
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`TT asserted the ’411 patent and several other patents against various
`
`entities—including Petitioners and CQG—in 2010 in several cases filed in the
`
`Northern District of Illinois. TD Ameritrade, another defendant in those litigations,
`
`filed CBM review petitions against the ’411 patent and four other asserted TT
`
`patents. The Board instituted CBM review on four of the five TD Ameritrade
`
`petitions, including against the ’411 patent, which led the district court to stay the
`
`co-pending litigation. But shortly before the hearing in these CBM reviews, TD
`
`Ameritrade and TT settled, and the Board terminated those proceedings.
`
`Thereafter, TT filed an “emergency” motion to lift the stay in the district
`
`court. In a July 15, 2015 Response to this emergency motion, Petitioners and CQG
`
`informed the district court that they planned “to request that the PTAB decide the
`
`validity of TT’s patents, by refiling challenges to most (if not all) of the patents-in-
`
`suit” and asked the district court for “a short period of time to coordinate on these
`
`PTAB actions.” (Ex. 2002, p. 3.) On July 20, 2015, Petitioners and CQG reiterated
`
`their previous statement and further informed the district court, “For CQG’s part, it
`
`is preparing to file CBMR petitions on the ’411, ’374, ’768, and ’724 patents in the
`
`next several weeks.” (Ex. 2003, p. 8.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`TT based its discovery request on these two statements, alleging that they
`
`amount to an admission that CQG prepared the petition that was filed in this
`
`proceeding. (Motion, pp. 1-12.) TT sought, and was denied, additional discovery
`
`based on these same statements plus additional facts in CBM2015-00161. In the
`
`’161 proceeding, TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation Securities, Inc. (also
`
`Petitioners here) filed a CBM review petition challenging TT’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,766,304. This ’304 petition was substantially similar to an earlier CQG petition
`
`challenging the ’304 patent, which was denied on procedural grounds in
`
`CBM2015-00057. The Board held that the district court statements and additional
`
`facts in the ’161 proceeding did not show good cause for granting additional
`
`discovery, and thus denied TT’s request.
`
`III. TT’s motion fails to establish good cause under the Garmin/Bloomberg
`factors, and thus additional discovery is not warranted.
`
`As in the ’161 proceeding, TT’s motion fails to establish good cause as to
`
`why the additional discovery is needed. 37 C.F.R. § 42.224. The Board analyzes
`
`the Garmin/Bloomberg factors on a case-to-case basis to determine whether
`
`additional discovery is warranted in a CBM proceeding. See Garmin at 6-7, as
`
`modified by Bloomberg at 4. TT’s motion does not show beyond a mere possibility
`
`or allegation that something useful will be found (first Garmin/Bloomberg factor),
`
`is overly broad and improperly seeks Petitioners’ litigation positions (second
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`Garmin/Bloomberg factor), and the cases that TT relies on to support its motion
`
`are inapposite. Thus, the Board should deny TT’s motion.
`
`A. TT has not shown more than a mere possibility or allegation that
`something useful will be found (first Garmin/Bloomberg factor).
`TT has not proffered evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond
`
`speculation that something useful will be found. Indeed, TT failed to provide a
`
`single fact tending to show that CQG should have been listed as an RPI in this
`
`proceeding. Instead, TT mischaracterized two statements that Petitioners and CQG
`
`made in the co-pending litigation and then jumped to the unsupported conclusion
`
`that CQG prepared the petition that was filed in this proceeding. However, neither
`
`statement supports TT’s allegations nor meets the threshold showing to warrant
`
`additional discovery.
`
`1.
`
`The first statement TT relies on merely indicates that the
`co-defendants were coordinating some aspects of their
`defense against the numerous patents that TT asserted
`against them.
`
`The first statement that TT relied on comes from Petitioners’ and CQG’s
`
`July 15, 2015 Response to TT’s emergency motion (Ex. 2002). There, Petitioners
`
`and CQG informed the district court that,
`
`Defendants plan to request that the PTAB decide the
`validity of TT’s patents, by refiling challenges to most (if
`not all) of the patents-in-suit. . . . Given these very recent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`developments, Defendants respectfully request a short
`period of time to coordinate on these PTAB actions.
`(Ex. 2002, p. 3.)
`
`This statement does not indicate which defendants were planning to file on
`
`which of TT’s patents. Nor does it indicated that CQG prepared the petition that
`
`was filed in this proceeding. Setting aside pure speculation, nothing can be gleaned
`
`from this statement regarding any particular defendant’s involvement in any of the
`
`pending PTAB proceedings.
`
`Rather, this statement merely indicates that the co-defendants were
`
`coordinating some aspects their defense against the numerous patents that TT
`
`asserted against them. Petitioners’ coordination with CQG in this manner does not
`
`implicate CQG as an RPI in this proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (a party is not an RPI or privy for purposes of a PGR
`
`petition based solely on that party’s participation in a joint defense group); see also
`
`Petroleum Geo-Servs. Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2014-00687, Paper 33 at 16
`
`(PTAB Dec. 15, 2014) (holding petitioner’s and non-party’s shared interest in
`
`invalidating patent at issue, “collaborat[ion] together, and invo[cation of the]
`
`common interest privilege with respect to sharing potentially invalidating prior art
`
`references” were insufficient to render non-party a real-party-in-interest). Thus, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`first statement that TT’s motion relied on does not tend to show, in any way, that
`
`CQG prepared, controlled, or funded the petition that was filed in this proceeding.
`
`Moreover, it is no secret that co-defendants in the co-pending TT litigation,
`
`including Petitioners and CQG, have coordinated on some CBM petitions. On
`
`September 2, 2015, Petitioners and CQG filed a petition for CBM review of TT’s
`
`U.S. Patent 7,533,056 (CBM2015-00179), a different patent from the one
`
`challenged here, identifying as real-parties-in-interest TradeStation, IBG, and
`
`CQG2. And on October 23, 2015, IBG and CQG filed a petition for CBM review
`
`of TT’s U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 (CBM2016-00009)—again, a different patent
`
`from the one challenged here, identifying as real-parties-in-interest IBG and CQG.
`
`The fact that defendants coordinated on different patents does not establish any
`
`likelihood that the requested discovery will show that Petitioners and CQG
`
`coordinated on this patent.
`
`TT baldly states that the coordination on the challenges to the ’055 and ’056
`
`patents is enough: “Based on this evidence of Petitioners and CQG’s coordination,
`
`CQG is an RPI to this proceeding as well.” (Motion, p. 2.) But this is a non
`
`sequitur. Petitioners were diligent in properly naming all RPIs in this proceeding,
`
`
`2 CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC (collectively, “CQG”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`and took pains to avoid creating a factual basis for the suggestion that CQG had
`
`any control over the content of this petition, or the decision to file it.
`
`2.
`
`The second statement that TT relies on merely indicates
`that CQG was preparing a petition against the ’411 patent,
`not the petition that was filed in this proceeding.
`
`The second statement TT relies on comes from Petitioners’ and CQG’s July
`
`20, 2015 Supplemental Response to TT’s emergency motion (Ex. 2003). There,
`
`Petitioners and CQG informed the district court, “For CQG’s part, it is
`
`preparing to file CBMR petitions on the ’411, ’374, ’768, and ’724 patents.” (Ex.
`
`2003, p. 8 (emphasis added).) TT latched onto this statement, grossly
`
`mischaracterizing it throughout its entire motion as an admission from Petitioners
`
`and CQG that CQG prepared the petition that was filed in this proceeding.
`
`(Motion, pp. 1-12.)
`
`TT is way off the mark. The second statement merely indicates that CQG
`
`was preparing a petition against the ’411 patent and other TT patents; not that
`
`CQG prepared, controlled, or funded the petition that TradeStation and IBG filed
`
`in this proceeding. Indeed, this statement is solely directed to CQG’s activities—it
`
`does not mention Petitioners nor imply that CQG was coordinating with Petitioners
`
`on a ’411 petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`Even when considered in light of the first statement—which again, does not
`
`identify the activities of any particular defendant with respect to any of the pending
`
`CBMs—TT’s allegations are pure conjecture. The facts that (1) Petitioners and
`
`CQG are co-defendants in the underlying litigation and (2) CQG was preparing a
`
`petition against the ’411 patent does not lead to the conclusion that CQG prepared
`
`the petition that was filed in this case. TT failed to appreciate that each of
`
`TradeStation, IBG, and CQG has standing to individually file a CBM petition
`
`against the ’411 patent. The second statement merely indicates that, at some point,
`
`CQG was preparing a petition to challenge the ’411 patent. TT offered no evidence
`
`tending to show that the petition in this proceeding was prepared by CQG. Cf.
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00171, Paper 18 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014)
`
`(“RPX”) (granting additional discovery when metadata in the petitions
`
`demonstrated that non-party’s counsel was involved in the petitions).
`
`Moreover, none of the so-called “admissions” made by defendants in the co-
`
`pending litigation give rise to anything other than mere speculation that CQG had
`
`any direction or control over the petition for this proceeding. Nowhere, not to the
`
`district court or otherwise, did defendants ever state that there was any
`
`coordination on the ’411 patent. The fact that defendants were coordinating
`
`generally on patent challenges does not logically mean there is more than a “mere
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`possibility” that Petitioners and CQG coordinated specifically with respect to the
`
`challenge to this patent.
`
`Thus, contrary to TT’s allegations, Petitioners and CQG did not state or
`
`admit “to the district court that CQG prepared, or at least assisted with preparing,
`
`the petition” that was filed in this proceeding. (Motion, p. 5 (emphasis added).)
`
`Nor did Petitioners and CQG “affirmatively state[] that CQG possessed control
`
`over the petition” that was filed in this proceeding. (Id. (emphasis added).) Thus,
`
`TT’s motion is factually baseless, misleading, and fails to satisfy the first
`
`Garmin/Bloomberg factor. Additionally, TT failed to show that its discovery
`
`request would uncover “useful” information, as required under the first
`
`Garmin/Bloomberg factor. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Courtesy Products,
`
`LLC, IPR2014-01257, Paper 8 at 4 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2014) (explaining that since
`
`non-party was not procedurally barred from petitioning for review, additional
`
`discovery related to the non-party’s status as an RPI is not “likely to lead to
`
`information helpful” to the moving party’s case).
`
`B.
`
`TT’s request is overly broad because it seeks communications
`related to anticipated filings, which have no bearing on whether
`CQG is an RPI in this proceeding (second Garmin/Bloomberg
`factor).
`
`TT’s request is overly broad because it seeks communications between
`
`Petitioners and CQG with respect to anticipated PTAB proceedings against the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`’411 patent. (Motion, p. 1.) (“All communications (including emails) and
`
`agreements between” Petitioners and CQG “related to the filing, preparation, or
`
`funding of any post-grant proceeding (filed or anticipated) against TT’s U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,676,411 . . . .”) Communications regarding anticipated proceedings have no
`
`bearing on whether CQG contributed any funding, control, or direction to the
`
`petition that was filed in this proceeding, which is the only relevant question
`
`presently before the Board. Thus, the Board should deny TT’s request as overly
`
`broad.
`
`C. RPX and Reflectix are inapposite.
`TT argued that RPX and Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Technology
`
`LLC, IPR2015-00039 (“Reflectix”) “illustrate why discovery is warranted in this
`
`case.” (Motion, pp. 6-8.) They do not. The facts in RPX and Reflectix are not
`
`similar to those in this proceeding. Thus, neither case supports TT’s motion.
`
`RPX does not suggest that discovery is warranted in this proceeding. In that
`
`case, it was undisputed that the petitioner (RPX) “filed inter partes review (‘IPR’)
`
`requests against the [patents-at-issue] pursuant to a newly created program in
`
`which Apple, as RPX’s client, in October 2013, paid RPX a sum of $500,000,
`
`among other things, to file IPR reviews.” RPX, Paper 57 at 3-4, 3 n.4 (PTAB Jun.
`
`5, 2014). Of course, if TT had come forward with evidence of a relationship
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`between Petitioners and CQG remotely resembling that between RPX and Apple,
`
`Petitioners could hardly argue that TT would not be entitled to some discovery of
`
`the details of that relationship. Here, CQG is not Petitioners’ “client,” nor did CQG
`
`compensate Petitioners to file this petition. TT has not come forward with any
`
`evidence whatsoever that CQG had anything to do with this petition, as discussed
`
`at length above. As in the ’161 proceeding, none of the facts that led the Board to
`
`grant VirnetX’s motion in RPX are present in this proceeding. See CBM2015-
`
`00161, Paper 20 at 12 (denying TT’s request for additional discovery and
`
`distinguishing the facts in RPX).
`
`Reflectix is also inapposite. In that case, the patent owner (Promethean) had
`
`sued the Sealed Air Corporation (“SAC”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`Reflectix. Reflectix, Paper 18 at 3. Reflectix filed an inter partes review petition to
`
`challenge the asserted patent, but the power of attorney listed SAC as the
`
`petitioner. Id. at 6. Thus, Reflectix involved a parent-subsidiary relationship and
`
`there was direct evidence that the parent company had a hand in preparing the
`
`petition (i.e., the parent was listed as the petitioner on the power of attorney).
`
`Those facts are not present in this proceeding—nor any facts that are remotely
`
`similar.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`Moreover, Promethean did not seek additional discovery. Nor did the Board
`
`analyze the Garmin/Bloomberg factors to determine whether additional discovery
`
`was warranted. Instead, Promethean included its arguments related to RPI in its
`
`preliminary response, after which the Board ordered additional briefing on the
`
`issue. Id. at 2-3. In the additional briefing, SAC admitted that it prepared and
`
`funded the petition. Id. at 5-6. The Board held that SAC was an RPI, id. at 10-13,
`
`and that the petition could not be corrected without losing its filing date, id. at 13-
`
`18, and then denied the petition because SAC was procedurally barred from filing
`
`a petition against the patent-at-issue, id. at 18.3
`
`Thus, the facts in Reflectix are not similar to the instant proceeding:
`
`Petitioners and CQG do not have a parent-subsidiary relationship; CQG was not
`
`listed as a petitioner on a power of attorney; CQG has not admitted to preparing
`
`and funding the instant petition; and CQG is not procedurally barred from filing a
`
`petition against the ’411 patent. Further, additional discovery was not even at issue
`
`in Reflectix. Thus, TT’s reliance on Reflectix is misplaced.
`
`3 The Board noted, however, “correcting the identification of RPI listed in a
`
`petition results in a loss of the petition’s filing date, with a new filing date assigned
`
`as of the date the RPI identification is corrected” when the newly-listed RPI is not
`
`procedurally barred from filing a petition on the new filing date. Id. at 7-8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For these reasons, the Board should deny TT’s motion in all respects.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Registration No. 36,013
`Lori A. Gordon, Registration No. 50,633
`Richard M. Bemben, Registration No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`Date: November 27, 2015
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PETITIONERS’
`
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL
`
`DISCOVERY was served electronically via e-mail on November 27, 2015, in
`
`their entirety on the following:
`
`Erika H. Arner (Lead Counsel)
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Back-up Counsel)
`Kevin D. Rodkey (Back-up Counsel)
`Rachel Emsley (Back-up Counsel)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finngan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`
`
`Steven F. Borsand (Back-up Counsel)
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`steve.borsand@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`
`Richard M. Bemben
`Registration No. 68,658
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`Date: November 27, 2015
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600

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