throbber
7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 1
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
` TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES,
` INC.; TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
` and IBFX, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2015-00161 (Patent No. 6,766,304 B2)
` CBM2015-00172 (Patent No. 7,783,556 B1)
` CBM2015-00179 (Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
` CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411 B2)
` CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 6,772,132 B1)
`
` 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 9:07 a.m. on
` Thursday, July 28, 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 1046
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00032
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
` BY: CORY C. BELL, ESQ.
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2001
` 617.646.1600
` cory.bell@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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`DAN R. OLSEN, JR.
` Examination by Ms. Sokohl 4
` Examination by Ms. Kurcz 136
`
` EXHIBITS
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`Exhibit 2174 CBM2015-00181, 16
` U.S. Patent 7,676,411
`
`Exhibit 2174 CBM2015-00161, U.S. Patent 17
` 6,766,304 B2; CBM2015-00172,
` U.S. Patent 7,783,556 B1;
` CBM2015-00179, U.S. Patent
` 7,533,056 B2
`
`Exhibit 2174 CBM2015-00182, U.S. Patent 17
` 6,772,132 B2
`
`TS PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2 48
`
`IBG
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,676,411 B2 49
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,772,132 B1 49
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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, JR.,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Good morning.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Would you state your name for the
`record.
` A. Dan Reid Olsen, Jr.
` MS. KURCZ: Should we introduce
`ourselves for purposes of the record so we know
`who's present.
` MR. SOKOHL: Absolutely.
` MS. KURCZ: Good morning. Jennifer
`Kurcz on behalf of patent owner, Trading
`Technologies, and with me I have Cory Bell also on
`behalf of Trading Technologies.
` MR. SOKOHL: And on behalf of
`petitioners, IBG and Tradestation, Robert Sokohl
`from Sterne Kessler, and with me is Richard
`Bemben.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 5
`
`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. Once again, good morning.
` So, first of all, have you ever
`been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. We'll go through that in a second.
`I'd like to go through some ground rules. I'm
`sure you have heard it before but I'll say it just
`for your convenience.
` First of all, we'll try to take a
`break every hour. But if you want to take a break
`at any time let me know and we'll take one.
` A. Okay.
` Q. All I ask is that you answer the
`question that's pending; otherwise, we're free to
`take a break whenever you like.
` Are you on any medications today?
` A. No.
` Q. Any reason you can't provide truthful
`evidence today?
` A. No.
` Q. You understand you have to give verbal
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 6
`responses, that the court reporter can't take down
`nods and things of that nature, so you have to say
`"yes" or "no" or provide an answer.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Excellent. I'm going to try
`not to speak over you. I'd appreciate it if you'd
`try not to speak over me. Really it's for the
`court reporter's convenience, not mine.
` I'd like you to let me know if you
`don't understand a question.
` A. Okay.
` Q. If you answer a question, I'm going to
`assume you understand it. Is that fine?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You understand you're under oath
`today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How did you prepare for today's
`deposition?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Just to the
`extent -- I'd caution the witness to the extent it
`reveals attorney-client privilege or work product,
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
`not to disclose those types of discussions.
` THE WITNESS: So reviewed my reports
`and the patents with counsel.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Who did you meet with in preparing for
`this?
` A. Jen and Cory.
` Q. When did you meet?
` A. Yesterday.
` Q. How long did you meet for?
` A. We also met the day before. So the
`day before probably four hours, yesterday six.
` Q. And did you review any other documents
`other than what's the three petitions, I think
`there's three declarations, and the patents you
`mentioned?
` A. In preparation or in preparation of
`the report?
` Q. In preparation for your deposition.
` A. Just what we have here.
` Q. Okay. You mentioned earlier that you
`had been deposed before.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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. Yes.
` Q. How many times have you been deposed?
` A. Three or four.
` Q. And what was the context of those
`three or four depositions?
` A. The first would be with the
`Communications Decency Act. The second would be
`with Child Online Protection Act. I was deposed
`relative to a matter with HTC. I'm trying to
`remember if I was deposed with Samsung or not. I
`can't remember for sure.
` Q. Were any of those related to patents?
` A. Yes. HTC and Samsung would have been
`patents.
` Q. And what were you testifying in regard
`to in the HTC matter?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Just caution
`the witness not to disclose third-party
`confidential information.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Just generally.
` A. Relative to the design of user
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 9
`interface technology. It was a case with Apple.
` Q. And who did you represent?
` A. HTC.
` Q. And the Samsung case, what was that
`generally about?
` A. Same thing.
` Q. And who did you represent in the
`Samsung case?
` A. Samsung.
` Q. Do you recall who that was against?
` A. Apple.
` Q. Are you a patent attorney?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in
`patent law?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you know what a covered business
`method is?
` A. In preparing my report, I read a web
`page and I read sections of the petition on the
`'304 I believe. That's the extent of my
`knowledge.
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
` Q. If I refer to a covered business
`method as a CBM, would you understand what I'm
`talking about?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I think you've answered this question,
`but have you studied any case law surrounding
`CBMs?
` A. Case law?
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. No, not really, other than a web page
`and, as I mentioned, the petition.
` Q. And what web page was that?
` A. I couldn't tell you. Wikipedia. I
`don't know. I just typed in "common business
`method" and read what I found.
` Q. Do you remember what you read?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection to the extent
`that -- I'd just caution the witness to the extent
`you didn't rely on any information in forming your
`opinion, I'd caution the witness on that aspect.
` THE WITNESS: In detail of what I
`read, I couldn't tell you.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 11
`
`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. Do you remember generally?
` A. The gist of what I got was that it was
`a process for reviewing for whether patents could
`be challenged. Mostly I had never heard of it, so
`I was looking for where on earth are we on this
`planet.
` Q. Have you ever heard the term "GUI
`tool"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you understand by "GUI" I mean
`graphical interface?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And if I use that abbreviation, that
`will be acceptable.
` A. That will be fine.
` Q. So my question is have you heard the
`term "GUI tool"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what's a GUI tool?
` A. Well, actually, it could mean many
`things, but it's a tool that uses a graphical user
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 12
`
`interface.
` Q. What do you mean by a tool that uses a
`graphical user interface?
` A. I'm not sure I understand your
`question.
` Q. When I asked you what a GUI tool was,
`you said it's a tool that, you said it's a tool
`that uses a graphical user interface, and I'm
`trying to understand what you mean by that.
` What's the tool part of that
`sentence?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: A tool would be a
`combination of device, technique, software, that
`accomplishes some purpose, that uses a graphical
`user interface.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So a GUI tool is something that uses a
`graphical user interface?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: 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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And so the GUI is distinct from the
`tool?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I would not say so, no.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And why not?
` A. It would depend on the context that
`we're talking about.
` Q. And what context would that be?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Depends if we're talking
`at the software left, at the user level. It
`really depends on the context, who are we talking
`about and what's the task we're talking about.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Have you ever used Trading
`Technologies products?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: Never.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Are you familiar with the "MD Trader"
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
`product?
` MS. KURCZ: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: MD?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. MD Trader, have you ever heard that
`product?
` A. It might have been mentioned in the
`petitions that I read. I couldn't remember for
`sure.
` Q. But you've never used the MD Trader
`product?
` A. Never.
` Q. If you've never used the MD Trader, I
`assume you've never traded stock using the MD
`Trader?
` A. Never.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Have you ever designed a GUI for
`trading commodities?
` A. No.
` Q. Are you familiar with how CPUs work?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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. CPUs?
` Q. Central processing units.
` A. Roughly.
` Q. How about computer networks?
` A. I have --
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: I have some knowledge of
`computer networks, yes.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How about computer displays?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: Goes to his background,
`Counsel.
` THE WITNESS: Yes. I have knowledge
`of computer displays.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How about monitors?
` A. Yes. I have knowledge of monitors.
` Q. How about keyboards?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope,
`foundation.
` THE WITNESS: Well, just to clarify, I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 16
`have knowledge of how they're used and how they
`relate to the software. I have almost no
`knowledge of actually how they're built.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Are you familiar with how computer
`mice work?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Would that be the same qualification
`that you know how to use but you don't know how
`they're built?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I do know how to program
`one. I couldn't build one.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I am going to hand you what's been
`marked as Trading Tech Exhibit 2174 in
`CBM2015-00181. And this relates to U.S. Patent
`Number 7,676,1411. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is that your signature on Page 22?
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 17
`
`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. We'll come back to that document.
` I am now going to hand you what's
`been marked as Trading Tech Exhibit 2174 in
`CBM2015-00179. This also deals with
`CBM2015-00161, and CBM2015-00172. This deals with
`three patents, U.S. Patent Number 7,533,056 and
`U.S. Patent Number 7,783,556 and U.S. Patent
`Number 6,766,304. (Documents tendered to the
`witness.)
` Do you recognize that document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is that your signature on Page 22?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And I believe there's one more. The
`third document I'm going to hand you is marked
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2174, and this is for
`CBM2015-00182 and this relates to U.S. Patent
`Number 6,772,132. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` Do you recognize that document?
` A. Yes.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 18
` Q. And is that your signature on Page 21?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. I'm going to do my very best to
`ask specific questions about specific documents.
`A lot of my questions are really generic to all
`three. If I don't specify a specific patent, it's
`going to be generic to all three.
` Do you understand? Is that
`acceptable to you?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Let's start with the second
`document I gave you, which is the one that's, it's
`for three patents and it's for CBM2015-00161.
`Okay.
` A. If I may be clear, we're looking at
`the '304?
` Q. We are, that's correct.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Now, I'd like you to turn to Page 16.
`And you see there's a Roman numeral IX?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And it says the '304 Patent analysis?
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 19
`
`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 analysis spans the pages
`through Page 20; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And the analysis for U.S. Patent
`Number 6,766,304; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. I'd like you to look at the front
`cover of this declaration. You'll notice there's
`two other patents listed, the 7,783,556 and the
`7,533,056, and I note there's no analysis for
`either of those patents.
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And so did you review those two
`patents?
` A. I did not.
` Q. And so you have no opinion as to those
`two patents?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. So you have no opinion about Patent
`Number 7,783,556?
` A. No.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. And you have no opinion about U.S.
`Patent Number 7,533,056?
` A. No.
` Q. So this declaration does not apply to
`those two patents?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I did not review those.
`I only reviewed the '304 for this declaration.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. Thank you. Let's turn to
`Paragraph 14 in that document.
` In Paragraph 14 you provide a
`dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster for
`"technology"; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And that definition is, quote, "the
`practical application of knowledge, especially in
`a particular area."
` A. Correct.
` Q. Is that the definition you applied in
`opining on whether or not the claims of the '304
`Patent are technology?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 21
`
`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. Did you apply any other definitions?
` A. No.
` Q. Who suggested that definition?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I did.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And based on that definition, it is
`your opinion that the claims of the '304 Patent
`are directed to technology?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I believe the same definition appears
`in the other two petitions, other two
`declarations, and I believe it's also Paragraph 14
`in each. Let me confirm that. Yes. In both the
`'411 declaration and the '132 declaration it's
`Paragraph 14. You can confirm that.
` A. That is correct.
` Q. And did you apply that definition in
`determining whether the claims of the '411 Patent
`were technology?
` A. Yes.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 22
` Q. And did you apply that definition in
`determining that the claims of the '132 patent
`were technology?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In regard to the '411 Patent, did you
`apply any other definitions other than what's in
`Paragraph 14?
` A. Definitions of technology?
` Q. Yes.
` A. No.
` Q. In regard to the '132 patent, did you
`apply any other definitions other than what's in
`Paragraph 14 in regard to technology?
` A. No.
` Q. Before we dive into these, do you
`have, as you sit here today, are there any
`corrections that you'd like to make to these
`declarations, any typos or anything that you
`noticed in reviewing that you'd like to correct
`before we start?
` A. There is one. I can't be sure if I
`remember where it is. There it is right there.
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
`Paragraph 18 on the '304. It says the '301
`patent. That should say 304.
` Q. Oh, look at that. I missed that
`myself. Great.
` Anything else?
` A. Not that I've noticed, no.
` Q. Very good.
` Do you have a CV?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any reason that you did not
`provide a CV as part of your declarations?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is it possible to get a copy of your
`CV?
` A. It's online.
` Q. I understand that you have received
`your doctorate from UPenn?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Where did you go to undergrad?
` A. Brigham Young University.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
` Q. BYU. And you graduated with what
`degree from BYU?
` A. Bachelor's in computer science.
` Q. After BYU what did you do next as far
`as education is concerned?
` A. I completed a Master's of computer
`science at BYU.
` Q. And then you went on to UPenn?
` A. University of Pennsylvania.
` Q. What year did you graduate from UPenn?
` A. '81.
` Q. Your Ph.D., what was your thesis?
` A. My thesis, it was on a language for
`generating user interface software. I can't
`remember the title today.
` Q. That's fine.
` Let me ask this generally because
`it might be the easier way to get to the answer.
`I've looked at your qualifications in your
`declaration, what's in Paragraph 1, and it appears
`you have worked at a number of universities.
` A. Uh-huh.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Have you ever worked in industry?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Where?
` A. Burroughs Corporation.
` Q. When was that?
` A. Let's see, that would have been
`between '98, no, not '98, '78 and '80 I believe.
` Q. '80?
` A. 1980, yes.
` Q. And what did you do for the Burroughs
`Corporation?
` A. I wrote software.
` Q. What kind of software?
` A. I wrote the compiler for FORTRAN.
` Q. Did you write any other type of
`software for Burroughs?
` A. I wrote a piece of diagnostic software
`for our new array processor called Rhoda, if you
`actually care. It died centuries ago.
` Q. Anything else at Burroughs?
` A. I wrote some scheduling software for
`them.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Anything else?
` A. I did direct the operating systems
`group for about six months.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. No, probably not at this level.
` Q. Before you retired from -- no. That's
`not a fair question. Scratch that. I remembered
`something else and I was wrong. So let me start
`over.
` Have you worked at any other, in
`industry, other than Burroughs Corporation?
` A. I did work for BYU as a programmer.
`So that's sort of halfway.
` Q. And what type of programming did you
`do for BYU?
` A. Student records.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. Scholarships.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you write any software for -- let
`me back up.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 27
` Other than Burroughs and BYU, have
`you written code for anyone else?
` A. Yes. I've done some consulting.
`Let's see if I can think back that far. I wrote
`software for a bank in Philadelphia whose name I
`can no longer remember.
` Q. Okay. What type of code did you
`write?
` A. It was for tracking, retail customer.
` Q. So other than you mentioned now
`Burroughs, BYU, and a bank to be named later, any
`other software you've written for anyone?
` A. Well, there is my current company.
` Q. And that's Sparxteq?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what did you do for them?
` A. I am the CEO, the chief programmer,
`the guy that does the accounting.
` Q. And what's the nature of that
`business?
` A. We're building software for education.
` Q. While you were at Burroughs, did 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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`write any code regarding user interfaces?
` A. Rhoda, the diagnostic software, was a
`user interface to the underlying machine.
` Q. What do you mean to the underlying
`machine?
` A. Well, it was actually one of the first
`machines that didn't have front panel switches.
`This is really old stuff. And my software would
`allow people who were trying to operate the
`machine to actually go in and set and interrogate
`various settings inside the machine.
` Q. So that user interface, it wasn't a
`graphical user interface?
` A. It was not.
` Q. So did you write any codes at
`Burroughs for graphical user interfaces?
` A. No.
` Q. While you were at BYU, did you write
`any code for graphical user interfaces?
` A. As part of the job?
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. No.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 29
` Q. In any other context did you write --
` A. As a student I wrote lots of graphical
`interfaces.
` Q. We'll come back to that. Then how
`about for the unnamed bank?
` A. The unnamed bank. There were user
`interfaces but they were not graphical.
` Q. How about for Sparxteq?
` A. They're all graphical.
` Q. Because that's educational software?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. And you're presenting some type of --
` A. Quizes.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. At BYU I think you mentioned maybe
`when you were a student you wrote code for GUIs?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What type of GUIs?
` A. Actually, I was building tools for how
`to build graphical user interfaces. So we built
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 30
`all kinds. I designed a system for automatically
`generating GUI code.
` Q. What do you mean by that,
`"automatically generating GUI code"?
` A. So we would accept a specification and
`then from that specification, which was in the
`form of programming language construct, we would
`generate the menus and various other parts of the
`graphical user interface.
` Q. None of the GUIs you have written in
`the past have dealt with trading software;
`correct?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Let's pick up the '304 declaration
`again. In Paragraphs 24 and 27, and I'll guide
`you to exactly where I am, I'll ask you the
`question and show you where it is. You actually
`use the term "we" in this paragraph, and I'm just
`wondering who the "we" was.
` So in Paragraph 24, we'll look at
`24 first to make it easier for you.
` A. 24.
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 31
` Q. The second sentence, you say "we also
`need to minimize the human effort to interact with
`the GUI."
` I'm just wondering what you meant
`by "we."
` A. That's just a -- in the kind of
`technical writing I do, you never use "I."
` Q. Okay.
` A. Everything is always "we," even if you
`were the only one.
` Q. Very good.
` And would that be the same for
`Paragraph 27, also the second sentence?
` A. That would be the same for everything
`I wrote.
` Q. Very good. Thank you.
` I think this is going to be an
`easier question if I ask it generally, but if not
`just let me know: How many hours did you spend
`preparing the three declarations, approximately?
` A. Approximately, I would say between 10
`and 20, if I was to guess. It could err either
`
`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
`
`

`

`7/28/2016
`
`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
`
`way.
` Q. Do you agree that you couldn't break
`it up individually into the three, so I asked
`collectively?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Or can you break it up?
` A. I probably could if I looked at my
`billing records, but I don't have them with me.
` Q

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