`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
` IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
` Petitioner
` v.
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2016-00009 (Patent No. 7,685,055 B2)
`
` Deposition of DAN R. OLSEN, JR., taken at
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, CSR, RPR, CLR, and
` CRR, commencing at the hour of 9:10 a.m. on
` Thursday, October 6, 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 1038
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00009
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQ.
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` rsokohl@skgf.com
` rbemben@skgf.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` BY: JENNIFER M. KURCZ, ESQ.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` 312.913.3311
` kurcz@mbhb.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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`DAN R. OLSEN, JR.
` Examination by Mr. Sokohl 4, 109
` Examination by Ms. Kurcz 102
`
` EXHIBITS
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`Exhibit 2174 Declaration of Dan Olsen 8
`
`IBG
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,685,055 7
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` DAN R. OLSEN,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Good morning. Could you state your
`name for the record.
` A. Dan Reed Olsen. That's Reed with two
`E's. It was wrong the last transcript.
` Q. And I know you have been deposed
`before, as I have sat on this side of the table
`from you. You need to give verbal responses so
`that the reporter can take them down. Let's try
`not to speak over each other. I think we did a
`fairly nice job with that the last time.
` Please let me know if you don't
`understand the question. If you answer the
`question, I am going to assume you understand it.
`Is that acceptable?
` A. Yes.
` Q. We can take a break at any time. All
`I ask is that you answer the question in front of
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 5
`you before we take that break. I'll try to take a
`break every hour or so and we'll just see how it
`goes.
` MS. KURCZ: Counsel, should we
`identify ourselves for the record?
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure. Robert Sokohl for
`petitioners TradeStation and IBG. With me is
`Richard Bemben.
` MS. KURCZ: Jennifer Kurcz for patent
`owner Trading Technologies.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You understand you're under oath
`today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason you cannot give
`honest testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. Are you on any medications that would
`inhibit you from providing truthful testimony
`today?
` A. No.
` Q. How did you prepare for today's
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`deposition?
` A. Discussed with counsel the declaration
`and the patent.
` Q. And how long did you meet for, with
`counsel?
` A. Six hours.
` Q. And did you review any documents that
`were not part of your declaration in preparation
`for today's deposition?
` A. I'm thinking. Just a second here.
`Transcript from last deposition. I knew there was
`a third.
` Q. So you reviewed your transcript.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you ever used any Trading
`Technologies products prior to today?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: For commodity trading?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Any product, have you used any
`products commercially offered by Trading
`Technologies?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Oh, by Trading Technologies, no.
` Q. Just to make it simple: Would it be
`acceptable if I used "TT" for Trading
`Technologies?
` A. That would be fine.
` Q. Okay. So you haven't used MD
`Trader --
` A. No.
` Q. -- offered by TT?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you used any GUI provided by any
`company -- actually, let me give you a document
`first.
` A. Okay.
` Q. That would be a better question. And
`while we're doing that, just to circle back. You
`haven't used any trading software offered by TT
`commercially?
` A. No.
` Q. Let me hand you what's been marked as
`IBG 1001, which is U.S. Patent Number 7,685,055.
`(Document tendered to the witness.)
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Thank you.
` Q. And if it's okay with you, I'm going
`to refer to this as the '055 Patent.
` A. That will be fine.
` Q. Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Prior to signing your declaration,
`which I will hand you in a second, did you review
`this patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let me give you the declaration. I'm
`going to hand you what's been marked as Trading
`Tech Exhibit 2174, and it's the declaration of Dan
`R. Olsen, Jr., which I believe is you. (Document
`tendered to the witness.)
` Do you recognize that document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that your declaration in this
`proceeding?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is that your signature on Page 21
`of this document?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes. Actually Page 22.
` Q. Page 21; correct?
` A. Yeah. Depends which page you're
`looking at.
` Q. Oh. I see what you're saying. Fair
`enough. Page 21, bottom center.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Looking back at the '055 Patent, did
`you read the entire patent prior to signing the
`declaration?
` A. Every word, no. Much of the
`specification doesn't actually relate to these
`claims.
` Q. Do you recall what sections you did
`read?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you recall what sections you didn't
`read?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you read the claims?
` A. Oh, yes.
` Q. If we turn to Claim 1, you read Claim
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`1; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you understand Claim 1?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you used any trading software
`that embodies Claim 1?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In your opinion.
` A. No.
` Q. You haven't used any trading software
`of competitors -- let me rephrase that.
` Have you used any trading software
`of competitors of Trading Technologies?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: As it relates to
`commodity trading, no.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And what about in any other regard?
` A. I have stock holdings, and my broker
`provides me with online software which I use.
` Q. What type of online software?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 11
` A. Mostly it's I want to buy some of this
`and sell some of that.
` Q. Does any of that software relate to
`the subject matter of the '055 Patent?
` A. It does not.
` Q. Have you ever designed a graphical
`user interface for trading commodities?
` A. No.
` Q. And would it be all right if I used
`the expression "GUI" for graphical user interface?
` A. That will be fine.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in
`GUI design for trading?
` A. In GUI design for trading?
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. I would consider myself an expert in
`GUI design. I have not actually designed any
`trading software.
` Q. Actually, if we turn to the '055
`Patent, on the first page you'll see that towards
`the top left-hand side two inventors are listed.
` 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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Harris Brumfield and Jens-Uwe
`Schluetter -- I don't know if I'm pronouncing that
`correctly.
` Have you ever spoken to these two
`individuals?
` A. No.
` Q. Were you interested in talking to
`these two individuals?
` A. No. Well, other than I'm interested
`in talking to a lot of people, but not in
`particular, no.
` Q. But for purposes of preparing your
`declaration, you didn't think it was necessary to
`speak to either Mr. Brumfield or Mr. Schluetter?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you spoken to any other experts
`retained by TT in regard to the '055 Patent?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you spoken to any commodity
`traders prior to rendering your, prior to signing
`your declaration?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
` MR. SOKOHL: Let me rephrase that
`question.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Have you spoken to any commodity
`traders regarding the '055 Patent prior to
`rendering your opinion?
` A. I appreciate that clarification
`because yes, I happen to know a commodity trader
`from several years ago. But no, not related to
`this patent.
` Q. Thank you.
` Have you spoken to anyone other
`than counsel about your declaration relative to
`the '055 Patent?
` A. No.
` Q. Let's turn to Paragraph 14.
` A. Of?
` Q. Of your declaration.
` Do you see in Paragraph 14 you give
`a dictionary definition of "technology" from
`Merriam-Webster?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that definition is, quote, "the
`practical application of knowledge, especially in
`a particular area."
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that the definition you applied in
`determining whether or not the '055 claimed
`technology?
` A. Rephrase that again.
` Q. Sure. Is it your opinion -- I'll set
`some foundation.
` Is it your opinion that the claims
`of the '055 Patent claim technology?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is the definition provided in
`Paragraph 14 the definition you used to make that
`determination?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you apply any other
`definitions other than what's in Paragraph 14 to
`determine whether or not the '055 Patent claimed
`technology?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. No.
` Q. And is it your opinion that so long as
`you use knowledge to implement something it is
`technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: The definition is not
`knowledge. The definition is the practical
`application of knowledge in a particular area,
`which is a bit narrower than what you said.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So is it your opinion that so long as
`you use the practical application of knowledge to
`implement something, it is technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: In a particular area,
`yes, according to this definition.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. As I recall, you are not a patent
`attorney; correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And you don't consider yourself an
`expert in patent law; correct?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. That is correct.
` Q. I think we asked in the last
`deposition, but I'll ask again: Do you know what
`a covered business patent is?
` A. I did read prior to the declaration
`some definitions of what a covered business method
`was for which I repeatedly asked counsel for
`clarification on. So I have an understanding but
`not a deep one.
` Q. And have you studied any decisions
`from the courts regarding covered business
`patents?
` A. I believe in some of the materials
`that I reviewed they quoted from decisions, but I
`did not read the original decisions.
` Q. And do you recall the materials that
`you reviewed prior to signing your declaration in
`regard to covered business patents?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: They were materials that
`were referenced either in the petition or in I
`guess it's called the response, I don't know. So
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 17
`I read one or two of those references. And then I
`just looked up, what is it, covered business
`method, I looked that up on Wikipedia, the font of
`all truth.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. For simplicity going forward, if I use
`the acronym "CBM" for covered business patent,
`would that be okay?
` A. Covered business method?
` Q. Covered business patent method.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Oh, I'm sorry. You're absolutely
`right. Thank you for that correction. I read it
`wrong.
` If I use "CBM" to mean covered
`business method, is that acceptable?
` A. That will be fine.
` Q. And interestingly my earlier questions
`may have actually said "patent" for some reason,
`but I was referring to covered business methods.
` A. I understood that.
` Q. Thank you.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 18
` Have you read the response prepared
`by Trading Technologies in this proceeding?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe so.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And did you read that after you signed
`your declaration or before?
` A. Before.
` Q. Have you read it after?
` A. No. I'm still uncertain if that was
`actually one of the things that I read but I think
`so, to the best of my recollection.
` MS. KURCZ: I'll just caution the
`witness to the extent you reviewed stuff but you
`didn't rely on it in forming your opinions, that
`that is work product.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Did you rely on the response that you
`may have reviewed in forming your opinions?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: So if I understand the
`question, you're asking me did I rely upon that
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 19
`response document which I'm not sure I read but
`may have read in forming the opinions expressed in
`this declaration?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. That is correct.
` A. No.
` Q. Do you recall if you agreed with the
`statements in the response that you may recall
`reading?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, objection,
`form.
` THE WITNESS: I can't remember with
`enough clarity to tell you what actually came from
`the response.
` MR. SOKOHL: Fair enough.
` THE WITNESS: I read a number of
`pieces of background reading to try to understand
`what this was about.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Other than the definition provided in
`Paragraph 14 of your declaration, did you ask
`anyone whether there were any other definitions
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 20
`that might be appropriate in determining whether a
`patent was a CBM?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form. And also
`to the extent that this would cause you to reveal
`work product information if it's something you
`didn't rely on in forming your opinion, I would
`instruct you not to answer on that basis.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. It's a "Yes" or "No" question. I'll
`be happy to ask it again if you don't remember it.
` A. Yes. Please do.
` Q. Other than the definition provided in
`Paragraph 14 of your declaration, did you ask
`anyone else whether there were other definitions
`that should be applied in determining whether a
`patent was a CBM patent?
` A. So I --
` MS. KURCZ: That's a "Yes" or "No"
`answer to the extent, you know, just to not answer
`beyond a "Yes" or "No" response. Don't disclose
`work product.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. If we're staying
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 21
`with "Yes" or "No," you're going to have to ask me
`again. Sorry.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Other than the definition provided in
`Paragraph 14 of your declaration, did you ask
`anyone else whether there were other definitions
`that should be applied in determining whether a
`patent was a CBM patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And who did you ask?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. This is all
`work product. I instruct the witness not to
`answer.
` MR. SOKOHL: That is not work product.
`I need to know what he relied on.
` MS. KURCZ: You didn't establish that
`he relied on anything.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Did you rely on any other definitions
`in forming your opinions?
` A. No.
` Q. Are you going to follow counsel's
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`instructions not to provide any further
`clarification on that answer?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Have you heard the term "GUI tool"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what is a GUI tool? What is your
`understanding of a GUI tool?
` A. A GUI tool is a piece of software in
`combination with a computer that provides a
`graphical presentation on a computer screen and
`then allows a user, a human being, to interact
`with that software using various input devices to
`accomplish some goal valuable to the user.
` Q. Going back to your declaration.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Who drafted this declaration?
` A. I did.
` Q. And did you draft the entire
`declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many hours did you spend drafting
`it?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Five, 10, somewhere in there.
` Q. Did portions of your declaration --
`were sections of this declaration taken from other
`sources?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What other sources?
` A. There are several quotes from patents.
`There are quotes from my own books. There are
`quotes I believe from the papers on the keystroke
`level model. I think that's in this declaration.
` Q. What is your billing rate?
` A. 500 an hour.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in preparing
`this declaration?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I had discussions with
`counsel.
` MS. KURCZ: Just caution the witness
`to the extent that, to be cautious and not to
`reveal work product with counsel.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Anyone else other than counsel?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. No.
` Q. I asked you a similar question earlier
`but I'm going to try maybe a slightly different
`question. What documents did you review in
`preparing this declaration?
` A. The patent, previous patents on which
`we've already had deposition, some portions of the
`petition, possibly some portions of the response,
`and there was a referenced paper somewhere in the
`materials of somebody who described commodity
`trading technology, what it was like, what it did.
` Q. Do you recall what paper that was?
` A. No. If we looked in the -- let's see
`if I can think of where I would find that
`reference. It's not coming to mind because I
`don't actually reference it in my declaration, but
`it was in the package of materials that were sent
`to me relative to the case.
` Q. When you say package of materials that
`were sent to you, what was in that package of
`materials?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Instruct the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 25
`witness not to reveal details to the extent you
`did not rely on certain materials in forming your
`opinions.
` THE WITNESS: So the answer is other
`than the relevant patents, I couldn't describe the
`list.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Are there other documents that you
`were provided that are not referenced in your
`declaration?
` MS. KURCZ: Same instruction to the
`witness.
` THE WITNESS: So the instruction is?
` MS. KURCZ: The instruction is to the
`extent you did not rely on materials in forming
`your opinions, that that is work product and I
`instruct you not to answer.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. So there are no
`materials in that list that I used in establishing
`the opinion you see in my declaration.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But you reviewed other materials
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 26
`beyond what's listed in your declaration; correct?
` MS. KURCZ: That's a "Yes" or "No"
`answer.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And even though you reviewed them with
`instruction from counsel, you didn't rely on them?
` A. No.
` Q. Did the reference you mentioned
`regarding trading relate to electronic trading?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: It related specifically
`to the kinds of trading discussed in these
`patents.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And what type of trading is discussed
`in these patents?
` A. Commodity trading.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Digital commodity
`trading.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let's go to Paragraph 27 of your
`declaration.
` A. Yes.
` Q. In the second sentence you say "We
`have shown that improvements to interfaces have
`long been the subject of patentable technologies
`and provides specific benefits."
` A. Yes, it says that.
` Q. Are you familiar with the Supreme
`Court decision in Alice vs. CLS Bank?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Not by that name, no.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Has anyone told you about the Alice
`vs. CLS Bank decision?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form. Caution
`the witness to the extent that --
` THE WITNESS: I have heard the name.
`I couldn't tell you right now what it was.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So in forming your opinions that are
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 28
`in your declaration, you did not consider -- did
`you consider Alice vs. CLS Bank?
` A. No.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And so you wouldn't know whether or
`not inventions that were patentable 20 years ago
`are still patentable today based on that decision;
`correct?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I would not.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Prior to signing the declaration,
`Exhibit 2174, did you consider who a person of
`ordinary skill in the art of the '055 Patent was?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Do you have an opinion today as to who
`a person of ordinary skill in the art of the '055
`Patent is?
` A. I do not.
` Q. So you don't have -- would you have an
`opinion as to whether you are a person of ordinary
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`skill in the art?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: That would require going
`back and reviewing the actual time period. I
`lived through that time period, but I lived
`through many time periods. So I couldn't give you
`a clear definition at this point, no.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Did you study the prior -- let me back
`up.
` Have you heard the phrase "prior
`art" before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you know what that means?
` A. Roughly.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And what does it mean to you?
` A. It means something that was published,
`produced, generated, prior to the filing of a
`patent that would make the patent invalid
`generally but not necessarily.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 30
` Q. And did you study the prior art of the
`'055 Patent?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Do you have any understanding of what
`the prior art is of the '055 Patent?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I've worked a long time
`in graphical user interfaces. So I certainly have
`some understanding. But I have not looked what is
`and is not prior art at the time. I couldn't give
`you an opinion at this time.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So your opinions in your declaration
`do not rely on an analysis of prior art?
` A. That is correct.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Earlier I believe you mentioned
`that -- let me just ask it again. Did you review
`the petition filed by Tradestation and IBG in this
`proceeding?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: I believe so.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Just for completeness, I'll ask it
`again. Did you review the petition filed by IBG,
`Interactive Brokers, and -- my apologies.
`Actually, I was wrong earlier. This petition was
`not filed by Tradestation. So let me ask the
`question again.
` Did you review the petition filed
`by IBG and Interactive Brokers in this proceeding?
` A. I reviewed a petition, only one,
`involving the patents that we have in discussion
`which includes the '055. Did I review this
`particular petition, I couldn't tell you.
` Q. So you don't recall if you read the
`petition related to the '055 Patent?
` A. I couldn't tell you if this was the
`one. But I did not read all of it. I just wanted
`to understand.
` Q. Have you ever heard of the Tokyo Stock
`Exchange?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form, scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`10/6/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Are you familiar with any prior art
`from the Tokyo Stock Exchange?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: No.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In the package materials provided by
`counsel, was a document from the Tokyo Stock
`Exchange included?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. I instruct the
`witness not to answer what was included in a
`package of materials provided to you to the extent
`that you did not rely on such material.
` THE WITNESS: I did not rely on such
`materials.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In your declaration you mentioned two
`patents, one is U.S. Patent 1,692,601 and I see
`that referenced on Page 9 of your declaration, 9
`being the number in the center of the bottom of
`the page. In fact, just for clarity, I'm going to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence