throbber
US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`-------------------------------------------
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`ESPEED, INC., ESPEED INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
`ECCO LLC, and ECCO WARE LTD.,
` Defendants.
`
`Case Number 04-C-5312
`-------------------------------------------
`VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
`Robert S. Dezmelyk
`August 17, 2007
`Chicago, Illinois
`Lead: Michael D. Gannon, Esquire
`Firm: McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff
`
`FINAL COPY
`JANE ROSE REPORTING 1-800-825-3341
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`2
`
` APPEARANCES:
`
` McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` BY: MICHAEL D. GANNON, Esq.
` MICHELLE McMULLEN-TACK, Esq.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` (312) 913-0001
` (312) 913-0002 (Fax)
` gannon@mbhb.com
` On behalf of the Plaintiff;
`
` WINSTON & STRAWN
` BY: JAMES HILMERT, Esq.
` RAY PERKINS, Esq.
` ELIZABETH H. ERICKSON, Esq.
` 35 West Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60601-9703
` (312) 558-5600
` (312) 558-5700 (Fax)
` jhilmert@winston.com
` On behalf of the Defendants;
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`3
`
` APPEARANCES: Continued
`
` FAEGRE & BENSON
` BY: NEAL S. COHEN, Esq.
` 3200 Wells Fargo Center
` 1700 Lincoln Street
` Denver, Colorado 80203-4532
` (303) 607-3500
` (303) 607-3000 (Fax)
` ncohen@faegre.com
` On behalf of the CQG Defendants.
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
` Steve Borsand, In-House Counsel,
` Trading Technologies
`
` Marvin Oltman, The Videographer
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`4
`
` INDEX
`AUGUST 17, 2007
`WITNESS EXAMINATION
`ROBERT S. DEZMELYK
`
` By Mr. Gannon: 6
` By Mr. Hilmert: 219
` By Mr. Gannon: 229
`
` DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
`NUMBER INTRODUCED
`
`Exhibit 854
`Expert Report of
`Robert S. Dezmelyk 32
`
`Exhibit 855
`Translation of excerpts of
`a TSE user manual
`TT 0109131 through TT 0109161 163
`
`Exhibit 856
`Document entitled "Should We Boycott
`amazon.com For Its Internet Patents?" 214
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`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
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins videotape
`number one, Volume I, in the deposition of Robert
`Dezmelyk in the matter of Trading Technologies,
`International, Incorporated versus eSpeed,
`Incorporated, et al.
` Today's date is August 17th, 2007. The
`time is 10:09 a.m.
` This deposition is being taken in the
`offices of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff at
`300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3100, Chicago,
`Illinois, and is made at the request of Trading
`Technologies, International.
` My name is Marvin Oltman, the
`videographer, and the court reporter is Cynthia
`Conforti from Jane Rose Reporting, New York, New
`York.
` Will counsel please identify yourselves
`and state who you represent, and please speak
`slowly for the court reporter.
` MR. GANNON: My name is Mike Gannon. I'm
`with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff. I'm
`here today on behalf of plaintiff, Trading
`Technologies, and with me today is Steve Borsand,
`in-house counsel at Trading Technologies.
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`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
`
` MS. HILMERT: My name is James Hilmert.
`I'm with Winston & Strawn on behalf of the
`defendants eSpeed and Ecco. With me is Elizabeth
`Erickson and Ray Perkins, also of Winston &
`Strawn, on behalf of the defendants.
` MR. COHEN: Neal Cohen from Faegre &
`Benson on behalf of the CQG defendants.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
` Will the court reporter please swear in
`the witness.
` (Witness duly sworn.)
` ROBERT S. DEZMELYK,
`called as a witness herein, having been
`first duly sworn, was examined and testified
`as follows:
` DIRECT EXAMINATION
`BY MR. GANNON:
` Q. Could you state your name for the record,
`please.
` A. Yes. My name is Robert Dezmelyk.
` Q. Do you have a middle initial?
` A. Yes. My middle name is Steve, and I use
`S. as a middle initial.
` Q. Okay. And could you state your address,
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`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
`
`please.
` A. My home address is 1 Bancroft Road in
`Newton, New Hampshire.
` Q. And you were retained as an expert in this
`case; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And who were you retained by?
` A. I was retained by Winston & Strawn.
` Q. Now, you rendered an expert opinion or
`opinions in this case; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And in doing so I presume that you read
`the TT patents-in-suit; is that correct?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Can you tell me what problems the TT
`patents-in-suit are attempting to solve?
` A. Well, I can't quote from the patent
`without looking at it, but, in general terms,
`they're attempting to enhance the speed of
`operation of trading, on-line trading using a
`computer display of information and then allowing
`the trader to operate it more quickly.
` Q. And how does the patent go about trying to
`solve that problem of enhancing the speed of
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`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
`
`trading?
` A. Well, the patent presents both --
`describes both a visual display and a method of
`interaction and then claims a number of -- claims
`related to visual display in that interaction.
` Q. Okay. And I'm paraphrasing your previous
`answer here, but when you say "enhance the speed
`of trading," is that one problem that the TT
`patents are attempting to solve? Is that a fair
`statement?
` A. Yeah, that's a fair statement.
` Q. Okay. Are there any other problems that
`the TT patents are trying to solve?
` A. Well, I think simultaneously they're
`trying to ensure, like any good user interface,
`that you have both efficiency and accuracy.
` Q. Okay. Would that be a second problem
`then, efficiency and accuracy?
` A. You could consider that a second problem,
`yes.
` Q. Okay.
` A. Or a second aspect of the first problem.
` Q. Okay. When you say "efficiency," what do
`you mean?
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`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
`
` A. Well, efficiency, particularly as it's
`used to describe a user interface, is the
`combination of the effectiveness, how quickly the
`user can get to their desired goal, and there's
`some secondary considerations in there about
`perhaps the stress on the user. It's much similar
`to efficiency in any other field. In other words,
`you can say I'm doing something in an office
`efficiently or inefficiently.
` Q. Is efficiency the same as enhancing the
`speed of trading? Are those one and the same?
` A. They would in general overlap.
` Q. I'm just trying to get an understanding as
`to whether or not there is a difference between
`the two.
` MR. HILMERT: Object to form.
`BY MR. GANNON:
` Q. In your opinion.
` MR. HILMERT: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, they're not
`synonymous, but they are closely related.
` In other words, the speed of an operation
`is one aspect of the efficiency.
`BY MR. GANNON:
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`

`
`US District Court - Illinois
`Trading Technologies v. eSpeed
`
`FINAL COPY
`Robert Dezmelyk - August 17, 2007
`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
`
` Q. Okay. What's another aspect of
`efficiency?
` A. The accuracy and the extent to which you
`end up with the result you desire.
` Q. Okay. When you say "accuracy," what do
`you mean by that?
` A. Well, assuming in a user interface or in
`any task, it's that you got the desired result.
` In other words, if you were attempting to
`pick a particular target on the screen; for
`instance, in the trading case, if you were
`attempting to make a trade under a particular set
`of circumstances and you did a set of actions to
`make that trade that you got the trade result out
`of the computer system that you had in your mind.
` Q. How does the -- how do the TT patents go
`about trying to solve the problem of accuracy?
` A. Well, I think the main area there would be
`the idea of creating a data display which makes it
`less likely that people make errors interpreting
`it.
` Q. Can you explain what you mean by that?
` A. Certainly. In any computer interface the
`user is looking at information on the screen, and
`
`JANE ROSE REPORTING
`1-800-825-3341 www.janerosereporting.com
`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2296
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054

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