Page 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
` EASTERN DIVISION
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` Plaintiff, )
` vs. ) No. 04 C 5312
`eSPEED, INC., eSPEED )
`INTERNATIONAL, LTD., ECCO, LLC )
`and ECCOWARE LTD., et al., )
` Defendants. )
` The videotaped deposition of
`DAVID LEE SILVERMAN, called by the Plaintiff for
`examination, taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure of the United States District
`Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions,
`taken before CORINNE T. MARUT, C.S.R. No. 84-1968,
`a Notary Public within and for the County of
`DuPage, State of Illinois, and a Certified
`Shorthand Reporter of said state, at the offices of
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Suite
`3100, 300 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, on
`the 24th day of August, A.D. 2007, commencing at
`10:10 a.m.
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
` EASTERN DIVISION
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES )
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
` Plaintiff, )
` vs. ) No. 04 C 5312
`eSPEED, INC., eSPEED )
`INTERNATIONAL, LTD., ECCO, LLC )
`and ECCOWARE LTD., et al., )
` Defendants. )
` The videotaped deposition of
`DAVID LEE SILVERMAN, called by the Plaintiff for
`examination, taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure of the United States District
`Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions,
`taken before CORINNE T. MARUT, C.S.R. No. 84-1968,
`a Notary Public within and for the County of
`DuPage, State of Illinois, and a Certified
`Shorthand Reporter of said state, at the offices of
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Suite
`3100, 300 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, on
`the 24th day of August, A.D. 2007, commencing at
`10:10 a.m.
`
`Page 1 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`PRESENT:
` McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF, LLP,
` (300 South Wacker Drive,
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709,
` 312-913-0001), by:
` MR. MICHAEL D. GANNON,
` gannon@mbhb.com,
` MS. MICHELLE McMULLEN-TACK, Ph.D.,
` mcmullen-tack@mbhb.com,
` -and-
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES,
` (222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1100,
` Chicago, Illinois 60606,
` 312-476-1018), by:
` MR. STEVEN F. BORSAND, Inhouse Counsel,
` Executive Vice President,
` Intellectual Property,
` appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff;
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 2 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`PRESENT (Continued):
` WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP,
` (35 West Wacker Drive,
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-9703,
` 312-558-5600), by:
` MR. RAYMOND C. PERKINS,
` rperkins@winston.com,
` appeared on behalf of the eSpeed
` Defendants;
`
` FAEGRE & BENSON, LLP,
` (1900 Fifteenth Street,
` Boulder, Colorado 80302-5414,
` 303-447-7700), by:
` MR. NEAL COHEN,
` ncohen@faegre.com,
` appeared on behalf of the CQG
` Defendants.
`
`VIDEOTAPED BY: WES FRANCE, Legal Videographer,
` Esquire Deposition Services.
`
`REPORTED BY: CORINNE T. MARUT, C.S.R. No. 84-1968
`
`Page 3 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. We are going
`on the video record at 10:10 a.m.
` My name is Wes France and I am a legal
`videographer in association with Esquire Deposition
`Services. Our address is 311 West Monroe Street,
`Chicago, Illinois. The Court Reporter today is
`Corey Marut of Esquire Deposition Services.
` Here begins the videotaped deposition of
`David Silverman taking place at 300 South Wacker
`Drive, Chicago, Illinois.
` Today's date is August 25, 2007.
` This deposition is being taken in the
`matter of Trading Technologies International,
`Incorporated vs. eSpeed, Incorporated, et al.
` Correction on the date. This is
`actually the 24th.
` This deposition is being taken in the
`matter of Trading Technologies International,
`Incorporated vs. eSpeed, Incorporated, et al., in
`the United States District Court, Northern District
`of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 04 C 5312.
` Will counsel please state their names
`for the record.
` MR. GANNON: Yes. My name is Mike Gannon of
`
`Page 4 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff. I'm here
`today on behalf of the Plaintiff, Trading
`Technologies.
` With me today is Michelle McMullen-Tack,
`also of MBHB, and Steve Borsand, in-house counsel
`at Trading Technologies.
` MR. PERKINS: Good morning. Ray Perkins from
`Winston & Strawn representing eSpeed and ECCO.
` MR. COHEN: Neal Cohen from Faegre & Benson
`for the CQG Defendants.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will --
` MR. GANNON: Good morning. Go ahead, sorry.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter now
`swear in the witness, please.
` (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly
` sworn.)
` DAVID LEE SILVERMAN,
`called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. GANNON:
` Q. Will you state your name for the record,
`please.
` A. Yes. My name is David Lee Silverman.
`
`Page 5 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` Q. And your address?
` A. My address is 16, that's 1-6, Carman
`Lane, C-a-r-m-a-n, Lane, St. James, New York,
`11780, USA.
` Q. And are you currently employed?
` A. Yes, I am.
` Q. And by whom are you employed?
` A. I'm employed by Reuters, R-e-u-t-e-r-s.
` Q. And in what capacity are you employed at
`Reuters?
` A. My title is executive vice president.
`My functional responsibility is that I work in a
`division of Reuters which has been recently formed.
`It's known as Search and Content Technologies.
` And within that division I'm responsible
`for investigating strategy, investigating customer
`needs and as a special adviser on intellectual
`property and specifically patents.
` Q. When you say "adviser," I presume that's
`an adviser to Reuters?
` A. That is as an adviser to Reuters, that's
`correct. It's an adviser to some of the executive
`committees of Reuters.
` Q. Are you -- are you a full-time employee?
`
`Page 6 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` A. Yes. I'm a contract employee in the --
`I'm under special terms, yes.
` Q. Well, when you say "contract employee,"
`can you explain what that means?
` A. I can. Up until roughly 2004, I was a
`full-time employee as I think you would understand
`it; that is, subject to the same terms and work
`conditions as most other employees.
` In 2004, my employment transitioned into
`a slightly different format in which I worked from
`my home as opposed to going into the office. I
`work on special assignments that were given to me.
`My salary and compensation were determined by
`contract as opposed to being reevaluated
`periodically. And that contract condition, with
`some modifications, continues to the present time.
` Q. When you were -- in 2004 when you were
`full time at Reuters, what was your position then?
` A. Do you mind if I refer to my CV which is
`attached --
` Q. Sure.
` A. -- to my expert report?
` Q. Sure. Go right ahead.
` A. So, in the beginning of 2004, so my
`
`Page 7 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`employment conditions transitioned in roughly the
`middle of 2004, June of 2004.
` So, in the first half of 2004, my role
`was head of content architecture in Reuters; and in
`that capacity I was working in an architecture
`division, technical architecture division, and
`my -- the purpose of my job was to define a
`comprehensive architecture for financial
`information so that we could have a way of
`describing that content for the consumers of it,
`whether it be programs or people.
` Q. How long have you been at Reuters?
` A. Been at Reuters since 1983. So, 24
`years.
` Q. Have you ever been an officer of
`Reuters?
` A. Yes, I -- I believe I am an officer.
`It's, strange as though it may seem, it's not
`always clear to me whether I -- which division I'm
`an officer of. But I know at times I have been
`officers -- an officer of various divisions or
`subsidiaries.
` Q. Currently are you an officer?
` A. I don't know. I mean, as an executive
`
`Page 8 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`vice president I'm subject to certain trading
`restrictions on stock, for example, but I have
`no -- for example, I don't sign off explicitly on
`Sarbanes-Oxley or other things which senior
`officers do.
` Q. In your CV you reference, in your
`employment history, being an expert consultant in
`electronic trading for a major private equity firm.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. What firm was that?
` A. That was KKR.
` Q. What is KKR?
` A. I believe it's Kohlberg Kravis and
`Roberts.
` Q. What is that?
` A. A major private equity firm, but they
`basically -- it was at that time a private
`partnership I believe and what they did is invested
`their money and institutional money in acquisition
`of businesses, either taking them private or taking
`them public.
` And, so, they were specifically involved
`in looking at a financial services company and were
`
`Page 9 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`considering acquiring it and were in that case
`utilizing my expertise to give them advice on the
`value of the company.
` Q. So, when you were an expert consultant
`for KKR, you were also employed by Reuters?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. You're working in this case on behalf of
`who? Is it Winston & Strawn or eSpeed?
` A. On behalf of eSpeed.
` Q. And ECCO?
` A. I believe my retainer agreement is
`between me and eSpeed.
` Q. And you've sent invoices to Winston &
`Strawn in connection with your work in the case?
` A. That is correct.
` Q. Are the moneys that are -- have you been
`paid?
` A. For the most part, yes.
` Q. Who -- who is getting paid?
` A. I am.
` Q. Not Reuters?
` A. Not Reuters, correct.
` Q. Okay. Does Reuters know that you're
`acting in this consulting role, consulting role in
`
`Page 10 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 130
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`no re-centering feature or have a user-directed
`re-centering feature, and combine that with the
`well-known art of rapid order entry.
` So, I'm sorry I had to go to that level
`of depth to explain it, but those are the
`considerations the person of ordinary skills in the
`art.
` Q. So, is the INTEX screen that you were
`referring to, is that a dynamic screen or always
`centered screen?
` A. My understanding of the INTEX screen is
`that the logic which exists in the software which
`generates that screen attempts always to center the
`inside market near the center of that screen.
` I use the word "near" because there are
`obviously examples where you have a spread that's
`more than one tick where it can't be precisely on
`center.
` Q. So, let me just see if I can sort of
`boil down what we're talking about here.
` Is it your testimony, then, that if the
`only two pieces of prior art known to mankind were
`INTEX and a trading screen that had single action
`order entry and just looking at those two elements,
`
`Page 11 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 131
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`are you saying it would have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the TT
`invention based on those two pieces of prior art?
` MR. PERKINS: Object to the form of the
`question, also vague and ambiguous.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. So, the -- I think to answer that
`properly, we would need to be sure we have an
`agreement on what a person of ordinary skill in the
`art is.
` I am obviously relying on the definition
`which I proposed in my expert report in which I
`describe a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`And rather than mischaracterize it, can we take a
`look at it?
` In paragraph 17, page 7 of my report I
`state that "Generally speaking, the '132 and '304
`patents relate to a field of technology in which
`invention, design and development is typically
`conducted by skilled software engineers with at
`least a college and often postgraduate degree, plus
`three to five years experience in the design and
`coding of commercial software systems. The
`software engineers would be experienced in the
`
`Page 12 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 132
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`development of systems involving real time
`processing and graphical user interfaces and have
`knowledge either themselves, or from communications
`or interactions with others, about the work flow of
`professional traders."
` Now, in my experience such people
`received guidance on the actual design of screens
`from their customers, which might be traders or it
`might be a marketing person as a proxy or as a
`stand-in for a trader.
` So, if such a person, if a trader said,
`you know, I have this INTEX screen and I have this
`screen over here which gives me order entry and I'd
`like you to -- to make the INTEX screen be one in
`which the markets don't stay centered but move and
`that you allow me to click on it and trade, I think
`to a person with ordinary skill in the art, it
`would have been obvious how to make that
`combination and it would have been well within
`their skill level to do that.
` Q. Did you read the deposition transcript
`of a Mr. McCausland in this case?
` A. I believe that I have reviewed portions
`of Mr. McCausland's deposition, but I don't recall
`
`Page 13 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`Page 133
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`the specifics.
` Q. Do you recall whether you read all of
`his transcript?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. What's the basis for your testimony that
`you believe you read just portions of it?
` MR. PERKINS: Object to the form of the
`question.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I believe there is a mention of
`McCausland somewhere in my expert report, and I
`generally speaking wasn't able to sift through the
`entirety of any deposition.
`BY MR. GANNON:
` Q. How did you determine which portions of
`that deposition transcript to read?
` A. In some cases I used a search function
`to try to look for a relevant page and in many
`other cases I was instructed by eSpeed's attorneys
`to -- to read certain portions.
` Q. What about in this case with respect to
`the McCausland?
` A. I have no specific recollection. I
`would speculate, dangerous, but I'd speculate that
`
`Page 14 of 14
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2293
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
