Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`——————————————————————————————
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and |
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,|
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2015-00161
` v. |
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES | Patent 6,766,304 B2
`INTERNATIONAL, INC. |
` Patent Owner. |
`——————————————————————————————
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and |
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,| Case CBM2015-00172
` Petitioner, |
` v. | Patent 7,783,556 B1
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES |
`INTERNATIONAL, INC. |
` Patent Owner. |
`——————————————————————————————
`IBG AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS |
`LLC. |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2016-00035
` v. |
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES | Patent 6,766,304
`INTERNATIONAL, INC. |
` Patent Owner. |
`——————————————————————————————
`IBG AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS |
`LLC. |
` Petitioner, | Case CBM2016-00040
` v. |
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES | Patent 7,783,556
`INTERNATIONAL, INC. |
` Patent Owner. |
`——————————————————————————————
` Monday, March 7, 2016
` 2:00 p.m. EST
`
` Teleconference before the Patent Trial and Appeals
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2001
`IBG v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00035
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`2
`
`Board, Judge Meredith C. Petravick presiding, the
`proceedings being recorded stenographically by Jonathan
`Wonnell, RMR, a Registered Professional Court Reporter
`(NCRA #835577) and Notary Public of the State of
`Minnesota, and transcribed under his direction.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S O F C O U N S E L
` (All participants appearing by phone)
`
`3
`
` On behalf of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, ESQ., SALLY C.
` MEDLEY, ESQ. and JEREMY M. PLENZLER,
` ESQ., Administrative Patent Judges
`
` On behalf of TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
` TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.:
` ADAM KESSEL, ESQ.
` Fish & Richardson P.C.
` One Marina Park Drive
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
` (617) 368-2180
` kessel@fr.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)
` On behalf of IBG AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC:
` MICHAEL T. ROSATO, ESQ.
` Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
` 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
` Seattle, Washington 98104
` (206) 883-2699
` mrosato@wsgr.com
` -- and --
` MATTHEW A. ARGENTI, ESQ.
` Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
` 650 Page Mill Road
` Palo Alto, California 94304
` (650) 493-6811
` margenti@wsgr.com
` -- and --
` ROBERT E. SOKOHL, ESQ.
` Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` (202) 371-2600
` rsokohl@skgf.com
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)
` On behalf of Trading Technologies
` International, Inc.:
` ERIKA HARMON ARNER, ESQ.
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` Two Freedom Square
` 11955 Freedom Drive
` Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
` (571) 203-2700
` erika.arner@finnegan.com
` -- and --
` JOSHUA L. GOLDBERG, ESQ.
` BRANDON C. RASH, ESQ.
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` 901 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 408-4000
` joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
` brandon.rash@finnegan.com
` -- and --
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`6
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)
` On behalf of Trading Technologies
` International, Inc. (cont'd):
` CORY C. BELL, ESQ.
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` Two Seaport Lane
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2001
` (617) 646-1600
` cory.bell@finnegan.com
`
`HENDERSON LEGAL SERVICES
` JONATHAN WONNELL, RMR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon. This is
`Judge Petravick. With me on the phone is Judge
`Medley and Judge Plenzler. We are here for
`CBM2015-00161, -172, CBM2016-00035 and 00040.
` Could I know who's on the line from the
`Patent Owner?
` MS. ARNER: Yes. Hi, Your Honor. This is
`Erika Arner. I'm lead counsel for the Patent Owner
`in all of those proceedings that you just mentioned.
`I'm joined by Joshua Goldberg, Brandon Rash and Cory
`Bell. We're all from Finnegan here for Patent Owner
`Trading Technologies. We also have a court reporter
`on the line.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you. May I know
`who's here from Petitioner IBG in the 35 and 40
`cases?
` MR. ROSATO: Yes. This is Mike Rosato for
`IBG. I should have Rob Sokohl and Matthew Argenti on
`the line with me?
` MR. ARGENTI: Correct.
` MR. SOKOHL: Right.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And for Petitioner
`TradeStation in the 161 and the 172 CBMs?
` MR. KESSEL: This is Adam Kessel. I've
`been admitted pro hoc into 161 and 172. I thought
`our lead counsel, John Phillips, was also on the
`line, but possibly not. We were expecting him.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Are you comfortable
`going forward without Mr. Phillips here?
` MR. KESSEL: We are, yes.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We have two items to
`discuss today, a proposed motion to stay and joinder
`of these cases. I'd like to hear about the proposed
`motion to stay first. I believe, Ms. Arner, you sent
`the e-mail so I will hear from you first.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`Trading Technologies would like to ask the Board to
`set a briefing schedule for a motion to stay the '304
`patent proceeding which is CBM -- I'll make sure I
`get the right one here -- 2015-00161 which has been
`instituted on 101 grounds only.
` The same motion that we would like to
`brief before the Board in that matter is based on the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`pending Federal Circuit appeal involving the same
`issue, patentability of the '304 claims under
`Section 101 in an appeal from a district court
`involving a codefendant of the Petitioner CQG.
` We'd like to ask that the Board set a
`briefing schedule -- and we have a proposed one which
`we can share with you if you'd like -- to brief how
`the Board might be able to stay the '304 patent
`proceeding because the Federal Circuit is in the
`process of deciding the only issue involved, 101,
`which is a legal issue.
` And the statute and the rules permit the
`Board power to determine the proper course of conduct
`including stays. Then Board has the power to adjust
`the time frames within its statutory boundaries. Of
`course the statute, the Section 326, gives the Board
`one year from the institution date, the original
`institution date of the '304 proceeding, to issue its
`final written decision.
` But we believe there is good cause here,
`if needed, for additional time. The six months that
`are provided in the statute should be more than
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`enough based on Federal Circuit's statistics. But
`also the joinder motion that is now before the Board
`gives the Board express statutory authority to adjust
`even those existing statutory deadlines, which, while
`we don't believe that will be necessary, the Board
`now has the flexibility expressly under the statute
`to adjust those time frames in Section 326 in the
`case of joinder.
` And so we'd like to set forth in our
`motion both the reasons for a stay but also how that
`would work under the appropriate statute and rules.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So when was the appeal
`taken for the related district court case? What
`stage is that at?
` MS. ARNER: The Federal Circuit appeal was
`docketed on February 26th. That is Federal Circuit
`Appeal Number 2016-1616. Briefing schedule under the
`Federal Circuit rules, the briefing is likely to
`complete in June of 2016, which would lead to an
`argument in the fall. And based on the Federal
`Circuit published statistics of the time from
`docketing to a decision, the Federal Circuit opinion
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`should be made before January of 2017, which is the
`current one year date in the '304.
` But, again, we believe that good cause
`exists if you were to stay the proceedings to go into
`the six-month extension because the issues are the
`same. And now with the joinder motion, even beyond
`that six-month extension is available to the Board by
`the express terms of Section 326(a)(11).
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. Counsel for
`Petitioner in the 161 case?
` MR. KESSEL: Yes. This is Adam Kessel.
`And I did hear from my colleague, John Phillips, who
`had an emergency and apologizes for his absence.
` We don't see a stay as proper here at all.
`The pending case has different parties, was decided
`under a different standard of proof on a different
`record. And so it's not the same issue and it would
`not be controlling here. And it seems to go against
`the statutory mandate to have these proceedings
`proceed expeditiously. If anything there's cause to
`accelerate this proceeding so that it could catch up
`with the other one at the Federal Circuit.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right.
` MR. KESSEL: And I'd be happy to elaborate
`on the differences if Your Honor would like to hear
`that.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: No. Not right now. Let
`me query my panel member.
` (Silence on the line, approximately 30
`seconds.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I don't think we need
`any more information on this issue. We're going to
`take it under advisement for right now and move on to
`the joinder issue.
` MS. ARNER: Can we file a motion or a
`paper for you to consider or are you saying --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: We are going to consider
`whether we will authorize you to file a motion.
` MS. ARNER: Okay. Thank you for the
`clarification.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: The joinder of the 161
`and 172 case, the petition seems to be substantially
`the same between the 30 and 40 case and the 161 and
`172 case respectively. Petitioner for IBG, can you
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`confirm that?
` MR. ROSATO: We can confirm that, Your
`Honor. There are no substantive differences.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. Ms. Arner,
`do you oppose the joinder?
` MS. ARNER: So the Patent Owner -- sorry.
`The Patent Owner does not oppose the joinder if the
`second petitions are instituted, but the Patent Owner
`is still deciding whether to file its statutorily
`provided preliminary responses to the new petitions.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And is that -- did you
`want to address some sort of issue such as real party
`of interest?
` MS. ARNER: Well, there are things to
`address in our preliminary responses. There is new
`case law on the issue of covered business method
`reviews. There are changed circumstances in that now
`there is a Federal Circuit appeal pending on the only
`issue that is presented in the petition.
` So there are arguments that the Patent
`Owner is considering whether to make in a preliminary
`response to these new petitions. But if after the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Board considers whether it institutes the second
`petitions, if they are instituted the Patent Owner
`doesn't oppose joinder, provided that if the group of
`petitioners is given any extra pages or extra time
`for things like an oral hearing, that the Patent
`Owner would expect to get an equivalent response or
`number of pages or time at the oral hearing.
` But I think that's what the motion
`intends. It doesn't go into every detail. But I
`think that's what the motion contemplates. And if
`that's the case, then the Patent Owner would not
`oppose joinder if their second petitions are
`instituted.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: If the second petitioner
`was not allowed to file separate papers or given any
`extra pages or anything like that, would you waive
`your preliminary response if we gave you a few extra
`pages for the Patent Owner's response in the first
`set of cases?
` MS. ARNER: I just want to make sure I'm
`understanding the question. So if -- you're asking
`whether the Patent Owner would waive its preliminary
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`response if it were given additional pages in its
`Patent Owner response after --
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: In the 161 case and the
`172 case.
` MS. ARNER: I'm not authorized to waive
`the Patent Owner preliminary response on this call
`because of these additional arguments that we would
`want to put in in a preliminary response of course
`going to the argument that the second petitioners
`shouldn't be instituted in the first place.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. The Panel is
`considering shortening the time for the preliminary
`response filing in the 35 and the 40 case in order to
`bring the schedules -- the two cases together if we
`should decide to join -- institute and join.
` MS. ARNER: So the Patent Owners have
`concerns about that. The current preliminary
`response would be due May 29th. And rather than
`escalating or accelerating to have more proceedings
`and more parties on the same schedule leading to what
`is currently the same argument date, from the Patent
`Owner's perspective this joinder motion gives the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Board the chance to give some additional time, both
`to the parties and to the Board, again, with the
`joinder provisions allowing the Board the flexibility
`to adjust the time frames.
` And here the Patent Owner is already, you
`know, facing multiple proceedings that are being
`instituted and rushed onto the same schedule, which
`is, you know, ever-shortening, ever-compressing the
`schedules for each subsequent proceeding. And so if
`anything it seems that if these are joined for at
`least these two proceedings, these two patents, the
`'304 patent and the '556 patent, it would be an
`opportunity for the Board to give additional time for
`adding more lead counsel and additional people
`involved on each of the depositions and argument and
`all of that.
` So the statute would allow the Board --
`rather than accelerating and putting more pressure on
`the Patent Owner, it would allow for some additional
`time in those two preceding.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Well, if we were to join
`the proceedings, the second petitioner would have to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`take a backseat role. They would not be allowed to
`file any papers. The first petitioner would have to
`continue on and the second petitioner would take a
`backseat role. So it would simplify things as
`opposed to make them more complicated, as you're
`suggesting. But I understand your concerns and we
`will take that under consideration.
` Could I hear from the Petitioner in the
`35/40 case?
` MR. ROSATO: This is Mike Rosato for IBG,
`Your Honor. Thank you. We would ask that Patent
`Owner do waive their preliminary response. There are
`no new issues presented in the joinder petitions.
`Those are substantially identical. And to the
`corresponding 172 and 161 petitions, the joinder
`motions also very clearly identify a backseat role
`that Petitioner IBG would take. So there really is
`no added burden here.
` If the preliminary responses are not
`waived, we would ask the Board to, as Your Honor has
`suggested, shorten the statutory period for the
`preliminary response and there is certainly precedent
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`for doing that.
` As far as extending the schedule, I would
`further note that staying or trying to extend out the
`161 case separate from the 172 would actually take
`away from the efficiency concern that seems to be at
`play in lining those two cases up on corresponding
`schedules. So it seems to be counterintuitive to
`bifurcate those and separate those out.
` As far as staying schedules and extending
`them out, I haven't heard any specific reason why
`that should be done. There is explanation why it
`could be done, but I'm not hearing any reason why it
`should be. And it certainly seems that the
`efficiencies would dictate keeping things moving
`along.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So you would not have
`a -- it would not present an issue for you if we were
`to order you to take a sort of a full backseat role?
`You couldn't file any separate papers unless first
`authorized to and only on issues that affect you
`only. Therefore if you had any disagreements with
`the TradeStation counsel, you wouldn't necessarily be
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`able to file a separate paper at all. It would be up
`to you and TradeStation to work that out.
` MR. ROSATO: We don't have a problem with
`that, Your Honor. Whether ordered by the Board or
`not, we would take that approach where we would not
`seek to add complexity to the case.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Mr. Kessel, could you
`confirm that that is okay with you?
` MR. KESSEL: Yes. We absolutely agree.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. I think the
`Panel has enough information on this issue. We
`aren't going to make any decision on the phone. We
`are going to take this under advisement and issue an
`order in due course.
` Is there anything else? From Patent
`Owner?
` MS. ARNER: Yeah. I would just like to
`clarify -- sorry. For Patent Owner I would like to
`clarify, you mentioned the backseat role and counsel
`has represented that's what they meant. But in the
`motion I'll just point out they did suggest that they
`would get additional pages. They suggested seven in
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`some circumstances.
` So I would ask if the Board was thinking
`about the logistics of joinder, think about that if
`it's different from what the Board was contemplating.
`And also for the oral argument, in particular if
`there is -- we are aware of cases where several cases
`have been argued on the same day and each petitioner
`was given a half an hour or some amount of time and
`the patent owner was given a total of half an hour
`while each party on the petitioner's side had half an
`hour. And obviously that's very unfair to the Patent
`Owner.
` And so we hope, you know, when you're
`talking about a backseat role that means that the
`time at the oral hearing would also be equivalent --
`for all of the petitioners, equivalent to whatever
`the patent owner gets to respond.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. We will
`consider the oral argument timing issues when the
`oral argument comes up before us. Petitioner for the
`161 and 172 case, TradeStation, do you have
`anything --
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`
`21
`
` MR. KESSEL: I have nothing to add. No.
`Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And for the 35/40 case?
`That was Mr. Kessel?
` MR. KESSEL: That was Mr. Kessel.
` JUDGE PETROVICK: I'm sorry.
` MR. KESSEL: That's me for TradeStation.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right. Thank you.
`And Mr. Rosato?
` MR. ROSATO: We have nothing further to
`add. Thank you.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: This call is adjourned.
` MR. KESSEL: Thank you.
` MR. ROSATO: Thank you.
` (Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m. the
`teleconference was adjourned.)
` * * * * *
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 28
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
`
`I, Jonathan Wonnell, a Registered
`Professional Court Reporter (NCRA #835577) and Notary
`Public of the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin,
`do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a
`true and accurate record of these proceedings;
`that
`said proceedings were taken in Stenotype note by me
`on the 7th day of March, 2016, commencing at 2:00
`p.m. EST and ending at 2:20 p.m. EST.
`
`I further certify that present on behalf
`of Party IBG and Interactive Brokers LLC was Michael
`T. Rosato, Esq., and Matthew A. Argenti, Esq., of
`Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, and Robert E.
`Sokohl, Esq., of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox; on
`behalf of Party Trade Technologies International,
`Inc. were Erika Harmon Arner, Esq., Joshua L.
`Goldberg, Esq., Brandon C. Rash, Esq., and Cory C.
`Bell, Esq., of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP; and on behalf of Party Tradestation
`Group,
`Inc. and Tradestation Securities,
`Inc. was
`Adam Kessel of Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`
`I further certify that I am not related
`to, nor associated with any of the parties or their
`attorneys, nor do I have any disqualifying interest,
`personal or financial,
`in the actions within.
`
`Dated this 7th day of March, 2016,
`Hennepin County, Minnesota.
`
`in
`
`
`
`Minnesota
`My Comm. Expires
`Jan31.2017 _,
`
`
`
`
` Not
`
`aunty, Minnesota
`ublic, Hennepin
`mmission expires January 31, 2017
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 28
`
`Page 22 of 28
`
`

`
`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`
`Conference CallConference Call
`
`March 7, 2016March 7, 2016
`1
`
`A
`able 9:8 19:1
`absence 11:13
`absolutely
`19:9
`accelerate
`11:21
`accelerating
`15:19 16:18
`accurate 22:4
`actions 22:14
`Adam 3:11 8:3
`11:11 22:12
`add 19:6 21:1
`21:11
`added 17:18
`adding 16:14
`additional
`9:21 15:1,7
`16:1,13,14
`16:19 19:22
`address 13:12
`13:15
`adjourned
`21:12,16
`adjust 9:14
`10:3,7 16:4
`Administrati...
`3:7
`admitted 8:4
`advisement
`12:11 19:13
`affect 18:20
`afternoon 7:2
`agree 19:9
`allow 16:17,19
`allowed 14:15
`17:1
`allowing 16:3
`Alto 4:13
`amount 20:8
`apologizes
`11:13
`appeal 1:1 3:4
`
`9:1,3 10:12
`10:15,17
`13:18
`Appeals 1:22
`appearing 3:2
`approach 19:5
`appropriate
`10:11
`approximately
`12:7
`Argenti 4:10
`7:19,21 22:7
`argued 20:7
`argument
`10:20 15:9
`15:21 16:15
`20:5,19,20
`arguments
`13:20 15:7
`Arner 5:4 7:8,9
`8:13,15
`10:15 12:13
`12:17 13:4,6
`13:14 14:20
`15:5,16
`19:17 22:9
`asking 14:21
`associated
`22:13
`attorneys
`22:14
`authority 10:3
`authorize
`12:16
`authorized
`15:5 18:20
`available 11:7
`Avenue 4:5,19
`5:17
`aware 20:6
`B
`
`B1 1:8
`B2 1:5
`
`backseat 17:1
`17:4,16
`18:18 19:19
`20:14
`based 8:22
`10:1,20
`behalf 3:4,9
`4:2 5:2 6:2
`22:6,9,11
`believe 8:13
`9:20 10:5
`11:3
`Bell 6:4 7:12
`22:10
`beyond 11:6
`bifurcate 18:8
`Board 1:1 2:1
`3:4 8:16,22
`9:5,8,13,14
`9:16 10:2,3,5
`11:7 14:1
`16:1,2,3,13
`16:17 17:20
`19:4 20:2,4
`Boston 3:14
`6:8
`boundaries
`9:15
`Brandon 5:14
`7:11 22:10
`brandon.ras...
`5:21
`brief 8:22 9:7
`briefing 8:17
`9:6 10:17,18
`bring 15:14
`Brokers 1:11
`1:15 4:2 22:7
`burden 17:18
`business
`13:16
`C
`C 2:1 3:1,1,5,5
`
`4:1 5:1,14
`6:1,4 7:1
`22:10,10
`California 4:13
`call 15:6 21:12
`case 1:4,7,12
`1:16 10:8,13
`11:10,15
`12:20,21,22
`13:16 14:11
`15:3,4,13
`17:9 18:4
`19:6 20:21
`21:3
`cases 7:17
`8:12 14:19
`15:14 18:6
`20:6,6
`catch 11:21
`cause 9:20
`11:3,20
`CBM 8:18
`CBM2015-00...
`1:4 7:5
`CBM2015-00...
`1:7
`CBM2016-00...
`1:12 7:5
`CBM2016-00...
`1:16
`CBMs 8:2
`certainly 17:22
`18:13
`CERTIFICATE
`22:1
`certify 22:3,6
`22:13
`chance 16:1
`changed 13:17
`Circuit 9:1,9
`10:15,16,18
`10:21,22
`11:22 13:18
`Circuit's 10:1
`
`circumstanc...
`13:17 20:1
`claims 9:2
`clarification
`12:18
`clarify 19:18
`19:19
`clearly 17:16
`codefendant
`9:4
`colleague
`11:12
`comes 20:20
`comfortable
`8:7
`commencing
`22:5
`Commission
`22:22
`complete
`10:19
`complexity
`19:6
`complicated
`17:5
`concern 18:5
`concerns
`15:17 17:6
`conduct 9:13
`confirm 13:1,2
`19:8
`consider
`12:14,15
`20:19
`consideration
`17:7
`considering
`13:21 15:12
`considers
`14:1
`cont'd 4:1 5:1
`6:1,3
`contemplates
`14:10
`
`
`
`202-220-4158202-220-4158
`
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`
`www.hendersonlegalservices.comwww.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`2
`
`contemplating
`20:4
`continue 17:3
`controlling
`11:18
`Correct 7:21
`correspondi...
`17:15 18:6
`Cory 6:4 7:11
`22:10
`cory.bell@fi...
`6:10
`counsel 7:9
`8:5 11:9
`16:14 18:22
`19:19
`counterintui...
`18:7
`County 22:3
`22:16,21
`course 9:13,16
`15:8 19:14
`court 2:3 7:13
`9:3 10:13
`22:2
`covered 13:16
`CQG 9:4
`current 11:2
`15:17
`currently
`15:21
`D
`
`D 7:1
`D.C 5:18
`date 9:17,18
`11:2 15:21
`Dated 22:15
`day 20:7 22:5
`22:15
`DC 4:20
`deadlines 10:4
`decide 15:15
`decided 11:15
`
`deciding 9:10
`13:9
`decision 9:19
`10:22 19:12
`depositions
`16:15
`detail 14:9
`determine
`9:13
`dictate 18:14
`differences
`12:3 13:3
`different 11:15
`11:16,16
`20:4
`direction 2:5
`disagreeme...
`18:21
`discuss 8:11
`disqualifying
`22:14
`district 9:3
`10:13
`docketed
`10:16
`docketing
`10:22
`doing 18:1
`Drive 3:13 5:8
`due 15:18
`19:14
`Dunner 5:6,16
`6:6 22:11
`E
`E 3:1,1,1 4:1,1
`4:17 5:1,1
`6:1,1 7:1,1
`22:8
`e-mail 8:14
`efficiencies
`18:14
`efficiency 18:5
`elaborate 12:2
`
`emergency
`11:13
`equivalent
`14:6 20:15
`20:16
`Erika 5:4 7:9
`22:9
`erika.arner...
`5:11
`escalating
`15:19
`Esq 3:5,6,7,11
`4:3,10,17 5:4
`5:13,14 6:4
`22:7,7,8,9,10
`22:10,10
`EST 1:20 22:5
`22:5
`ever-compre...
`16:8
`ever-shorte...
`16:8
`existing 10:4
`exists 11:4
`expect 14:6
`expecting 8:6
`expeditiously
`11:20
`expires 22:22
`explanation
`18:11
`express 10:3
`11:8
`expressly 10:6
`extend 18:3
`extending
`18:2,9
`extension 11:5
`11:7
`extra 14:4,4,16
`14:17
`F
`
`F 3:1
`
`facing 16:6
`fall 10:20
`far 18:2,9
`Farabow 5:5
`5:15 6:5
`22:10
`February
`10:16
`Federal 9:1,9
`10:1,15,16
`10:18,20,22
`11:22 13:18
`Fifth 4:5
`file 12:13,16
`13:9 14:15
`17:2 18:19
`19:1
`filing 15:13
`final 9:19
`financial 22:14
`Finnegan 5:5
`5:15 6:5 7:12
`22:10
`first 8:13,14
`14:18 15:10
`17:2 18:19
`Fish 3:12
`22:12
`flexibility 10:6
`16:3
`foregoing 22:3
`forth 10:9
`forward 8:8
`Fox 4:18 22:8
`frames 9:15
`10:7 16:4
`Freedom 5:7,8
`full 18:18
`further 18:3
`21:10 22:6
`22:13
`G
`
`G 7:1
`
`Garrett 5:5,15
`6:5 22:10
`give 16:1,13
`given 14:4,15
`15:1 20:8,9
`gives 9:16
`10:3 15:22
`go 11:4,18
`14:9
`going 8:8
`12:10,15
`15:9 19:12
`19:13
`Goldberg 5:13
`7:11 22:10
`Goldstein 4:18
`22:8
`good 7:2 9:20
`11:3
`Goodrich 4:4
`4:11 22:8
`grounds 8:20
`group 1:3,7
`3:9 14:3
`22:11
`H
`half 20:8,9,10
`happy 12:2
`Harmon 5:4
`22:9
`hear 8:12,14
`11:12 12:3
`17:8
`heard 18:10
`hearing 14:5,7
`18:12 20:15
`Henderson 5:5
`5:15 6:5,14
`22:10
`Hennepin 22:3
`22:16,21
`Hi 7:8
`hoc 8:4
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 28
`
`

`
`Case CBM2015-00161; CBM2015-00172; CBM2016-00035; CBM2016-00040
`Conference Call
`March 7, 2016
`3
`
`Honor 7:8 8:15
`12:3 13:3
`17:11,20
`19:4 21:2
`hope 20:13
`hour 20:8,9,11
`I
`IBG 1:11,15
`4:2 7:16,19
`12:22 17:10
`17:17 22:7
`identical 17:14
`identify 17:16
`including 9:14
`information
`12:10 19:11
`institute 15:15
`instituted 8:20
`13:8 14:2,13
`15:10 16:7
`institutes 14:1
`institution
`9:17,18
`intends 14:9
`Interactive
`1:11,15 4:2
`22:7
`interest 13:13
`22:14
`International
`1:5,9,13,17
`5:3 6:3 22:9
`involved 9:10
`16:15
`involving 9:1,4
`issue 9:2,10
`9:11,18
`11:17 12:10
`12:12 13:12
`13:16,19
`18:17 19:11
`19:13
`issues 11:5
`
`17:13 18:20
`20:19
`items 8:10
`J
`January 11:1
`22:22
`JEREMY 3:6
`John 8:5 11:12
`join 15:15,15
`16:21
`joinder 8:11
`10:2,8 11:6
`12:12,19
`13:5,7 14:3
`14:12 15:22
`16:3 17:13
`17:15 20:3
`joined 7:11
`16:10
`Jonathan 2:2
`6:15 22:2,21
`Joshua 5:13
`7:11 22:9
`joshua.gold...
`5:20
`Judge 2:1 7:2
`7:3,3,4,15
`8:1,7,10
`10:12 11:9
`12:1,5,9,15
`12:19 13:4
`13:11 14:14
`15:3,11
`16:21 18:16
`19:7,10
`20:18 21:3,6
`21:8,12
`Judges 3:7
`June 10:19
`K
`keeping 18:14
`Kessel 3:11
`
`8:3,3,9 11:11
`11:11 12:2
`19:7,9 21:1,4
`21:5,5,7,13
`22:12
`kessel@fr.c...
`3:16
`Kessler 4:18
`22:8
`know 7:6,15
`16:6,8 20:13
`L
`L 3:1 5:13 22:9
`Lane 6:7
`law 13:16
`lead 7:9 8:5