`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC, and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2016-00009
`Patent No. 7,685,055 B2
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”) object
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 to the admissibility of the following evidence Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. (“TT” or “Patent Owner”) filed and served on
`
`Thursday, July 21, 2016:
`
`TT Ex. No. Description
`
`2015
`
`Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. and SAP
`
`AG, Case No. 2014-1194 (CAFC), Docket No. 61, Brief for the
`
`Intervenor - Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (May 1, 2014)
`
`2121
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Classification System – Classification Definitions – Class
`
`705
`
`2124
`
`Class 345, Computer Graphics Processing and Selective Visual
`
`Display Systems, (January 2011): 1-8
`
`2125
`
`July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, USPTO Examination
`
`Guidelines
`
`2126
`
`2159
`
`Senate Congressional Record, S5402-S5443 (Sept. 8, 2011)
`
`TSE-filed opposition document to Japanese Patent Application No.
`
`2001-564025 (TSE0000000982-995)
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`TT Ex. No. Description
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`2160
`
`Certified Translation of TSE-filed opposition document to Japanese
`
`Patent Application No. 2001-564025 (TSE0000000982-995)
`
`2161
`
`Certification of Translation of TSE-filed opposition document to
`
`Japanese Patent Application No. 2001-564025 (TSE0000000982-
`
`2162
`
`2164
`
`2165
`
`2166
`
`2168
`
`2169
`
`2175
`
`995)
`
`JP Patent Application 2001-564025
`
`Deposition Transcript of David Rho, dated April 26, 2016
`
`Deposition Transcript of Kendyl A. Roman, dated May 3, 2016
`
`Deposition Transcript of Kendyl A. Roman, dated May 5, 2016
`
`Declaration of Eric Gould-Bear
`
`CONFIDENTIAL Declaration of Christopher Thomas
`
`Exhibit TSE1 from Kawashima 2005 Deposition (TSE0000000996-
`
`1016)
`
`2176
`
`Certified Translation of Exhibit TSE1 from Kawashima 2005
`
`Deposition (TSE0000000996-1016)
`
`2177
`
`Certification of Translation of Exhibit TSE1 from Kawashima 2005
`
`Deposition (TSE0000000996-1016)
`
`2204
`
`Microsoft DNA Case Study
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`TT Ex. No. Description
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`2206
`
`Excerpts from Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. Form 10-K Statement
`
`IBG_00000412-421
`
`2207
`
`Excerpts from TradeStation Group, Inc. Form 10-K Statement
`
`TS0005177-88
`
`2292
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. CQG, Inc., et. al., Case No. 05-cv-4811,
`
`Excerpts from Steven Van Dusen Deposition (01/20/2015)
`
`2293
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`
`Excerpts from David Silverman Deposition (08/24/2007)
`
`2294
`
`CONFIDENTIAL Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. CQG, Inc., et. al.,
`
`Case No. 05-cv-4811, Excerpts from John Phillip Mellor Deposition
`
`(01/16/2015)
`
`2295
`
`CONFIDENTIAL Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case
`
`No. 04-cv-5312, Excerpts from Richard Ferraro Deposition Vol. 2
`
`(08/09/2007)
`
`2296
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`
`Excerpts from Robert Dezmelyk Deposition (08/17/2007)
`
`2297
`
`National Aeronautics and Space Administration Web Page Print out,
`
`Human Computer Interaction Group
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`TT Ex. No. Description
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`2330
`
`2332
`
`2333
`
`2334
`
`2339
`
`2340
`
`Annotated excerpt of Figure from Ex. 1008, p. 0068.
`
`Certified Translation of Ex. 1007, pp. 0068-0069
`
`Certification of Translation of Ex. 1007, pp. 0068-0069
`
`Declaration of Harold Abilock, dated July14, 2016
`
`Declaration of Harold Abilock, dated July 19, 2016
`
`Appx.2350-2353 from Trading Technologies International v. CQG,
`
`No. 16-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`2341
`
`Excerpts from Interactive Brokers 2015 Annual Report
`
`Petitioners ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny the admission and
`
`consideration of the following documents on the following bases:
`
`FRE ARTICLE IV – RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2015, 2121, 2124, 2125, 2126, 2159, 2160,
`
`2161, 2162, 2164, 2165, 2166, 2168, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2292,
`
`2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2330, 2332, 2333, 2334, 2339, 2340, and 2341 as
`
`irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402, or as confusing or
`
`a waste of time under FRE 403, because cited portions are not relevant to any issue
`
`remaining in this proceeding, such as patentability of the subject matter, broadest
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claims, anticipation of the claims in view of the
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art.
`
`FRE ARTICLE VI – WITNESSES
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2169, 2292, 2293, 2295, and 2296 for lack
`
`of foundation. Patent Owner has not shown that the declarant has personal
`
`knowledge of the subject matter of the testimony as required by FRE 602.
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit No. 2330 as an improper demonstrative. Patent
`
`Owner has not established a proper foundation for the evidence set forth in the
`
`exhibit.
`
`FRE ARTICLE VII – OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2169 and 2295 to the extent it offers
`
`opinion under FRE 701 - 703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert
`
`testimony, the testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no
`
`indication that declarant has the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as
`
`would be necessary to opine under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the
`
`declarant based those opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the
`
`relevant field would reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these
`
`paragraphs falls outside acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`FRE ARTICLE VIII – HEARSAY
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of Exhibit Nos. 2015,
`
`2121, 2124, 2159, 2160, 2162, 2164, 2165, 2166, 2169, 2175, 2176, 2204, 2206,
`
`2207, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2330, 2332, 2340, and 2341 for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`FRE ARTICLE IX – AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2015, 2124, 2159, 2175, 2176, 2204, 2206,
`
`2207, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2330, 2340, and 2341 as not properly
`
`authenticated under FRE 901 because Patent Owner has not presented any
`
`evidence that these documents are authentic nor that the documents are self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`FRE ARTICLE X – CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND
`PHOTOGRAPHS
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of Exhibit No. 2330 to
`
`prove the content of the original document, Petitioners object to this document as
`
`not being original documents under FRE 1002, an authentic duplicate under FRE
`
`1003, nor a document that fall under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`CITING EXHBITS NOT SERVED
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit No. 2169 as citing exhibits not served with the
`
`document as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`
`
`These objections are made within five business days from the July 21, 2016
`
`filing and service of TT’s exhibits.
`
`
`
`Date: 7/28/2016
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,633
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to TT’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on July 28, 2016, the attached
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1) were served electronically via e-mail upon the following counsel for
`
`Patent Owner, TT:
`
`Erika H. Arner, Joshua L. Goldberg, Kevin D. Rodkey,
`Rachel L. Emsley, Cory C. Bell
`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
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`Michael D. Gannon, Leif R. Sigmond, Jr., and Jennifer M. Kurcz
`MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`gannon@mbhb.com
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`kurcz@mbhb.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben #68658/
`
`
`Robert E. Sokohl, Reg. No. 36,013
`Lori A. Gordon, Reg. No. 50,633
`Richard M. Bemben, Reg. No. 68,658
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 7/28/2016
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`2842599_2.DOCX
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
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
