`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: March 10, 2017
`
`
`
`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.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same or similar issue in the proceedings listed
`above. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of filing.
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`
`A conference call was held on March 9, 2017 between counsel for the
`
`parties and Judges Medley, Petravick, and Plenzler. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`42.20(b), Petitioner initiated the call to request authorization to file a motion
`to strike Exhibit 2233 and portions of the Patent Owner Response in both
`proceedings. Petitioner alleges that the Patent Owner Responses improperly
`incorporate by reference arguments found in Exhibits 2233. See 37 C.F.R. §
`42.6(a)(3). Patent Owner opposed the request.
`
`After consideration of the information received during the call, we
`authorize Petitioner to file a motion to strike Exhibits 2233 and portions of
`the Patent Owner Responses. The same motion should be filed in both
`proceedings. The motion is limited to 15 pages and should be filed no later
`than March 17, 2017. Patent Owner may file an opposition. The same
`opposition should be filed in both proceedings. The opposition is limited to
`15 pages and should be filed no later than March 24, 2017. No reply is
`authorized.
`
`During the call, Petitioner also requested an increase in the word
`count limit for the Petitioner Reply to 8,600 words. Petitioner argues that
`the increase was needed to address the arguments allegedly incorporated by
`reference into the Patent Owner Responses. At this time, we hold
`Petitioner’s request for a word count increase in abeyance because we have
`not yet made a decision on Petitioner’s motion to strike. We will consider
`the request at the time we address Petitioner’s motion.
`
`It is:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner may file the same motion to strike Exhibits
`2233 and portions of the Patent Owner Responses, limited to 15 pages, no
`later than March 17, 2017 in both proceedings; and
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file the same
`
`opposition to the motion to strike, limited to 15 pages, no later than March
`24, 2017 in both proceedings.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`Lori A. Gordon
`Richard M. Bemben
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Leif Sigmond
`Cole Richter
`MCDONNELL, BOEHNEN, HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`richter@mbhb.com
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
