Paper No. _____
`Filed: March 17, 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 CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: March 17, 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 CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner objects to the following
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibits:
`
`• 1010 (U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al.);
`
`• 1011 (U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al.)
`
`• 1014 (U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al.);
`
`• 1015 (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,411 to Hartman et al.);
`
`• 1016
`
`(“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal
`
`Operation Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange);
`
`• 1017 (English Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange );
`
`• 1018 (Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing
`
`System Trading Terminal Operation Guide”);
`
`• 1019 (Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima dated November
`
`21, 2005);
`
`• 1020 (David M. Weiss, “After the Trade is Made”);
`
`• 1021 (Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader”);
`
`• 1022 (Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`
`Design”);
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`• 1023 (Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition);
`
`• 1030 (U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist); and
`
`• 1036 (Inside Macintosh, Promotional Edition, Apple Computer, Inc.).
`
`I.
`
`OBJECTION TO PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS 1010-1011, 1014-1018,
`
`1020-23 and 1036
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibits 1010-1011, 1014-18, 1020-23; and 1036 to
`
`the extent that Petitioners rely on their contents for the truth of the matters asserted
`
`therein. Exhibits 1010-1011, 1014-18, 1020-23; and 1036 are inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 801 and 802, and no exception applies.
`
`II.
`
`OBJECTION TO PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS 1016-1018
`
`Petitioners have submitted no evidence to authenticate Exhibit 1016, and
`
`deficient evidence for Exhibit 1017 as set forth below, making both inadmissible
`
`under FRE 901.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to Exhibit 1016-1018 under FRE 602. Petitioners
`
`fail to provide a credible translation of TSE and fail to conform with the Board’s
`
`rules for submitting translations of foreign language documents. In particular, 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(b) requires that “[w]hen a party relies on a document or is required
`
`to produce a document in a language other than English, a translation of the
`
`document into English and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`must be filed with the document.” The record lacks such an affidavit under Rule
`
`42.63(b) attesting to the accuracy because Mr. Cohen: (1) incorrectly refers to
`
`“2014.05.19 - 1003 – TSE” as an English translation; and (2) on information and
`
`belief, he did not, himself, translate the Japanese language TSE into English,
`
`thereby demonstrating his lack of personal knowledge regarding the matter for
`
`which he is testifying. See FRE 602 (requiring personal knowledge to testify to a
`
`matter). Exhibit 1018 is noncompliant with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), making Exhibits
`
`1016 and 1017 inadmissible under 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a) (“Evidence that is not
`
`taken, sought, or filed in accordance with this subpart is not admissible.”).
`
`Patent Owner further objections to Exhibit 1017 under FRE 403.
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1017 substitutes nearly verbatim TT’s own translation of
`
`Chapter 7 for the inaccurate translation previously provided by Petitioners’
`
`counsel. Compare Ex. 1017, 91-120, with Ex. 2020, Appx. E (CBM2014-00131
`
`Ex. 2097). But despite having copied TT’s translation into Exhibit 1017, on pages
`
`7-25 and 7-26 (Exhibit 1017, 115-116), Petitioners omit two translator’s notes
`
`from TT’s original translation (Ex. 2020, 98-99). Exhibit 1017 is therefore
`
`incomplete and misleading, and inadmissible under FRE 403.
`
`3
`
`
`
`OBJECTION TO PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT 1019
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`III.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1019 to the extent that Petitioners relies on
`
`its contents for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Exhibit 1019 is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802, and no exception applies.
`
`Patent Owner also objects to portions of Exhibit 1019 under FRE 401-402
`
`as irrelevant, or in the alternative under FRE 403 as prejudicial and a waste of
`
`time. Petitioners have cited only to 22 pages of the over 100-page exhibit, and
`
`within those un-cited pages, there may be many objectionable statements. The un-
`
`cited portions are irrelevant, and to the extent relevant are prejudicial and a waste
`
`of time.
`
`IV.
`
`OBJECTION TO PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS 1010, 1014, 1015, and
`
`1030
`
`Petitioners rely on Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1015, and 1030 as disclosing certain
`
`features of the ’132 claims. However, Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1015, and 1030 are
`
`irrelevant to the grounds (§§ 101 and 103) instituted by the Board, and are
`
`therefore inadmissible under FRE 401 and 402 because they lack a tendency to
`
`make any fact at issue in this proceeding more or less probable.
`
`Dated: March 17, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Rachel L. Emsley/
`Rachel L. Emsley, Backup Counsel
`Registration No. 63,558
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s Objections to Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 were served on
`
`March 17, 2016, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Lori Gordon
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Richard M. Bemben
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`/Valencia Daniel/
`Valencia Daniel
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 17, 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
