throbber
1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`) Docket No. 10 C 715
`
`))
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
` v.
`
`(Cons. with:
`) 10 C 718, 10 C 720
`) 10 C 721, 10 C 884)
` )
` ) September 10, 2015
` ) Chicago, Illinois
`BGC PARTNERS, INC.,
`)
`
`)
` Defendant.
`)
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - MOTION
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE VIRGINIA M. KENDALL
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`
`For the Defendant
`CQG:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`
`McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF by
`MS. JENNIFER KURCZ
`MR. LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR.
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`LOEB & LOEB LLP by
`MR. WILLIAM JOSHUA VOLLER
`321 North Clark Street
`Suite 2300
`Chicago, Illinois 60610
`
`GAYLE A. McGUIGAN, CSR, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`219 South Dearborn, Room 2318-A
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`(312) 435-6047
`Gayle_McGuigan@ilnd.uscourts.gov
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2022
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00181
`
`

`

`A P P E A R A N C E S : (Continued)
`
` 2
`
`MANDELL MENKES LLC by
`MR. STEVEN P. MANDELL
`One North Franklin
`Suite 3000
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`STADHEIM & GREAR LTD by
`MR. GEORGE C. SUMMERFIELD
`400 North Michigan Avenue
`Suite 2200
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON PC by
`MR. DAVID J. HEALEY
`One Houston Center
`1221 McKinney, Suite 2800
`Houston, Texas 77010
`
`
`
`For the Defendant
`Interactive Brokers
`Group:
`
`
`For the Defendant
`TradeStation:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`

`

` 3
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`(In open court:)
`
`THE CLERK: Case number 10 C 715, Trading Technologies
`
`versus BGC Partners.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Good morning, your Honor. Jennifer Kurcz
`
`on behalf of plaintiff Trading Technologies.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. SIGMOND: Good morning, your Honor. Leif Sigmond
`
`for Trading Technologies.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. HEALEY: Good morning, your Honor. David Healey,
`
`Fish and Richardson, for TradeStation.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Good morning, your Honor. Steve Mandell
`
`on behalf of Interactive Brokers, LLC.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. VOLLER: And good morning, your Honor. Bill
`
`Voller on behalf of defendants CQG.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning.
`
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: Good morning, Judge. George
`
`Summerfield on behalf of TradeStation.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Good morning.
`
`So I have to tell you I'm not surprised to see this,
`
`nor does it fall on deaf ears.
`
`So let me hear from TT as to what we're doing here.
`
`You want to break them up and move on.
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`

`

` 4
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MS. KURCZ: Yes, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead.
`
`MS. KURCZ: As you can imagine, we're seeking
`
`deconsolidation because the very basis for consolidation --
`
`which is streamlining, efficiency -- has not been served by
`
`consolidation in this case. The cases are over five years old,
`
`and discovery hasn't even gotten off the ground.
`
`THE COURT: Let's just make a record that you all
`
`chose -- some of you chose to bring it up and back, so it
`
`wasn't that Judge Kendall is making this five years old, but
`
`that there's lots of other issues that have delayed this case
`
`based upon the parties' interactions.
`
`MS. KURCZ: And that's exactly where I'm going, your
`
`Honor.
`
`Defendants have used consolidation to gain delay --
`
`delay and unfairly break the case apart by engaging in
`
`piecemeal litigation tactics. They've only independently
`
`attacked certain patents on certain issues. And all of this
`
`has enured to the delay in this case.
`
`For instance, in the trade -- or the TD Ameritrade
`
`CBM, the cases were stayed because of their request, and only
`
`they were the ones that were involved in those CBM petitions.
`
`None of the other parties chose to join in those matters.
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`MS. KURCZ: And now they want to redo it all over
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`

`

` 5
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`again.
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`MS. KURCZ: And, you know, they've had that
`
`opportunity for over three years. So at this point, enough is
`
`enough. The cases should proceed independently. If there is a
`
`reason to delay one case, for whatever reason, the Court can
`
`decide that at that time, but they shouldn't be all hinged
`
`together and incurring additional delay or any delay by any
`
`defendant.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. You're missing one of your best
`
`arguments about the prejudice, about the delay for your
`
`technology as well.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Yes, your Honor. And with respect to the
`
`prejudice that we've suffered, not only is it economic, we've
`
`lost sales. We can't be going after people who are infringing
`
`in our marketplace. There's also an evidentiary loss that we
`
`are suffering. For instance, in the CQG case that just went to
`
`trial, we had issues with getting information from non-parties.
`
`Even from CQG, who was under a duty to preserve information,
`
`had, you know, overwritten important and invaluable information
`
`in that case. And so we believe that that's going to continue
`
`happening, while defendants are also unfairly invading our
`
`market space and we're not able to preclude them from
`
`infringing.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Who wants to go first?
`
`Page 5 of 14
`
`

`

` 6
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, Dave Healey for TradeStation.
`
`Most of what the counsel for Trading Technologies just
`
`said isn't true. They're not asking for real deconsolidation.
`
`They want shared discovery, shared interrogatories, shared RFA,
`
`shared depositions, and yet they want to put TradeStation on an
`
`advanced schedule presumably on the basis that they've already
`
`done contentions.
`
`Not true.
`
`Five years of products, for whatever reason, and any
`
`delay in this case has either been because of court order,
`
`appeals, or because TT did nothing for months at a time. Five
`
`years of --
`
`THE COURT: Where does -- what is that, that they did
`
`nothing for months at a time? They wanted to prosecute and
`
`move forward from day one.
`
`MR. HEALEY: From -- I'm sorry, your Honor. From May
`
`when the motion to stay was filed by TD Ameritrade until --
`
`THE COURT: Which they objected to.
`
`MR. HEALEY: Which they objected to. They didn't try
`
`to do anything, seek anything, get anything effected in terms
`
`of that case until early the following year, I believe. So
`
`they went right there for months.
`
`But putting that aside, your Honor, you can't have us
`
`be in a position where we have to share interrogatories, where
`
`we have to share RFAs, we have to share requests for
`
`Page 6 of 14
`
`

`

` 7
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`production, share depositions, and yet be on different
`
`schedules. That doesn't work.
`
`Second of all, as to TradeStation, we have no
`
`contentions for three of the patents they raised against us,
`
`which they raised after consolidation. We have no contentions
`
`for five years of products, including three base product
`
`changes, major overhauls, and over 30 updates.
`
`Quite simply, the contentions they have are for the
`
`original seven patents they alleged against TradeStation and
`
`the -- and the products that ended in June 2010 or were last on
`
`the market in that June/summer 2010 period.
`
`So in terms of where TradeStation is, we're no
`
`different from everybody else. And in terms of how they want
`
`to treat us, they want us to share depositions with everyone
`
`else, share interrogatories, share RFAs. We can't do that if
`
`we're on a different schedule. You've got to be on the same
`
`schedule if you're going to share all the discovery.
`
`And in terms of gaming the CBM system, that's just not
`
`true. The Patent Office rules are very, very sticky about
`
`joinder, consolidation. And it's very, very expensive to even
`
`seek to join. For TradeStation to seek to join the
`
`TD Ameritrade petition, the filing fee alone on the '304
`
`patent, for example, would have been about $48,000, just to pay
`
`the patent --
`
`THE COURT: Which in this case is nothing compared to
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`

`

` 8
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`what you've been litigating for all these years. Nothing,
`
`compared to the attorneys' fees that have been generated in
`
`this case. Honestly. Probably less -- I would love to see one
`
`month's bills. Cannot be an expensive venture.
`
`MR. HEALEY: I would assure you, your Honor, $48,000
`
`is more than the typical one-month bill in this case for
`
`TradeStation.
`
`THE COURT: During a stay.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Because it's been stayed.
`
`Your Honor, if I can respond.
`
`THE COURT: No, you can't respond yet. All right.
`
`You're done.
`
`Do you want to say something?
`
`MR. MANDELL: Yeah, well, the only thing I would say
`
`is the delay is not -- you shouldn't blame consolidation for
`
`the delay. It makes no sense to deconsolidate this case.
`
`There's 16 patents involved. There's over 400 claims. Can you
`
`imagine the situation? We're going to have multiple Markman
`
`hearings. We're going to have multiple motions for summary
`
`judgment on invalidity. There's going to be a proceeding on
`
`discovery disputes between different magistrates. It makes no
`
`sense to deconsolidate these cases whatsoever. They came in
`
`2010 and advocated for efficiency reasons that, and for all the
`
`same reasons I just mentioned, that these cases all be
`
`consolidated in front of one court. Nothing has changed. They
`
`Page 8 of 14
`
`

`

` 9
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`say, well, there's fewer -- fewer defendants --
`
`THE COURT: There's a lot fewer defendants.
`
`MR. MANDELL: But that's even another reason why
`
`consolidation should -- should continue because there's fewer
`
`defendants to split all the work that needs to be done.
`
`So deconsolidation really isn't the answer here, your
`
`Honor. It makes no sense to deconsolidate the cases.
`
`THE COURT: Anyone else?
`
`MR. VOLLER: Your Honor, if I may, with a practical
`
`anecdote, having just litigated the CQG case, I think to
`
`deconsolidate these matters would do a disservice to the
`
`magistrate.
`
`As Mr. Mandell just indicated, we were in front of
`
`Mr. -- Magistrate Schenkier on a near weekly basis arguing a
`
`variety of --
`
`THE COURT: In that case.
`
`MR. VOLLER: In that case.
`
`THE COURT: Not in my case.
`
`MR. VOLLER: That is true, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Nobody has been doing anything on a weekly
`
`basis in my case.
`
`MR. VOLLER: That is true. And the proposal to
`
`deconsolidate would further frustrate and erode any efficiency
`
`that could be gained by having a magistrate decide all of the
`
`common issues that would likely need to be decided at one time
`
`Page 9 of 14
`
`

`

` 10
`
`instead of having a magistrate independently and piecemeal
`
`decide the same dispute time and time again over and over
`
`again.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I don't know. Look at where you are
`
`in that case. You've had a trial and you're done. Right? We
`
`don't have even the slightest glimpse of a trial on the
`
`horizon. Right? And that was just one case assigned to one
`
`judge. So it was single, right?
`
`MR. VOLLER: There was two patents, your Honor, and so
`
`single case.
`
`THE COURT: One case.
`
`MR. VOLLER: That's correct.
`
`THE COURT: With two patents.
`
`MR. VOLLER: Correct.
`
`THE COURT: And it moved, and now you're completed.
`
`And, boy, that seems reasonable.
`
`What's your position?
`
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: Your Honor, I'm just local counsel
`
`for TradeStation, but I can say the thing I would point to is
`
`the 10 term limit that this Court is to construe under the
`
`local rules. And if you break these cases up, you're
`
`effectively allowing the parties to do an end-around that,
`
`theoretically.
`
`THE COURT: But the 10 term limit, the first thing you
`
`guys are going to do is run in here and say, "We need more
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 10 of 14
`
`

`

` 11
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`terms because we've got all of these patents and all of these
`
`cases." We're not going to hold you to 10 terms on one case,
`
`right?
`
`me.
`
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: It will be the first thing you file for
`
`MR. SUMMERFIELD: I think that depends. Yes, if there
`
`are 400 claims being asserted, that may be true. But if the
`
`goal of the rule is satisfied and the number of claims are
`
`limited, making it manageable to use only 10 terms for
`
`construction, then, sure, I don't think there would be a basis
`
`for us to come in and say we need to construe 20 or 30.
`
`But right now we have 400 claims being asserted and --
`
`yeah, I think it's impractical. But it would almost be a
`
`guarantee that that 10 claim term limit isn't going to stick if
`
`consolidation is done away with.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Now you can reply.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`I'd like to clarify TT's position. In our paper on
`
`page 12, it's pretty clear that if the Court deconsolidates
`
`these actions, TT is seeking the limits set forth in the
`
`federal and local rules per case. We're not seeking
`
`consolidation of all discovery even if this Court
`
`deconsolidates.
`
`We are, however, to the extent that it's workable
`
`Page 11 of 14
`
`

`

` 12
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`among the parties for -- convenient to witnesses, I think that
`
`the Court could still require coordination of depositions, not
`
`to burden parties or non-parties unduly. But we would not be
`
`seeking that they just still proceed as if the cases are
`
`consolidated if your Honor agrees to deconsolidation.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So this is a 14-page motion with a
`
`proposal and a schedule, and I assume that you want to give me
`
`a written response. If that's not true, that's fine.
`
`MR. HEALEY: Yes, we do, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. But two weeks from today.
`
`MR. HEALEY: Two weeks from today --
`
`THE COURT: All right? I don't want a reply.
`
`I'll see you in three weeks.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: What?
`
`MS. KURCZ: They did respond to our consolidation
`
`request on pages four and five of their response.
`
`THE COURT: Oh, I don't have a response in front of
`
`me, so that's not good.
`
`MR. MANDELL: Actually, that's not true, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Because that means that I didn't -- hold
`
`on a second. Let me just see.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Docket 629.
`
`THE COURT: Hang on.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Defendants' Proposed Discovery and Case
`
`Page 12 of 14
`
`

`

` 13
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Management.
`
`MR. HEALEY: It's not -- it's not a response, your
`
`Honor. It was our proposed discovery statement that covered
`
`multiple issues. And it mentioned that they had brought up the
`
`possibility of deconsolidation, and we gave an initial reaction
`
`as to why it's not a good idea. We didn't respond to what we
`
`saw later that night when it got filed, which is, as you point
`
`out, roughly a 10- or 15-page motion. And we would like the
`
`two weeks to reply to that.
`
`THE COURT: Oh, it's the same day that it came in,
`
`right?
`
`MR. MANDELL: They were both filed in the evening.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, because it was your position.
`
`MR. HEALEY: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: And your proposed discovery schedule.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Our motion only spans three pages, just so
`
`it's clear. It was combined with the proposed discovery case
`
`management order that your Honor had required both parties to
`
`file.
`
`THE COURT: Right. Right. So you can address the
`
`case law on it in two weeks from today, and I don't want a
`
`reply. I can do my own case work on it, and I will see you in
`
`three weeks. Let me see if I'm here.
`
`So two weeks from today is what, Tresa?
`
`THE CLERK: 24th.
`
`Page 13 of 14
`
`

`

` 14
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: The 24th. Okay. I'll see you on
`
`October 1st at 9:00 a.m.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Last point of clarification, your Honor,
`
`if I may.
`
`Discovery is open, so there's no reason they shouldn't
`
`be responding to discovery requests that have been propounded
`
`in the interim. Is that consistent with your Honor's --
`
`THE COURT: I don't have a motion to compel. You all
`
`are lawyers. If discovery is open, the stay is not there.
`
`You're doing your work. Right?
`
`It's like -- I keep getting motions from people that
`
`says, "Follow the rules." You know? Follow the rules.
`
`MS. KURCZ: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. I'll see you on October 1st at
`
`9:00.
`
`ALL PRESENT: Thank you, your Honor.
`
`(Proceedings concluded.)
`
`C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of the
`
`record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ GAYLE A. McGUIGAN_____________ September 11, 2015
`Gayle A. McGuigan, CSR, RMR, CRR Date
`Official Court Reporter
`
`__________________________________ September 11, 2015
`Gayle A. McGuigan, CSR, RMR, CRR Date
`Official Court Reporter
`
`Page 14 of 14
`
`

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