throbber
10/6/2016
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket