`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`__________
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent No. 7,904,374
`
`
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket: 41919-0013CP1
`IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., and
`
`TradeStation Securities, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) object under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64 to the admissibility of evidence Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`(“TT” or “Patent Owner”) filed and served on November 15, 2016.
`
`
`
`Petitioners ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny the admission and
`
`consideration of the following documents on the following basis:
`
`1. FRE ARTICLE IV – RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2183, 2185, 2184, 2186, 2188, 2189, 2193,
`
`2194, 2195, 2196, 2197, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2210, 2211, 2214, 2215,
`
`2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2221, 2222, 2223, 2226, 2230, 2233, 2234, 2236,
`
`2238, 2250, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282, 2287, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296 and
`
`2297, as irrelevant under FRE 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402, or as
`
`confusing or a waste of time under FRE 403, because cited portions are not
`
`relevant to any issue remaining in this proceeding, such as patentability of the
`
`subject matter, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, anticipation of the
`
`claims in view of the prior art, or obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art.
`
`2. FRE ARTICLE VI - WITNESSES
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2169, 2214, 2220, 2287, 2292, 2293, 2295,
`
`and 2296 for lack of foundation. Patent Owner has not shown that the declarant has
`
`personal knowledge of the subject matter of the testimony as required by FRE 602.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket: 41919-0013CP1
`Petitioners object to Exhibit No. 2214 as an improper demonstrative. Patent
`
`Owner has not established a proper foundation for the evidence set forth in the
`
`exhibits.
`
`3. FRE ARTICLE VII – OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2168, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2174, 2208, 2210,
`
`2214, 2216, 2218, 2219, 2221, 2223 and 2295 to the extent they offer opinion
`
`under FRE 701-703. The declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the
`
`testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, and there is no indication that
`
`declarant has the expertise necessary to apply the law to the facts as would be
`
`necessary to opine under FRE 702. Further, there is no indication that the declarant
`
`based those opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field
`
`would reasonably rely. FRE 703. Further, testimony at these paragraphs falls
`
`outside acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE 701. A party may not evade
`
`the expert witness requirements of FRE 702 simply by designating the testimony
`
`as lay testimony under FRE 701.
`
`4. FRE ARTICLE VIII - HEARSAY
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of Exhibit No(s). 2169,
`
`2170, 2171, 2174, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2210, 2211, 2214, 2215, 2216,
`
`2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2221, 2222, 2223, 2226, 2230, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2238,
`
`2250, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282, 2287, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, and 2297 for
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket: 41919-0013CP1
`the truth of the matter asserted, Petitioners object to such contents as inadmissible
`
`hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 that does not fall under any exceptions, including
`
`those of FRE 803, 804, 805 or 807.
`
`5. FRE ARTICLE IX – AUTHENTICATION AND
`IDENTIFICATION
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2187, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2210,
`
`2211, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2221, 2222, 2223, 2226, 2230,
`
`2233, 2234, 2236, 2238, 2250, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282, 2287, 2292, 2293, 2294,
`
`2295, 2296, 2297, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2415, and 2416 as not properly
`
`authenticated under FRE 901 because Patent Owner has not presented any evidence
`
`that these documents are authentic nor that the documents are self-authenticating
`
`under FRE 902.
`
`6. FRE ARTICLE X – CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS,
`AND PHOTOGRAPHS
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of Exhibit Nos. 2210, 2214,
`
`2216, 2218, 2219, 2221 and 2223 to prove the content of the original document,
`
`Petitioners object to these documents as not being original documents under FRE
`
`1002, authentic duplicates under FRE 1003, nor documents that fall under any
`
`exceptions to the original-document requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit No. 2214 under FRE 1006 as an improper
`
`summary because Patent Owner has not shown that the contents of the original
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket: 41919-0013CP1
`cannot be conveniently examined in court nor made the original or duplicate
`
`available for examination or copying.
`
`CITING EXHBITS NOT SERVED
`
`Petitioners object to Exhibit Nos. 2169, 2208 and 2214 as citing exhibits not
`
`served with the documents as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`These objections are made within five business days from the November 15,
`
`2016 filing and service of TT’s exhibits.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/John C. Phillips/
`John C. Phillips, Reg. No. 35,322
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: CBM2016-00051
`Attorney Docket: 41919-0013CP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on November 22, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioners’
`
`Objections to Evidence was provided via electronic service to the Patent Owner, by
`
`serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Erika H. Arner, Joshua L. Goldberg, Kevin Rodkey,
`Rachel L. Emsley and Cory C. Bell
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`Michael D. Gannon, Leif R. Sigmond, Jr., and Jennifer M. Kurcz
`McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Email: erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`gannon@mbhb.com
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`kurcz@mbhb.com
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`Trading-Tech-CBM@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`