`
`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
`_________
`
`CBM2016-00054
`Patent No. 7,693,768
`___________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO
`PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313–1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`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 the following evidence Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“TT” or “Patent Owner”) filed and served on January 20, 2017.
`
`Petitioners ask the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny the admission and
`
`consideration of the following documents on the following bases:
`
`TT Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`2034
`
`2042
`
`2047
`
`2049
`2056
`2121
`
`2126
`2143
`2144
`2154
`
`2159
`
`2160
`
`2161
`
`2163
`
`
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 1:04-CV-
`05312 (N.D. Ill.), Jury Verdict Form (Oct. 10, 2007)
`Decision Denying Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`90/011,250 (July 15, 2011)
`Corrected Request for Ex Parte Reexamination 90/008,576
`(May 25, 2007)
`Request for Reexamination 90/011,250 (Sept. 22, 2010)
`Japanese Patent 2004-504652
`U.S. Patent Classification System – Classification Definitions –
`Class 705
`Senate Congressional Record, S5402-S5443 (Sept. 8, 2011)
`CONFIDENTIAL - TS0028765
`CONFIDENTIAL - TS0107054
`CONFIDENTIAL - Video Deposition Transcript of Milan
`Galik, dated June 13, 2016 in Trading Technologies
`International, Inc. v. BGC Parnters, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-715
`(Consolidated) (N.D. Ill.).
`TSE-filed opposition document to Japanese Patent Application
`No. 2001-564025 (TSE0000000982-995)
`Certified Translation of TSE-filed opposition document to
`Japanese Patent Application No. 2001-564025
`(TSE0000000982-995)
`Certification of Translation of TSE-filed opposition document
`to Japanese Patent Application No. 2001-564025
`(TSE0000000982-995)
`Deposition Transcript of Atushi Kawashima, dated June 17,
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`2016
`Deposition Transcript of Kendyl A. Roman, dated May 3, 2016
`Deposition Transcript of Kendyl A. Roman, dated May 5, 2016
`Declaration of Eric Gould-Bear, 1/18/2017
`CONFIDENTIAL - Declaration of Christopher Thomas,
`1/19/2017
`Declaration of Michael Burns, 1/18/2017
`Declaration of Timothy Geannopulos, 1/18/2017
`CONFIDENTIAL - Declaration of Jay Knobloch, 1/17/2017
`Declaration of Robbie McDonnell, 1/19/2017
`Declaration of Dan Olsen, 1/18/2017
`Exhibit TSE1 from Kawashima 2005 Deposition
`(TSE0000000996-1016)
`Certified Translation of Exhibit TSE1 from Kawashima 2005
`Deposition (TSE0000000996-1016)
`Certification of Translation of Exhibit TSE1 from Kawashima
`2005 Deposition (TSE0000000996-1016)
`Declaration of Harold Abilock, 1/19/2017
`Christopher Thomas CV
`Reexam Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`Reexam Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`Microsoft DNA Case Study
`Excerpts from Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. Form 10-K
`Statement IBG_00000412-421
`Excerpts from TradeStation Group, Inc. Form 10-K Statement
`TS0005177-88
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`Expert Report of David Silverman
`Globex User Guide June 1995 (get excerpt -cover and p. 61)
`Declaration of Daniel Durkin TTX00020829-00020830
`(05/28/2004)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`Trial Transcript - Brumfield Trial Testimony
`Animation
`Brumfield Sketch - eSpeed_PTX0321
`Animation
`Brumfield Trading Results - eSpeed_PTX0396
`Declaration of David Martin TTX00061557-
`00061558 (08/13/2004)
`Brumfield Articles, CQG014380172-177 and CQG014380206-
`
`2165
`2166
`2168
`2169
`
`2170
`2171
`2172
`2173
`2174
`2175
`
`2176
`
`2177
`
`2178
`2201
`2202
`2203
`2204
`2206
`
`2207
`
`2208
`
`2209
`2210
`
`2211
`
`2212
`2213
`2214
`2215
`2216
`
`2217
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`209
`Declaration of James Zellinger, TTX00061410-
`00061412 (08/31/2004)
`Declaration of Ray Cahnman, TTX00061529- 00061530
`(07/23/2004)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case
`No. 04-cv-5312, Trial Transcript - David Feltes Trial Testimony
`Declaration of Charles McElveen, TTX00061559-00061560
`(05/18/2004)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`Trial Transcript - Tim Geannopulos Trial Testimony
`Trader Declaration Compilation
`CONFIDENTIAL - Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v.
`eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, Excerpts from David Martin
`Deposition (06/08/2006)
`CONFIDENTIAL - Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v.
`eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, Excerpts from Charles
`McElveen Deposition (01/17/2006)
`Steidlmayer, J. Peter, Steidlmayer on Markets
`Trading with Market Profile, 2ed (2003) - PTX0814
`Declaration of Scott Johnston TTX00061397- 00061398
`(09/24/2004)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`Excerpts from Scott Johnston Deposition (06/27/2006)
`Declaration of Tom Grisafi TTX00061542-00061543
`(07/31/2004)
`Collins, Daniel, What is Behind your Front-End?, Smart
`Trading 2001 - PTX0620
`eSpeed_PTX0782
`CONFIDENTIAL - Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v.eSpeed, Inc.,
`Case No. 04-cv-5312, Excerpts from Elliot Lapan Deposition
`(06/04/2007)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 Claim Chart , with Exhibits 1-6
`Screenshot - Market Depth Trader Window
`Screenshot - Placing Non-Automated Futures Trades
`Screenshot - About the Matrix Window
`TTX03586066-70
`Screenshot - TradeStation® Securities MATRIX
`Declaration of Dieter Marlovics TTX00061553-00061554
`(08/09/2004)
`
`2218
`
`2219
`
`2220
`
`2221
`
`2222
`
`2223
`2224
`
`2225
`
`2226
`
`2227
`
`2228
`
`2229
`
`2230
`
`2231
`2232
`
`2233
`2234
`2235
`2236
`2237
`2238
`2239
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`2240
`2241
`2242
`2243
`2244
`2245
`2246
`2247
`
`2248
`2249
`2250
`2251
`
`2252
`2253
`2254
`2255
`2256
`2257
`2258
`2259
`2260
`2261
`2262
`2263
`2264
`2265
`2266
`2267
`2268
`2269
`2270
`2271
`2272
`2273
`2274
`2275
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`eSpeed_PTX0038
`eSpeed_PTX0078
`eSpeed_PTX0123
`eSpeed_PTX0279
`eSpeed_PTX0281
`eSpeed PTX0286
`eSpeed_PTX0294
`CONFIDENTIAL - Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v.
`eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, Excerpts from Raymond
`Deux Deposition (11/03/2006)
`eSpeed_PTX2064
`eSpeed_PTX2077
`eSpeed_PTX0438
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-
`5312, Trial Transcript - Amanda Lewis Trial Testimony
`eSpeed_PDX0215
`eSpeed_PTX1366
`eSpeed_PTX0080
`eSpeed_PTX1367
`eSpeed_PTX0081
`eSpeed_PTX1356
`eSpeed_PTX0110
`eSpeed_PTX1360
`eSpeed_PTX0448
`eSpeed PTX1357
`eSpeed_PTX0079
`eSpeed_PTX1358
`eSpeed_PTX1359
`eSpeed_PTX1361
`eSpeed_PTX1362
`eSpeed_PTX1363
`eSpeed_PTX1364
`eSpeed_PTX1365
`CONFIDENTIAL - eSpeed_PTX0036
`eSpeed_PTX0440
`eSpeed_PTX0441
`eSpeed_PTX1371
`eSpeed_PTX1369
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-
`5312, Excerpts from David Feltes (01/24/ 2007)
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`2276
`2277
`2278
`
`2279
`
`2280
`2281
`2282
`
`2283
`2284
`2285
`2286
`
`2287
`
`2288
`
`2289
`
`2290
`2291
`2292
`
`2293
`
`2294
`
`2295
`
`2296
`
`2297
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`eSpeed_PTX1370
`CQG_PTX0600
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. CQG, Inc., et.al., Case No. 05-cv-
`4811, Jury Verdict (03/18/2015)
`Directory of Software Solutions for LIFFE Connect (Oct.
`1998) - PTX0355
`eSpeed_PTX0356
`eSpeed_PTX0357
`Directory of Access Solutions for LIFFE Connect (May 2001) -
`DDX0174
`Consent Judgments
`eSpeed_DTX0119
`eSpeed_DTX0120
`CONFIDENTIAL - Trading Techs. Int’l.Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`Case No. 04-cv-5312, Excerpts from Nicholas Garrow
`Deposition (05/26/2005)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`Excerpts from Robert McCausland Deposition (04/07/2005)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-
`5312, Excerpts from Michael Burns Deposition (05/29/2007)
`Petition for withdrawal of Application from Issue, 09/590,692 -
`ELLIS0000585-592
`Notice of Allowance - ELLIS0000948-951
`Steps Taken to Improve Patent Quality - PTX0624
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. CQG, Inc., et. al., Case No. 05-cv-
`4811, Excerpts from Steven Van Dusen Deposition
`(01/20/2015)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312,
`Excerpts from David Silverman Deposition (08/24/2007)
`CONFIDENTIAL - Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. CQG, Inc., et.
`al., Case No. 05-cv-4811, Excerpts from John Phillip Mellor
`Deposition (01/16/2015)
`CONFIDENTIAL - Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`Case No. 04-cv-5312, Excerpts from Richard Ferraro
`Deposition Vol. 2 (08/09/2007)
`Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc., v. eSpeed, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-
`5312, Excerpts from Robert Dezmelyk Deposition
`(08/17/2007)
`National Aeronautics and Space Administration Web Page Print
`out, Human Computer Interaction Group
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`PTO Correspondence
`CONFIDENTIAL – Deposition transcript of John Bartleman,
`6/8/2016
`CONFIDENTIAL – Deposition transcript of John Bartleman,
`6/9/2016
`TT’s website, PDX3043
`CONFIDENTIAL – Email from TradeStation employee Hans
`Stimming to John Bartleman, PDX3046
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0024612_PDX3044_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0025391_PDX3007_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0028765_PDX3045_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0033540_PDX3050_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0083543
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1270483
`CONFIDENTIAL – IBG_00026004
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0005733_PDX3006_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0107044_PDX3017_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0107054_PDX3015_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0107076_PDX3016_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1270482-504_PDX3003_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1261405
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1268720_PDX3048_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1274603_PDX3053_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1533975_PDX3046_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1533977_PDX3047_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1528491_PDX3057_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1528578
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1528799
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS0023504
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1246642
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1253260_PDX3051_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1269846
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1526338_PDX3030_Bartleman
`CONFIDENTIAL – TS1527617
`Deposition transcript of Kendyl Roman, 1/13/2017
`9/8/2000 Email from Kemp (PTX 1296)
`10/9/2001 Email from McDonnell (PTX 2757)
`Declaration of Chuck Ryan
`Animation
`
`2298
`2403
`
`2404
`
`2405
`2406
`
`2501
`2502
`2503
`2504
`2506
`2507
`2508
`2509
`2510
`2511
`2512
`2513
`2514
`2515
`2516
`2517
`2518
`2520
`2521
`2522
`2524
`2525
`2526
`2527
`2529
`2530
`2531
`2532
`2533
`2534
`2535
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`FRE ARTICLE IV – RELEVANCE AND ITS LIMITS
`
`Petitioners object to TT Exhibit Nos. 2034, 2042, 2047, 2049, 2056, 2121,
`
`2126, 2143, 2144, 2154, 2159, 2160, 2161, 2165, 2166, 2168, 2169, 2170, 2171,
`
`2172, 2173, 2174, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2204, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2210,
`
`2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2221, 2222, 2223,
`
`2224, 2225, 2226, 2227, 2228, 2229, 2230, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236,
`
`2237, 2238, 2239, 2240, 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2246, 2247, 2248, 2249,
`
`2250, 2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2262,
`
`2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2270, 2271, 2272, 2273, 2274, 2275,
`
`2276, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282, 2283, 2284, 2285, 2286, 2287, 2288,
`
`2291, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2298, 2403, 2404, 2405, 2406, 2501,
`
`2502, 2503, 2504, 2506, 2507, 2508, 2509, 2510, 2511, 2512, 2513, 2514, 2515,
`
`2516, 2517, 2518, 2520, 2521, 2522, 2524, 2525, 2526, 2527, 2529, 2530, 2532,
`
`2533, 2534, and 2535 as irrelevant under 401 and thus inadmissible under FRE 402
`
`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, or obviousness of the claims in view of the prior art, or because any
`
`probative value associated therewith is substantially outweighed by a danger of
`
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or a waste of time under FRE 403.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`FRE ARTICLE VI – WITNESSES
`
`Petitioners object to TT Exhibit Nos. 2168, 2169, 2170, 2171, 2172, 2173,
`
`2174, 2178, 2212, 2214, 2220, 2224, 2225, 2228, 2232, 2233, 2247, 2251, 2275,
`
`2286, 2287, 2288, 2292, 2293, 2295, 2296, 2530, 2534, and 2535, 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.
`
`Petitioners object to TT Exhibit Nos. 2212, 2213, 2214, 2233, and 2535 as
`
`improper demonstratives. Patent Owner has not established a proper foundation for
`
`the evidence set forth in the exhibits.
`
`FRE ARTICLE VII – OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
`
`Petitioners object to TT Exhibit Nos. 2168, 2169, 2174, 2178, 2210, 2212,
`
`2214, 2216, 2218, 2219, 2221, 2223, 2227, 2229, 2233, 2239, 2295, 2534, and
`
`2535 to the extent any portion thereof offers opinion under FRE 701–703. The
`
`declarant is not qualified to offer expert testimony, the testimony is not based on
`
`sufficient facts or data, nor on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,
`
`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, the
`
`declarant’s testimony falls outside acceptable lay opinion testimony under FRE
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`701. A party may not evade the expert witness requirements of FRE 702 by simply
`
`designating the testimony as lay testimony under FRE 701.
`
`FRE ARTICLE VIII – HEARSAY
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of TT Exhibit Nos. 2034,
`
`2042, 2047, 2049, 2121, 2143, 2144, 2154, 2159, 2160, 2165, 2166, 2168, 2169,
`
`2170, 2171, 2172, 2173, 2174, 2175, 2176, 2178, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2206, 2207,
`
`2208, 2209, 2210, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220,
`
`2221, 2222, 2223, 2224, 2225, 2226, 2227, 2228, 2229, 2230, 2231, 2232, 2233,
`
`2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2239, 2240, 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2246,
`
`2247, 2248, 2249, 2250, 2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2258, 2259,
`
`2260, 2261, 2262, 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269, 2270, 2271, 2272,
`
`2273, 2274, 2275, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282, 2283, 2284, 2285,
`
`2286, 2287, 2288, 2289, 2290, 2291, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2403,
`
`2404, 2405, 2406, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2506, 2507, 2508, 2509, 2510, 2511,
`
`2512, 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518, 2520, 2521, 2522, 2524, 2525, 2526,
`
`2527, 2529, 2530, 2532, 2533, 2534, and 2535 for 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.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`FRE ARTICLE IX – AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
`
`Petitioners object to TT Exhibit Nos. 2143, 2144, 2159, 2160, 2175, 2176,
`
`2204, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2210, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217,
`
`2218, 2219, 2220, 2221, 2222, 2223, 2224, 2225, 2226, 2227, 2228, 2229, 2230,
`
`2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2239, 2240, 2241, 2242, 2243,
`
`2244, 2245, 2246, 2247, 2248, 2249, 2250, 2251, 2252, 2253, 2254, 2255, 2256,
`
`2257, 2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2262, 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2267, 2268, 2269,
`
`2270, 2271, 2272, 2273, 2274, 2275, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282,
`
`2283, 2284, 2285, 2286, 2287, 2288, 2291, 2292, 2293, 2294, 2295, 2296, 2297,
`
`2403, 2404, 2405, 2406, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2506, 2507, 2508, 2509, 2510,
`
`2511, 2512, 2513, 2514, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518, 2520, 2521, 2522, 2524, 2525,
`
`2526, 2527, 2529, 2530, 2532, 2533, and 2535 as not properly authenticated under
`
`FRE 901 because Patent Owner has not presented sufficient evidence to
`
`demonstrate that these documents are authentic nor that the documents are self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902.
`
`FRE ARTICLE X – CONTENTS OF WRITINGS, RECORDINGS, AND
`PHOTOGRAPHS
`
`To the extent Patent Owner relies on the contents of TT Exhibit Nos. 2210,
`
`2212, 2213, 2214, 2216, 2218, 2229, 2239, 2284, 2285, 2405, and 2535 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,
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`nor documents that fall under any exceptions to the original-document
`
`requirement, including those of FRE 1004.
`
`Petitioners object to TT Exhibit Nos. 2212, 2214, 2535 under FRE 1006 as
`
`improper summaries because Patent Owner has not shown that the contents of the
`
`original cannot be conveniently examined in court nor made the original or
`
`duplicates available for examination or copying.
`
`CITING EXHIBITS NOT SERVED
`
`Petitioners object to TT Exhibit Nos. 2168, 2169, 2174, 2208, 2212, 2214,
`
`2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, and 2535 as citing exhibits not served with the documents
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(i).
`
`
`Date: January 27, 2017
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005–3934
`(202) 371–2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
` P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben/
`Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No. 36,013)
`Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633)
`Richard M. Bemben (Reg. No. 68,658)
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Objections to PO’s Evidence
`CBM2016-00054 / Patent No. 7,693,768
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PETITIONERS’
`
`OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) was served electronically via e–mail on January 27, 2017, in
`
`its entirety on Attorneys for Patent Owner:
`
`Erika H. Arner, Joshua L. Goldberg, Kevin D. Rodkey,
`Rachel L. Emsley, Cory C. Bell
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Erika.arner@finnegan.com; Joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com;
`Kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com; Rachel.emsley@finnegan.com;
`Cory.bell@finnegan.com; Trading–Tech–CBM@finnegan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand, Jay Q. Knobloch
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`tt–patent–cbm@tradingtechnologies.com;
`jay.knobloch@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`Michael D. Gannon, Leif R. Sigmond, Jr.,
`Jennifer M. Kurcz, Cole B. Richter
`MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`gannon@mbhb.com; sigmond@mbhb.com; kurcz@mbhb.com;
`richter@mbhb.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
` P.L.L.C.
`
`/Richard M. Bemben/
`Robert E. Sokohl (Reg. No. 36,013)
`Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633)
`Richard M. Bemben (Reg. No. 68,658)
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`
`
`Date: January 27, 2017
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005–3934
`(202) 371–2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
