10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE )
` BROKERS LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case CBM2016-00009
` vs. ) U.S. Patent No.
` ) 7,685,055
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
` INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` _________________________ )
`
` Deposition of CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS, taken
` in the above-captioned cause, at McDonnell,
` Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff, 300 South
` Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, before
` Rachel F. Gard, CSR, RPR, CLR, CRR,
` commencing at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on
` Wednesday, October 26, 2016.
`
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1036
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE )
` BROKERS LLC, )
` )
` Petitioner, )
` ) Case CBM2016-00009
` vs. ) U.S. Patent No.
` ) 7,685,055
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
` INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` _________________________ )
`
` Deposition of CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS, taken
` in the above-captioned cause, at McDonnell,
` Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff, 300 South
` Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, before
` Rachel F. Gard, CSR, RPR, CLR, CRR,
` commencing at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on
` Wednesday, October 26, 2016.
`
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1036
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX
` BY: MR. RICHARD M. BEMBEN
` MS. LORI A. GORDON
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` rbemben@skgf.com
` lgordon@skgf.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF, LLP
` BY: MR. MICHAEL D. GANNON
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` 312.913.2139
` gannon@mbhb.com
` and
` FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER,LLP
` BY: MR. KEVIN D. RODKEY
` 271 17th Street, NW
` Suite 1400
` Atlanta, Georgia 30363
` 404.653.6484
` kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS PAGE
`CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS
` Cross-Examination by Mr. Bemben 4
` Redirect Examination by Mr. Gannon 174
` Recross-Examination by Mr. Bemben 179
`
` E X H I B I T S
`TRADING TECH EXHIBITS PAGE
` Exhibit 2169 Declaration of 5
` Christopher H. Thomas
` Exhibit 2201 Curriculum Vitae of 25
` Christopher H. Thomas
`
`IBG EXHIBITS PAGE
` Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 101
` 7,685,055
` Exhibit 1008 Tokyo Stock Exchange 134
` Operation System
` Division
`
` (ALL EXHIBITS RETAINED AND NOT ATTACHED)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
` (Witness sworn.)
`
`Page 4
`
` WHEREUPON:
` CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS,
` called as a witness herein, having been first duly
` sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
` BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Please state your name for the record.
` A. Christopher Hugh Thomas.
` Q. Mr. Thomas, I know you've been deposed. I
` sat across from you several times this summer. I'll
` still go over the ground rules. So I'll ask the
` questions today, and you will answer. Please
` provide verbal responses, so we can develop a clear
` record. Okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And for the same reason, let's try not to
` speak over each other. I'll allow you to answer my
` questions. Just let me ask my questions.
` A. Sure.
` Q. If you don't understand a question, I'll
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 5
`
` be happy to clarify it. Is that okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you answer my question, I'll assume
` that you've understood it. Is that fair?
` A. Yes.
` Q. During the deposition, I encourage you to
` take breaks as needed. We'll try to take periodic
` breaks maybe every hour or so. But if you need to
` have a break, bathroom, get a drink or something
` like that, just let me know. All I ask is that you
` answer the pending question. Is that fair?
` A. Sure.
` Q. And you understand you're under oath
` today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason at all you cannot give
` truthful and complete testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Okay. Mr. Thomas, I'm going to
` hand you what has been marked in this proceeding as
` Trading Tech Exhibit 2169 and this proceeding is
` CBM2016-00009.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 6
`
` Do you recognize this document, sir?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is it?
` A. It's a declaration that I filed in this CBM
` proceeding.
` Q. Okay. And if we turn to Page 91, it's the
` last page.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is that your signature on Page 91?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. When was the last time you reviewed
` this document?
` A. Yesterday.
` Q. Are there any corrections that you'd like
` to make to this document at this time?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. Okay. So this document is, in your
` opinion, complete and accurate?
` A. I believe so. I mean, there might be one
` errata place somewhere, but I think it's okay.
` There might be a word here or there that's a typo,
` but I didn't notice anything, reviewing it.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 7
` Q. Okay. Other than typos, it's complete and
` accurate?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Potential typos. We don't know if there
` are?
` A. Yes, yes.
` Q. Did you prepare this declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Can I just ask, do you mean did I type
` every word of it?
` Q. Well, let's ask that question. Did you
` type every word of this declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. Did counsel type some of the words of the
` declaration?
` A. I met with counsel over a period of time
` and went through material. I formed my opinions.
` Sometimes I type, sometimes one of them would type.
` That's how it happened.
` Q. Okay. Do you recall which sections you
` typed personally?
` A. No. I mean, no.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 8
` Q. Okay. Approximately how long did it take
` you to prepare your declaration?
` A. Well, there are several parts of this that
` are common to several other declarations I've done.
` Q. And when you say several other
` declarations, what do you mean?
` A. Other CBM declarations. Like my
` background, background of the industry, things like
` that.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So it probably took me, you know, 4 or 5
` weeks to do this, something like that.
` Q. And when you say that, you're talking
` about aggregate time with the other CBM proceedings
` you were deposed in early this summer; is that
` right?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. No, no, I'd say 4 or 5 weeks just on this
` document itself?
` Q. 4 or 5 weeks just on this document itself?
` A. Yeah.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 9
` Q. Is this 4 or 5 weeks of continuous work,
` like 40 hours per week?
` A. No.
` Q. How many hours per week in those 4 to 5
` weeks?
` A. Maybe 25, 30. I don't think it was
` consistent every week.
` Q. Can you estimate how many hours you spent
` preparing this document?
` A. 80 to a hundred maybe.
` Q. Okay.
` A. That's just an estimate.
` Q. Approximately 80 to a hundred hours?
` A. Yeah, perhaps.
` Q. Okay. Did you review any materials in
` preparing this document, your declaration?
` A. Sure.
` Q. What materials did you review?
` A. Well, what I've cited to in here. Let me
` see.
` Q. I think you might be looking for
` Paragraph 16.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 10
` A. Okay, yeah. I don't remember at this time.
` Q. Pages 12 and 13?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. I think. I'm not sure.
` A. Yes. I think it's everything in here. I
` don't see anything that, anything else that I
` reviewed that's not in here.
` Q. Okay. So just to be clear, so when you
` say everything in here, I'm referring to
` Paragraph 16 of your declaration. There you state:
` I am familiar with the CBM materials in the
` above-captioned matter, including the petition and
` supporting exhibits and declarations.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. The patent owner's preliminary response,
` and the board's institution decision. Correct?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. So you're familiar with all those
` documents?
` A. I have reviewed those documents, yes.
` Q. When you say supporting exhibits, do you
` mean all of the exhibits that were filed with the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 11
`
` petition?
` A. I have at some point read those, yes.
` Q. At some point in preparation -- strike
` that.
` When you say at some point, do you mean in
` preparing this declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Who provided those materials to you?
` A. The attorneys at MBHB.
` Q. And other than materials listed in
` Paragraph 16 of your declaration, did you review
` anything else -- strike that.
` Besides the materials that you listed in
` Paragraph 16 of your declaration, did you review
` anything else when you prepared your declaration?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. No, I mean I just say in Paragraph 17, just
` from my District Court proceedings, I'm also
` familiar with other matter too that is relevant.
` Q. Okay. So in Paragraph 17, you mentioned
` the eSpeed case?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 12
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. So you're familiar with the documents in
` that case?
` A. Yes, I have been over time, yes.
` Q. All of the documents?
` A. There may be a document in the case I
` haven't reviewed.
` Q. But generally?
` A. Yes. All the documents in the case that
` were relevant to what I was doing in the case, yes.
` Q. What do you mean by -- when you stated all
` the documents that are relevant, what did you mean
` by that?
` A. I guess I mean documents that I would have
` used in preparing my expert report in those cases,
` documents that I would have seen in preparation for
` trial testimony in that case. Stuff like that.
` Q. Can you provide me some examples of what
` those documents would be?
` A. Manuals for the eSpeed products, alleged
` prior art in the case, deposition transcripts of
` people deposed in the case, emails that were
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 13
` produced -- there are probably a lot more stuff too.
` Q. You mention in Paragraph 17 that you were
` involved in the eSpeed case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What was the scope of your involvement?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. Scope.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Now, this is 2007, so I'm trying to recall
` exactly. But I provided testimony on infringement
` and obviousness, I believe. I provided testimony at
` trial on those two things.
` Q. Okay. So you analyzed infringement. You
` also analyzed obviousness in the eSpeed case,
` correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes, I believe so, yes.
` Q. Did you analyze anything else?
` A. I mean, I don't know if I did anticipation.
` I can't remember. It's one of the two, obviousness
` or anticipation. Honestly, it was a long time ago.
` Q. Let's make it easy, you analyzed validity?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 14
`
` A. Validity, yes.
` Q. And infringement?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And anything else?
` A. I don't believe so. As I sit here, I
` honestly don't recall.
` Q. Okay. And previously you mentioned that
` you reviewed those documents in preparation of an
` expert report; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So you provided an expert report in the
` eSpeed case?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that expert report was on validity and
` infringement?
` A. I provided an expert report. There was two
` pieces. There was a report on infringement, and
` there was a response to the other side's report,
` their expert's report on invalidity.
` Q. So were there two separate reports that
` you provided in the eSpeed case, then?
` A. I believe so.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 15
` Q. Are you aware that Trading Technologies --
` strike that. If I refer to Trading Technologies as
` TT today, will you understand I mean Trading
` Technologies?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that's the patent owner of the '055
` patent, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's be clear. If I refer to U.S. Patent
` No. 7,685,005 as the '055 patent, you'll understand
` what I'm talking about?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you aware that TT filed a patent owner
` response in this proceeding? That is CDM2016-00009.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you review that document?
` THE COURT REPORTER: Can you say the first
` question again?
` BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. I believe I said, are you aware that the
` patent owner, TT, filed a patent owner response in
` this proceeding?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 16
` A. They filed an initial and then the patent
` owner's response, yes.
` Q. And you reviewed the initial response,
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you review the patent owner response?
` A. I have in the last week or so.
` Q. Okay. Did you review it before you
` prepared your declaration?
` A. The patent owner's response?
` Q. Yes.
` A. No.
` Q. So the first time you saw it was after you
` prepared your declaration, correct?
` A. I read the initial before I prepared my
` declaration.
` Q. Just to be clear for the record, that's
` the preliminary response?
` A. Yes, the preliminary. Sorry.
` Q. But you didn't read the patent owner
` response until after you filed your declaration,
` correct?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 17
`
` A. Correct.
` Q. Do you know who Richard Hartheimer is?
` A. He's an inventor of some patent. I can't
` remember.
` Q. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Hartheimer?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Outside the scope.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I don't think so.
` Q. So other than that he is an inventor, do
` you know anything else about Mr. Hartheimer?
` MR. GANNON: Objection.
` A. I --
` MR. GANNON: Just give me a second to give the
` objection.
` THE WITNESS: Sorry.
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I've heard the name. But as I sit here, I
` can't recall exactly who he is.
` Q. Do you know whether Mr. Hartheimer was --
` do you know whether Mr. Hartheimer provided a
` declaration in a previous CBM proceeding of the '055
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 18
`
` patent?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. Scope.
` Relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Right, that's the TD Ameritrade one. That
` has refreshed my memory. I don't know, but I think
` so.
` Q. So just to be clear, you believe so? You
` think Mr. Hartheimer provided a declaration in the
` TD Ameritrade --
` MR. GANNON: Objection.
` Q. Let me start over again. So just be
` clear, you believe that Mr. Hartheimer provided a
` declaration in the TD Ameritrade proceeding of the
` '055 patent?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope, relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I think that's where I recall it from, but
` I'm not sure.
` Q. Do you know whether Mr. Hartheimer was
` deposed in that proceeding?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope, relevance.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 19
`
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes. I think so.
` Q. Did you review the transcript of that
` deposition?
` A. No.
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope, relevance.
` BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Did you speak to Mr. Hartheimer when you
` were preparing your declaration?
` A. This declaration?
` Q. This declaration.
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Hartheimer?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope, relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I believe that I actually -- no, I believe
` I met -- I met him in Washington last year when I
` was being deposed for the TD Ameritrade CBM matters.
` Q. So you did speak to him last year; is that
` correct?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope. Relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 20
`
` A. I met him.
` Q. What do you mean you met him, just in
` passing?
` MR. GANNON: Same objection.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. He was in the same office, and I was
` introduced to him.
` Q. Besides being introduced, did you speak
` about anything?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. I'm also
` going to caution the witness not to reveal any
` attorney-client work product communications. Also
` scope. And relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. It was more -- it was just an introduction.
` I didn't speak to him about anything to do with
` these cases at all.
` Q. Was an attorney present when you spoke to
` Mr. Hartheimer?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope. Relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 21
`
` Q. Which attorney was present?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Scope. Relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Rachel Emsley.
` Q. Rachel Emsley, an attorney for Finnegan
` Henderson, correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Did you review Mr. Hartheimer's -- strike
` that.
` Earlier you said you believe
` Mr. Hartheimer did provide a declaration in the TD
` Ameritrade CBM of the '055 patent, correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you review Mr. Hartheimer's
` declaration that he provided in that proceeding, the
` TD Ameritrade?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. Scope.
` Relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I have never reviewed his declaration.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 22
` Q. Has anyone ever informed you of the
` content of that declaration?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Let me strike that. Has anyone ever
` informed you of the content of Mr. Hartheimer's
` declaration in the TD Ameritrade CBM proceeding of
` the '055 patent?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. Scope.
` Relevance. And also caution the witness not to
` reveal any attorney-client work product
` communications.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. No.
` Q. What did you do to prepare for this
` deposition today?
` MR. GANNON: Objection. Caution the witness
` not to reveal any attorney-client work product
` communications.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I reviewed my declaration, some of the
` documents that I reference in my declaration, and I
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 23
` met with attorneys from MBHB and from Finnegan.
` Q. You mentioned that you reviewed some of
` the documents that you referenced in your
` declaration. Which documents?
` A. The petition, patent owner's response, the
` patent. I think that's it. I might be forgetting
` something, but I believe that's it.
` Q. So the petition, patent owner's response,
` and the patent. And of course your declaration,
` correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you mentioned that you met with
` attorneys from MBHB and Finnegan, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are those the two attorneys that are
` sitting here at this table?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Anyone else?
` A. No.
` Q. You didn't meet with anybody else in
` preparation for your deposition?
` A. No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 24
` Q. And you mentioned that you met with them
` yesterday, correct?
` A. And Monday.
` Q. So Monday and -- Monday and Tuesday of
` this week?
` A. Correct.
` Q. How long did you meet with them on each of
` those days?
` A. Maybe 7, 8 hours.
` Q. 7 or 8 hours total?
` A. No. Per day.
` Q. Per day, thank you.
` You were deposed earlier this summer in
` covered business method review proceedings, correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you review the transcripts of those
` depositions?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. Scope.
` Relevance.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I did.
` Q. Did you review them in preparation for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 25
`
` your deposition?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. For this deposition?
` Q. For this deposition.
` A. No.
` Q. When did you review those documents?
` A. Maybe middle of September.
` Q. And when I mentioned CBM proceedings
` earlier this summer, what I meant by that was the
` CBM proceeding of the '132 patent, the '304 patent,
` and the '056 patent. Is that your understanding as
` well?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` BY THE WITNESS:
` A. There's that and there was one more. The
` '411.
` Q. And the '411 patent. Correct. So your
` depositions were -- strike that question. Thank
` you.
` Okay. Mr. Thomas, I'm going to provide
` you what's been marked Trading Tech Exhibit 2201 in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 26
` CBM 201600009. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is it?
` A. It's my CV.
` Q. Did you prepare this CV?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Is it up to date?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When was the last time it was updated, if
` you can recall?
` A. This summer.
` Q. This summer --
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- 2016. Let's take a look at Page 5.
` I'll give you a second to review it.
` A. Right. Okay.
` Q. So this page describes your education and
` it appears that in 1987, you received a Bachelor's
` of Science in applied biological sciences; is that
` right?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. What type of coursework did you complete
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 27
`
` to receive that degree?
` A. What do you mean by that? I mean, the
` schooling system in Britain is a bit different than
` here. What do you mean by coursework?
` Q. Did you take courses to complete that
` degree?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Classes?
` A. Of course, yeah.
` Q. What were the types of classes that you
` took?
` A. Well, it was over four years, lots of
` different things. Histology, virology, molecular
` biology, plant production biology, computing. We
` had to do some computing for basic analysis of lab
` results. We had detailed lab projects. Genetics.
` Physiology. Pathology, cell pathology. That's just
` what I can remember off the top of my head.
` Statistics was another one.
` Q. Let's focus on the computing. You
` mentioned that you did some computing for basic
` analysis of lab results, correct?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 28
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. What types of computers did you use
` in this 1983 to '87 time frame?
` A. UNIX machines. I think they were VAX
` machines, so we'd be using terminals on VAX
` machines. And also at that point, microcomputers
` were starting, so we had what were called the BPC
` microcomputers, which were programmed using Basic
` language to analyze lab results. So we got taught
` some basic programming.
` Q. And did you write any computer programs
` yourself?
` A. We actually did some Fortran, too. I
` remember that because we actually had to -- it was
` back in the day of still using punch cards. So I do
` recall that specifically, the frustration with that.
` Yes.
` Q. What type of applications did you program?
` A. They were analysis.
` Q. Analysis?
` A. Yeah. So taking results from experiments
` and performing statistical calculations on them.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 29
` Q. Did the computers that you used have
` graphical user interfaces?
` A. Back in 1983/'84, well, they were VAX
` machines. They were green screens that were
` really -- no, they were command line mostly.
` Q. So they had a user interface but it was a
` text based interface, correct?
` A. Correct, everything was done text based.
` Q. If I say today, G U I, GUI, to say
` graphical user interface, you'll understand what I
` mean?
` A. Of course.
` MR. BEMBEN: That's just G U I.
` BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. So you also have listed under education,
` Control Training Limited, 1990. Can you explain
` what that is? Is that a university?
` A. No, it's a commercial -- it was a
` commercial firm that you could go to, to do classes
` on various either systems analysis or programming,
` and you would get a certificate from the National
` Computer Center if you completed the course.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/26/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 30
` Q. Did you receive a certificate from Control
` Training Limited?
` A. I can't recall, actually. I did the
` course. I'm not sure.
` Q. Got you.
` A. I have the certificate of completion.
` Q. And you mentioned the description is
` structured systems analysis and design methodology?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What was that?
` A. It is taking a -- looking at a high level,
` it is looking at a business, looking at the physical
` processes that a business has, analyzing all those
` processes, trying to figure out if there's
` redundancy in some, and coming up with a streamlined
` physical set of processes. And then seeing which
` pieces of those could be computerized, if any, in
` some businesses. Back then you just couldn't,
` because -- back then, computers weren't anything
` like they were -- they are right now.
` But I mean, structured systems analysis and
` design is still exactly the same. So you analyze a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEv
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
