`
`
`
`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
`Patent No. 6,772,132
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`AND BRIEFING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`I.
`
`TT could have approached the district court at any time to seek relief
`from the protective order, but it chose to wait. .......................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TT does not explain why it delayed until June 2016 when it had
`much of the material since late in 2015. ............................................... 3
`
`TT’s ability to get relief from the protective order never
`depended on Petitioners’ waiver, or the Board granting TT any
`discovery. .............................................................................................. 5
`
`TT should have promptly sought relief from the district court
`once it knew of a need to use discovery subject to the protective
`order. ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`It is not in the interests of justice to allow TT to submit new
`arguments and evidence less than three weeks before Petitioners’
`Reply is due. ................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`TT fails to establish the relevance of this evidence under the
`applicable legal standards for patentability. .......................................... 8
`
`Petitioners would be further prejudiced if TT’s motion is
`granted. ................................................................................................ 14
`
`III. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`
`
`The Board should deny Trading Technologies International, Inc.’s (TT) mo-
`
`tion to submit supplemental information and briefing in this case. (Paper 87.)
`
`TT seeks to introduce over 1,000 pages of additional evidence and 10 pages
`
`of new argument to an already enormous record. But TT has not demonstrated why
`
`the interests of justice merit a supplementation of its 85 page Patent Owner Re-
`
`sponse and thousands of pages of evidence submitted in support thereof. Rather,
`
`TT expends most of its motion attempting to shift the blame to Petitioners for its
`
`own failure to seek appropriate relief under the district court’s protective order.
`
`In the district court, the parties agreed long ago in 2011 to the terms of the
`
`protective order, and the parties produced confidential discovery in reliance there-
`
`on. The terms of that protective order preclude any party—Petitioners and TT—
`
`from using confidential information in proceedings before the Office without either
`
`the consent of the disclosing party or a further order from the district court. That
`
`restriction makes sense because this proceeding concerns different issues and is
`
`supposed to be a streamlined, cost-effective procedure with very limited discovery.
`
`Because TT has had at least some of the documents it now seeks to submit since
`
`2015, it could have sought relief from the district court sooner but elected to wait
`
`until June 13, 2016. TT has nobody but itself to blame for its own delay.
`
`TT also offers no reasonable explanation for its delay. Instead, TT casts
`
`blame on Petitioners for not consenting to TT’s unrestricted use of their confiden-
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`tial information. (Paper 87 at 5.) But Petitioners have consented to limited uses of
`
`
`
`their information, while objecting to TT’s demand for a wholesale abrogation of
`
`the protective order. For example, Petitioners agreed that TT could submit a subset
`
`of confidential documents to the Board so that TT could refer to them when asking
`
`for additional discovery. And for purposes of this motion, Petitioners agreed that
`
`TT could summarize and refer to Petitioners’ confidential information. Petitioners
`
`have been reasonable; TT has not.
`
`TT has also not shown that the interests of justice warrant the submission of
`
`supplemental information. Among other things, TT is attempting to shift its theory
`
`of commercial success from its own product to TS and IBG products. TT acknowl-
`
`edges that its Patent Owner Response does not address whether Matrix and Book-
`
`Trader windows embody the challenged claims, promising to cover this issue in
`
`supplemental briefing. But Rule 42.223(b) is not a vehicle for changing theories.
`
`Even if the Board authorizes TT to file supplemental evidence, TT should not be
`
`permitted to argue new theories of patentability midstream.
`
`Finally, TT’s request for 10 additional pages of briefing would be unduly
`
`prejudicial to Petitioners. Petitioners’ Reply is due in 15 business days. The burden
`
`of responding to any brief submitted by TT accompanied by these numerous, vo-
`
`luminous exhibits would be a significant hardship. While the number of documents
`
`at issue has been narrowed from almost 100 to the present 10, that is still 10 docu-
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`ments too many two months too late.
`
`I.
`
`TT could have approached the district court at any time to seek relief
`from the protective order, but it chose to wait.
`
`Under Rule 42.223(b), TT bears the burden of establishing that it “reasona-
`
`bly could not have” obtained the information earlier and submitted it with its Pa-
`
`tent Owner Response. TT cannot establish that it reasonably could not have gone
`
`to the district court for relief from the protective order earlier than it did.
`
`TT has had many of the documents it now seeks to introduce in its posses-
`
`sion since 2015. Thus, TT had reason to know that it needed relief from the protec-
`
`tive order last year. TT attempts to excuse its delay by accusing Petitioners of ob-
`
`struction. That characterization is false. TT’s ability to get relief from the protec-
`
`tive order never depended on Petitioners’ waiving any objection. Nor did it depend
`
`on the Board granting TT any discovery. TT had the obligation to seek relief from
`
`the district court once it knew that it wanted to use Petitioners’ confidential infor-
`
`mation in this proceeding. TT offers no explanation for what it did, if anything, to
`
`approach the district court before June, when it filed its emergency motion.
`
`A. TT does not explain why it delayed until June 2016 when it had much
`of the material since late in 2015.
`
`TT obscures how long it has had many of these documents, claiming that it
`
`“did not receive all of the documents, testimony, or authentication of the evidence
`
`until the second week of June” and thus could not have submitted it sooner. (Paper
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`87 at 2.) But it is irrelevant that TT did not have “all” of what it now seeks to sub-
`
`
`
`mit. Many of these documents were produced late in 2015, including Exhibits
`
`2143-2145.1 Knowing as early as November 2015 that it had documents subject to
`
`the protective order, TT should have raised the issue with the district court prompt-
`
`ly. If the district court had granted TT relief from the protective order, TT would
`
`not have faced further obstacles to submitting any later obtained documents.
`
`During the conference call authorizing this motion, the Board asked Peti-
`
`tioners why they did not agree to waive the terms of the protective order earlier.
`
`(Ex. 2393 at 11:20-13:20.) The answer to the Board’s inquiry is that Petitioners
`
`reasonably exercised their right not to voluntarily grant exceptions to the standing
`
`protective order. TT initially asked Petitioners to agree that any confidential infor-
`
`mation produced in the district court could be used in this proceeding. Petitioners
`
`believed that TT’s request was over broad, and the district court ultimately agreed
`
`with Petitioners. (Ex. 2402 at 13:9-25.) When TT eventually approached the dis-
`
`trict court, Petitioners agreed to a compromise so as to minimize the burden to the
`
`district court. Had TT approached Petitioners sooner with a more limited subset of
`
`
`1 TT represents that it did not “discover the relevance of” PDX 3043 until
`
`June 2016. (Paper 87 at 12.) But that is not the standard. TT similarly does not in-
`
`dicate when it obtained possession of proffered Exhibit 2158. (Paper 87 at 15.)
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`documents, the parties may have been able to reach a resolution. Petitioners have
`
`
`
`never agreed to a blanket waiver of the protective order, given the sensitive nature
`
`and lack of relevance to these proceedings of most of the produced documents.
`
`Regardless of these circumstances, Rule 42.223(b) concerns whether the
`
`proponent reasonably could have obtained the information earlier. TT reasonably
`
`could have gone to the district court at any time, notwithstanding Petitioners’ op-
`
`position. It does not matter whether or why Petitioners withdrew their objections.
`
`B. TT’s ability to get relief from the protective order never depended on
`Petitioners’ waiver, or the Board granting TT any discovery.
`
`In its motion, TT paints the picture that Petitioners have been the sole obsta-
`
`cle to getting relief from the protective order. That is incorrect. TT always could
`
`have obtained, and eventually did obtain, relief from the district court. (Ex. 2402 at
`
`13:9-25) (opening the protective order for the purpose of allowing TT to submit
`
`certain materials to the Board). Indeed, the protective order fully contemplates that
`
`parties will apply to the district court for modifications. (Ex. 2407 at 17.) Had TT
`
`simply approached the district court within a reasonable amount of time before its
`
`due date, TT could have obtained permission to use litigation discovery in its Pa-
`
`tent Owner Response. Despite the convenience of blaming someone else, it is not
`
`Petitioners’ fault that TT failed to pursue the proper relief in a timely manner.
`
`C. TT should have promptly sought relief from the district court once it
`knew of a need to use discovery subject to the protective order.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`TT also claims that the Board’s denial of its discovery request on June 24
`
`
`
`meant that “there was no time for TT to seek relief from the district court prior to
`
`filing the PORs.” (Paper 87 at 4.) But when a protective order issued by a district
`
`court limits the use of discovery in a proceeding before the Office, parties are obli-
`
`gated to seek relief from the district court before availing themselves of discovery
`
`before the Board, which is limited by design. See, e.g., Meyer Products, LLC v.
`
`Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C., IPR2015-01247, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)
`
`(explaining that a party “must first seek such guidance from the District Court for
`
`relief in the first instance” where it seeks to use confidential documents subject to a
`
`district court protective order); Daifuku Co., Ltd. v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.,
`
`IPR2015-00083, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. July 2, 2016) (same); Electronic Frontier
`
`Foundation v. Personal Audio, LLC, IPR2014-00070, Paper 32 (P.T.A.B. July 29,
`
`2014) (same). As such, TT’s inappropriate efforts to compel discovery before the
`
`Board do not count as diligence. TT’s recourse has never been limited by the
`
`Board’s ability to grant discovery, or Petitioners unwillingness to waive the protec-
`
`tive order. Neither the Board’s denial, nor Petitioners’ objection, excuses TT’s de-
`
`lay in seeking relief before the district court.
`
`In sum, TT’s motion lacks any explanation as to why TT did not pursue re-
`
`lief from the district court promptly. For this reason alone, TT has not met its bur-
`
`den under Rule 42.223(b). Such relief likely would have been granted, as the dis-
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`trict court has since opened the protective order to allow TT to use the documents
`
`
`
`in question for appropriate purposes before the Board. (Ex. 2402 at 13:9-25.)
`
`II.
`
`It is not in the interests of justice to allow TT to submit new arguments
`and evidence less than three weeks before Petitioners’ Reply is due.
`
`Even if TT’s unexplained delay can be overlooked, it is not in the interests
`
`of justice to allow additional evidence and briefing at this stage in the proceeding.
`
`Importantly, much of TT’s new evidence relates to arguments it did not directly
`
`raise in its Patent Owner response. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion essentially
`
`seeks leave to raise new arguments in addition to supplemental evidence.
`
`TT cites a Board decision for the proposition that supplemental information
`
`should be admitted because “trial is, first and foremost, a search for the truth.” (Pa-
`
`per 87 at 6) (citing Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc., IPR2014-00599, Paper
`
`44 at 4 (P.T.A.B. May 5, 2015)). But in Edmunds Optics, the Board was evaluating
`
`evidence that would aid in “discern[ing] whether the scientific evidence that is
`
`submitted in an IPR is reliable.” Id. In contrast, the evidence TT proffers here ap-
`
`pears only to bolster the atmospherics of its Patent Owner Response. As in its Pa-
`
`tent Owner Response, TT fails to establish the relevance of this evidence under the
`
`applicable legal standards. Consequently, TT has failed to demonstrate that any of
`
`the documents will meaningfully inform an issue of patentability in this trial.
`
`With respect to timing and prejudice, it is almost two months after TT filed
`
`its Patent Owner Response, and less than three weeks before Petitioners’ Reply is
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`due. As demonstrated below, it is onerous to address even one of these documents.
`
`
`
`TT should not be rewarded for its unjustified delay, to Petitioners’ detriment.
`
`A. TT fails to establish the relevance of this evidence under the applicable
`legal standards for patentability.
`
`Much of the evidence that TT seeks to introduce evidence relates to various
`
`commercial products and is premised on the vague assertion that they embody fea-
`
`tures of the patent. (Paper 87 at 8-15.) There is a fundamental dispute, however,
`
`concerning whether the MD_Trader product, Matrix, and BookTrader windows
`
`embody any of the claims at issue in this proceeding. With respect to MD_Trader,
`
`TT relies on a 2010 Federal Circuit decision that refers to MD_Trader as “one of
`
`TT’s commercial embodiments of the [’304 and ’132] patents.” (Paper 87 at 8)
`
`(quoting Trading Tech. v. eSpeed, Int’l, 595 F.3d 1340, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (em-
`
`phasis added.)). But this isolated quote does not establish that any claims at issue
`
`in this proceeding embody MD_Trader, or any other commercial product. Without
`
`first establishing that the proffered evidence refers specifically to a commercial
`
`embodiment of a challenged claim, the proffer lacks relevance to an issue in trial.3
`
`
`3 ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp., 700 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (explaining that nexus must be with respect to “the claimed combination of
`
`elements that constitutes the invention, rather than [what] was not claimed and al-
`
`ready known in the prior art, or from other unclaimed features”).
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`With respect to the Matrix and BookTrader windows products, TT’s Patent
`
`
`
`Owner Response never argued that these are commercial embodiments of any
`
`claim. TT concedes as much by asking the Board for 10 pages of additional brief-
`
`ing to make this argument. (Paper 87 at 8.) But if TT wished to rely upon those
`
`products to support its theories of patentability, it could have done so in its Patent
`
`Owner Response. Rule 42.223(b) should not be used as an opportunity to change
`
`theories midstream. TT’s belated attempt to pivot its theory should be rejected.
`
`1. Bartleman Deposition Transcripts
`
`TT seeks to introduce two deposition transcripts from John Bartleman, the
`
`CEO of TS. (Paper 87 at 9-11.) TT argues these are relevant to patent eligibility
`
`and nonobviousness. (Id.) TT took the depositions at issue on June 8-9, 2016.
`
`The Bartleman deposition transcripts are not relevant to whether the chal-
`
`lenged claims recite patent eligible subject matter. Patent eligibility is a question of
`
`law. See, e.g., In re Roslin Inst., 750 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Section
`
`101 patent eligibility is a question of law . . . .”) Bartleman is a corporate officer .
`
`His testimony does not inform whether the claims as a whole, in light of the speci-
`
`fication, recite patent eligible subject matter. See Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
`
`Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that the “directed
`
`to” inquiry regarding the claims is “in light of the specification” to evaluate wheth-
`
`er “their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”)
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`With respect to whether the claims are obvious, TT has not explained how
`
`
`
`Bartleman’s testimony supports nonobviousness from the perspective of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`417 (2007). TT has not established that what is cited in Bartleman’s deposition tes-
`
`timony represents evidence that is “reasonably commensurate in scope with the
`
`claims,” and that is not solely attributable to elements disclosed in the prior art. S.
`
`Alabama Med. Sci. Found. v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 823, 827 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Specifically, evidence of commercial success is relevant only if it is shown
`
`that there is nexus between the commercial success and the claimed subject matter.
`
`See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012). TT has
`
`failed to offer proof that the proffered evidence of nonobviousness resulted direct-
`
`ly from the unique characteristics of the claimed subject matter, as opposed to what
`
`was known in the prior art. Id. at 1299-1300. Absent even a facial showing of nex-
`
`us, the proffered evidence is irrelevant to nonobviousness.
`
`The same nexus requirement applies to copying, and again TT has failed to
`
`present even a facial showing of nexus. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Ad-
`
`ams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] nexus between the
`
`copying and the novel aspects of the claimed invention must exist for evidence of
`
`copying.”) Furthermore, TT has not explained how Bartleman’s testimony consti-
`
`tutes evidence of “efforts to replicate a specific product,” through evidence akin to
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`“internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented
`
`
`
`prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to
`
`build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similar-
`
`ity to the patented product.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). Evidence that a corporate executive merely “look[ed] at” something, as
`
`TT alleges, fails to meet this standard by a wide margin. (Paper 87 at 11.)
`
`2. Exhibit 2144 and PDX 3043
`
`TT seeks to introduce Exhibit 2144, described as a document that allegedly
`
`provides technical specifications for TS’s Matrix product. (Paper 87 at 11-12.) TT
`
`admits that it had possession of this document in December 2015. TT also seeks to
`
`introduce PDX 3043, described as a website printout related to MD_Trader. TT
`
`does not indicate when it had possession of this document. TT argues that both
`
`documents are relevant to patent eligibility and nonobviousness.
`
`TT alleges that “copying of the claimed features of TT’s product is evident”
`
`from comparing Exhibit 2144 and PDX 3043 side by side. (Paper 87 at 12.) This
`
`does not meet the standard for relevance with respect to copying either. See Wyers,
`
`616 F.3d at 1246 (“Not every competing product that arguably falls within the
`
`scope of a patent is evidence of copying.”) TT comes nowhere close to alleging
`
`that the proffered evidence shows “direct evidence” of copying. Id. Nor does TT
`
`provide a substantiated theory for why Exhibit 2144 is probative as evidence of
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`why the claims are “not obvious” or recite “an inventive concept” from the per-
`
`
`
`spective of a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`3. Exhibit 2145
`
`TT seeks to introduce Exhibit 2145, described as a TS Options Manual. (Pa-
`
`per 87 at 12-13.) TT admits that it received this document in November 2015. TT
`
`argues that the document is relevant to patent eligibility, but is conclusory and fails
`
`to explain why it is probative. Patent eligibility is a question of law assessed based
`
`on the claims in light of the specification. In re Roslin Inst., 750 F.3d at 1335; In-
`
`ternet Patents Corp., 790 F.3d at 1346. TT provides no support for the relevance of
`
`such extrinsic evidence to this inquiry. TT similarly does not substantiate, but
`
`merely asserts, that some benefit is “directly attributable to the claimed features.”
`
`(Paper 87 at 13.) TT does not specify which features or why this is the case.
`
`4. Exhibit 2143
`
`TT seeks to introduce Exhibit 2143, described as an interview given by Mr.
`
`Bartleman. (Paper 87 at 13.) TT admits that it had possession of this document in
`
`November 2015. TT argues that Exhibit 2143 is relevant to alleged evidence of
`
`commercial success. As explained, such evidence is only relevant if TT first estab-
`
`lishes a valid nexus. S. Alabama Med. Sci. Found., 808 F.3d at 827; In re Applied
`
`Materials, 692 F.3d at 1299. Having failed to specify even a basis for nexus, the
`
`evidence is irrelevant.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`5. PDX 3046
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`TT seeks to introduce PDX 3046, described as an e-mail from a TS employ-
`
`ee. (Paper 87 at 14.) TT admits that it had possession of this document in May
`
`2016. TT argues that the document is relevant as alleged evidence of commercial
`
`success. As explained, such evidence is only relevant if TT first establishes a valid
`
`nexus. S. Alabama Med. Sci. Found., 808 F.3d at 827; In re Applied Materials, 692
`
`F.3d at 1299. Having failed to specify even a basis for nexus, the evidence is irrel-
`
`evant.
`
`6. Exhibit 2154
`
`TT seeks to introduce Exhibit 2154, which is a deposition transcript of Milak
`
`Galik of IB. (Paper 87 at 14.) TT took the depositions at issue on June 13, 2016. It
`
`is entirely unclear from TT’s motion under what theory TT believes the evidence is
`
`relevant. Exhibit 2154 is proffered as evidence concerning whether GUIs are pure-
`
`ly nonfunctional. TT does not associate this contention with any point made in its
`
`Patent Owner Response. The probative value of such a contention, even if true, is
`
`further limited because TT has not explained how it is relevant to patentability.
`
`7. Exhibit 2156
`
`TT seeks to introduce Exhibit 2156, described as an e-mail from Mr. Galik.
`
`(Paper 87 at 14-15.) TT claims that the document was produced in June 2016. TT
`
`argues that the document is relevant to patent eligibility and nonobviousness.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`TT’s motion is conclusory with respect to the alleged relevance of Exhibit
`
`
`
`2156. As explained, patent eligibility is a question of law assessed based on the
`
`claims in light of the specification. In re Roslin Inst., 750 F.3d at 1335; Internet
`
`Patents Corp., 790 F.3d at 1346. TT provides no support for the relevance of such
`
`extrinsic evidence to this inquiry. TT asserts that “there is a nexus between the
`
`claimed inventions’ features and commercial success.” (Paper 87 at 15.) But the
`
`alleged evidence does not tend to show commercial success merely because a sin-
`
`gle user disparaged a product that lacked a feature, without more. In re Applied
`
`Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d at 1299-1300 (explain that the source of nexus cannot be
`
`attributed to other economic and commercial factors present in the prior art).
`
`8. Exhibit 2158
`
`TT seeks to introduce Exhibit 2158, described as an e-mail from Mr. Galik.
`
`(Paper 87 at 15.) TT does not indicate when it was first in possession of the docu-
`
`ment. TT argues that the document is relevant to patent eligibility. Patent eligibility
`
`is a question of law assessed based on the claims in light of the specification. In re
`
`Roslin Inst., 750 F.3d at 1335; Internet Patents Corp., 790 F.3d at 1346. TT pro-
`
`vides no support for the relevance of such extrinsic evidence to this inquiry.
`
`B. Petitioners would be further prejudiced if TT’s motion is granted.
`
`TT repeatedly asserts that Petitioners will not be prejudiced. That is incor-
`
`rect. Petitioners have already been prejudiced and stand to be prejudiced more.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`TT’s repeated attempts to circumvent the protective order have injected un-
`
`
`
`necessary delay and vexation into these proceedings, culminating with the present
`
`motion. While TT’s quest to submit close to a hundred documents has been nar-
`
`rowed to 10, that is 10 documents too many and two months too late. TT should
`
`not get a second bite at the apple, either with respect to additional briefing or the
`
`opportunity to submit evidence. As a matter of fairness, Petitioners’ Reply is due in
`
`less than three weeks and the burden of responding to any brief submitted by TT in
`
`addition to these exhibits would impose a significant hardship on Petitioners.
`
`TT suggests that the Board must grant its motion because much of it relates
`
`to secondary considerations. (Paper 87 at 7.) But the Federal Circuit has clarified
`
`that nothing in the regulation “require[s] an automatic acceptance of, supplemental
`
`information.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 448
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, TT is in no way entitled to submit belated argument and ev-
`
`idence in support of a case it should of have made over two months ago.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, TT’s motion to file supplemental infor-
`
`mation (Paper 87) should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`Date: August 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
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITI-
`
`
`
`OERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND BRIEFING UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.223(b) was served on August 22, 2016, via e-mail in its entirety on the follow-
`
`ing counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Erika H. Arner (Lead Counsel)
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Back-up Counsel)
`Kevin D. Rodkey (Back-up Counsel)
`Rachel L. Emsley (Back-up Counsel)
`Cory C. Bell (Back-up Counsel)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`trading-tech-CBM@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 22, 2016
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`3366891_1.DOCX
`
`Steven F. Borsand (Back-up Counsel)
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`Michael D. Gannon (Back-up Counsel)
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. (Back-up Counsel)
`Jennifer M. Kurcz (Back-up Counsel)
`MCDONNELL, BOEHNEN, HULBERT &
`BERGHOFF LLP
`gannon@mbhb.com
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`kurcz@mbhb.com
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Robert Sokohl/
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`- 17 -
`
`
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
