`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`THE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 CFR § 42.22(a)(1)) .................................... 1
`
`REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 CFR § 42.22(a)(2)) ........ 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Board should strike ’054 Exhibit 2233 and ’090 Exhibit 2233
`because they are impermissibly incorporated by reference in the
`’054 POR and the ’090 POR, respectively............................................ 4
`
`The Board should strike the ’054 POR’s string citations on pages
`38, 42-43, 51, 61, and 65 because each is an impermissible
`incorporation by reference. ................................................................... 8
`
`The Board should strike the ’090 POR’s string citations on pages
`42, 46, 53, 62, and 65 because each is an impermissible
`incorporation by reference. .................................................................10
`
`In this case, striking both Exhibit 2233s and the PORs’ string
`citations is the appropriate relief. ........................................................11
`
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`THE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 CFR § 42.22(a)(1))
`
`I.
`
`As authorized by the Board’s March 10, 2017 Order (CBM2016-00054,
`
`Paper 28) (CBM2016-0090, Paper 24), Petitioners move to strike Exhibit 2233 in
`
`CBM2016-00054 (“’054 Exhibit 2233”) because it is incorporated by reference in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 20) (“’054 POR”), and Exhibit 2233 in
`
`CBM2016-00090 (“’090 Exhibit 2233”) because it is incorporated by reference in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 21) (“’090 POR”). These incorporations violate
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)’s prohibition on incorporation by reference and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24(b)(2)’s 18,700 word limit.
`
`Petitioners further move to strike the string citations on pages 38, 42-43, 51,
`
`55, 61, and 65 of the ’054 POR, and the string citations on pages 42, 46, 53, 62,
`
`and 65 of the ’090 POR because they also violate 37 C.F.R.§§ 42.6(a)(3) and
`
`42.24(b)(2).
`
`The Board authorized Petitioners to file the same motion in both CBM
`
`proceedings. (’090 Paper 24 at 2.)
`
`II. REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED (37 CFR § 42.22(a)(2))
`The Office’s Rules prohibit incorporation by reference: “Arguments must
`
`not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). In the Rules of Practice for Trials Before The Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions;
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`Final Rule, the Office explained that this prohibition eliminates abuses (such as
`
`circumvention of word limits) and prevents waste of the tribunal’s time:
`
`The prohibition against incorporation by reference minimizes the
`chance that an argument would be overlooked and eliminates abuses
`that arise from incorporation and combination. In DeSilva v.
`DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999), the court rejected
`“adoption by reference” as a self-help increase in the length of the
`brief and noted that incorporation is a pointless imposition on the
`court’s time as it requires the judges to play archeologist with the
`record. The same rationale applies to Board proceedings.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012) (emphasis added); see also Cisco
`
`Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Tech’s, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (P.T.A.B. Aug.
`
`29, 2014) (informative) (“One purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by
`
`reference is to eliminate abuses that arise from incorporation.”).
`
`Patent Owner continues to ignore this prohibition. In CBMs of related
`
`patents, this Panel censured counsel for Patent Owner for improperly incorporating
`
`unauthorized motions in its PORs, and directed Patent Owner to the Office’s Rule
`
`prohibiting incorporation by reference. See, e.g., IBG, CBM2015-00182, Paper
`
`65 at 2-3; IBG, CBM2015-00182, Paper 60 at 6-7. Yet, Patent Owner continues to
`
`impermissibly incorporate by reference in its PORs: the ’054 POR incorporates
`
`’054 Exhibit 2233, which is an 890-page document including claim charts,
`
`annotated figures, and purported user manuals; and the ’090 POR incorporates
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`’090 Exhibit 2233, which is an 896-page document that also includes claim charts,
`
`annotated figures, and purported user manuals. Patent Owner seeks to use these
`
`exhibits to establish the requisite nexus for Patent Owner’s alleged objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness (see e.g., ’054 POR at 37; 50; 56; ’090 POR at 42; 52-
`
`53; 57), which is Patent Owner burden to show, In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). Additionally, both PORs rely on lengthy string citations to
`
`support its secondary consideration arguments, each of which is also an
`
`impermissible incorporation by reference.
`
`The PORs’ improper incorporations not only force Petitioners and the Board
`
`to “play archeologist with the record,” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,617, they add thousands
`
`of words to Patent Owner’s briefing. For example, the ’054 POR certifies that it
`
`“contains 18,649 words” (’054 POR at “Certificate of Compliance”), a mere 51
`
`words below the 18,700 word limit imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(2).
`
`’054 Exhibit 2233’s claim charts add more than 4,600 words—a nearly 25% “self-
`
`help increase in the length of the brief.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,617. ’090 Exhibit 2233
`
`is worse. It adds more than 5,300 words to Patent Owner’s briefing.
`
`The Board should not permit these abuses. In the above-mentioned CBMs of
`
`related patents, this Panel addressed the very same situation and found that Patent
`
`Owner’s attempt to incorporate the same type of exhibit (as Exhibit 2233) and use
`
`of lengthy string citations were improper. IBG LLC v. Trading Tech’s Int’l, Inc.,
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`CBM2015-00181, Paper 138 at 57, 59 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2017); IBG LLC v.
`
`Trading Tech’s Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00182, Paper 129 at 42, 44 (P.T.A.B. Feb.
`
`28, 2017). In this proceeding, Petitioners timely requested this motion to strike,
`
`which the Board should grant to stop Patent Owner’s abuses.
`
`A. The Board should strike ’054 Exhibit 2233 and ’090 Exhibit 2233
`because they are impermissibly incorporated by reference in the
`’054 POR and the ’090 POR, respectively.
`
`The Board should strike ’054 Exhibit 2233 and ’090 Exhibit 2233 because
`
`they are incorporated by reference in the ’054 POR and ’090 POR, respectively,
`
`which is impermissible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`’054 Exhibit 2233 is an 890-page document that includes: 11 pages of
`
`single-spaced, landscape-oriented claim charts (’054 Exhibit 2233 at 1-11); 14
`
`pages of annotated figures (id. at 12-25); and over 850 pages of purported user
`
`manuals (id. at 26-890.) The 11 pages of claim charts include more than 4,600
`
`words, and attempt to map Patent Owner’s MD_Trader and other products to
`
`certain claims of the ’768 patent. (Id. at 1-11.)
`
`’090 Exhibit 2233 is an 896-page document that includes: 16 pages of
`
`single-spaced, landscape-oriented claim charts (’090 Exhibit 2233 at 1-16); 15
`
`pages of annotated figures (id. at 17-31); and over 850 pages of purported user
`
`manuals (id. at 32-896.) The 16 pages of claim charts include more than 5,300
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`words, and attempt to map Patent Owner’s MD_Trader and other products to
`
`certain claims of the ’382 patent. (Id. at 1-16.)
`
`As best understood, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Thomas, asserts that he
`
`created the claim charts. (’054 Exhibit 2169 at ¶ 76; ’090 Exhibit 2169 at ¶ 76.)
`
`And Patent Owner seeks to use ’054 Exhibit 2233 and ’090 Exhibit 2233,
`
`respectively, to establish the requisite nexus for Patent Owner’s alleged objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. (See e.g., ’054 POR at 37; 50; 56; ’090 POR at 42;
`
`52-53; 57.) Patent Owner carries the burden of showing nexus. In re Huang, 100
`
`F.3d at 139-40. But Patent Owner makes no attempt to explain—in its PORs—
`
`how either ’054 Exhibit 2233 or ’090 Exhibit 2233 establishes a nexus.1
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., IPR2014-00034, Paper 44 at 27 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3,
`
`2015) (“Patent Owner makes no attempt, however, to explain in its Response how
`
`this evidence establishes a nexus. Instead, it is an improper incorporation by
`
`reference of arguments from the Phillips Declaration into the PO Response.”).
`
`Indeed, the PORs do not even mention the claim charts, the annotated figures, or
`
`the purported user manuals.
`
`
`1 Petitioners do not agree that either ’054 Exhibit 2233 or ’090 Exhibit 2233
`
`establishes a nexus or any of the alleged secondary considerations.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`Instead, the PORs incorporate by reference the respective Exhibit 2233 in its
`
`entirety.2 Each POR references the respective Exhibit 2233 13 times. (’054 POR at
`
`37; 50; 56; 60; 61; 69; 71; 74-75; ’090 POR at 42; 53; 57; 58; 61; 62; 67; 69; 73.)
`
`Each reference is to the entire 890-page/896-page document and is proceeded by
`
`conclusory statements that generally allege that MD_Trader embodies certain
`
`claims of the patent-at-issue. (Id.) The following references are illustrative:
`
`The claimed invention was embodied by TT in a commercial product,
`MD_Trader, in the fall of 2000. Ex.2169, ¶97; Ex. 2233. TT continues
`to sell MD_Trader today, which has embodied the elements of the
`claims in every version launched from 2000 to present. Id.
`
`(’054 POR at 37 (emphasis added); see also ’090 POR at 42.)
`
`Again, as established, this skepticism resulted directly from
`introduction of MD_Trader, thus establishing the required nexus. Ex.
`2169 at ¶¶ 75, 96, 99; Ex. 2233.
`
`(’054 POR at 56 (emphasis added); see also ’090 POR at 57.)
`
`The Board has consistently held that referring to external arguments, such as
`
`the claim charts and annotated figures in both Exhibit 2233s, that are not fully
`
`
`2 Mr. Thomas’ Declarations also impermissibly incorporates by reference
`
`the respective Exhibit 2233 in its entirety. (See e.g., ’054 Exhibit 2169 at ¶ 76;
`
`’090 Exhibit 2169 at ¶ 76.)
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`developed in the briefs is improper. Cisco, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 7-10
`
`(informative) (refusing to “consider arguments that are not made in [a substantive
`
`paper], but are instead incorporated by reference to the cited paragraphs and claims
`
`charts of [an expert’s] Declaration”); MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00040, Paper 85 at 37-39 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016) (“incorporation of
`
`material from one document by reference into another … is inappropriate” and
`
`“would be unjust to Petitioner”); Medtronic, IPR2014-00034, Paper 44 at 27
`
`(“Patent Owner makes no attempt, however, to explain in its Response how this
`
`evidence establishes a nexus. Instead, it is an improper incorporation by reference
`
`of arguments from the Phillips Declaration into the PO Response.”); Conopco, Inc.
`
`v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2013-00505, Paper 69 at 27 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10,
`
`2015) (“our rules prohibit a party from incorporating by reference from one
`
`document (such as a supporting declaration) into another document (such as Patent
`
`Owner’s Response)”).
`
`Patent Owner was on notice long before it filed its PORs that incorporation
`
`by reference is improper. Again, this Panel has censured counsel for Patent Owner
`
`for improperly incorporating unauthorized motions in its PORs, and directed Patent
`
`Owner to the Office’s Rule prohibiting incorporation by reference. See, e.g., IBG,
`
`CBM2015-00182, Paper 65 at 2-3; IBG, CBM2015-00182, Paper 60 at 6-7.
`
`Petitioners have also argued (under the same circumstances that led to this Motion)
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`that Patent Owner’s incorporations are improper. See e.g., IBG, CBM2015-00182,
`
`Paper 96 at 19 (Petitioners’ September 9, 2016 Reply, stating: “Nor is TT
`
`permitted to circumvent the PTO’s word-count requirements by incorporating
`
`arguments from other sources into its POR. 37 C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3).”).
`
`Nevertheless, the PORs incorporate the respective Exhibit 2233, and thus the
`
`Board should strike both Exhibit 2233s in their entirety. At the very least, the
`
`Board should strike the claim charts and annotated figures (pages 1-25 of ’054
`
`Exhibit 2233; pages 1-31 of ’090 Exhibit 2233) because they (as best understood)
`
`represent arguments, not evidence, presented by Mr. Thomas and improperly
`
`incorporated into the PORs.
`
`B.
`
`The Board should strike the ’054 POR’s string citations on pages
`38, 42-43, 51, 61, and 65 because each is an impermissible
`incorporation by reference.
`
`For the same reasons stated above, the Board should also strike the ’054
`
`POR’s string citations on pages 38, 42-43, 55, 61, and 65 because each is an
`
`impermissible incorporation by reference. These citations are reproduced below:
`
`• ’054 POR at 38: “Ex.2169, ¶¶134-35, 138; Exs. 2250-2252, 2265-
`
`2272.”
`
`• ’054 POR at 42: “Ex. 2169, ¶¶122-127; Ex. 2403 at 285:16-286:10;
`
`Ex. 2154, Galik, at 276:5-277:7; Ex. 2404, 604:7-13; Ex. 2234; Ex.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`2405; Ex. 2144 at TS0107057; Ex. 2235; Ex. 2524; Ex. 2237; Ex.
`
`2236; Ex. 2238; Exs. 2520-2522.”
`
`• ’054 POR at 42-43: “Id.; see also Ex. 2501; Ex. 2504; 2507.”
`
`• ’054 POR at 51: “Ex.2169, ¶¶120-134, 137; Ex.2170, ¶30; Ex. 2534,
`
`¶¶2-7; Ex.2171, ¶¶42-44; Ex.2173, ¶¶17-23, 27-30; see generally
`
`Ex.2223.”
`
`• ’054 POR at 61: “Ex.2169, ¶¶103-110; Ex.2223 (Anthony, Decl., ¶5;
`
`Glickman, Decl., ¶¶4-5; Grisafi, Decl., ¶¶4-5; McElveen, Dec., ¶¶4-5;
`
`Feltes, Decl., ¶¶4-5; Northway, Decl., ¶¶4-5; Zellinger Decl., ¶5);
`
`Ex.2226; Ex. 2534, ¶¶2-7.”
`
`• ’054 POR at 65: “Ex.2169, ¶138; Ex.2240; Ex.2241; Ex.2242;
`
`Ex.2243; Ex.2244; Ex.2245; Ex.2246; Ex.2251; Ex.2252; Ex.2253;
`
`Ex.2254; Ex.2255; Ex.2256; Ex.2257; Ex.2258; Ex.2259; Ex.2260;
`
`Ex.2261; Ex.2262; Ex.2263; Ex.2264; Ex.2265; Ex.2266; Ex.2267;
`
`Ex.2268; Ex.2269; Ex.2270; Ex.2271; Ex.2272.”
`
`For each of these string citations, the Patent Owner fails to explain—in the
`
`’054 POR—how the cited documents support its arguments. In the most egregious
`
`example on page 65, the ’054 POR provides a citation to 30 exhibits without any
`
`explanation of what those exhibits are or how they are relevant. Such citations fail
`
`to put Petitioners on notice of Patent Owner’s arguments, and force Petitioners and
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`the Board to play archeologist with the record. The string citations identified above
`
`are quintessential incorporations by reference, which are improper and should be
`
`stricken.
`
`C. The Board should strike the ’090 POR’s string citations on pages
`42, 46, 53, 62, and 65 because each is an impermissible
`incorporation by reference.
`
`For the same reasons stated above, the Board should also strike the ’090
`
`POR’s string citations on pages 42, 46, 53, 62, and 65 because each is an
`
`impermissible incorporation by reference. These citations are reproduced below:
`
`• ’090 POR at 42: “Ex.2169, ¶¶137-41; Exs.2250-2252, 2265-2272.”
`
`• ’090 POR at 46: “Ex.2169, ¶¶125-130; Ex.2403 at 285:16-286:10;
`
`Ex.2154 at 276:5-277:7; Ex.2404, 604:7-13; Ex.2234; Ex.2405;
`
`Ex.2144 at TS0107057; Ex.2235; Ex.2524; Ex.2237; Ex.2236;
`
`Ex.2238; Exs.2520-2522.”
`
`• ’090 POR at 46: “Id.; see also Ex.2501; Ex.2504; Ex.2507.”
`
`• ’090 POR at 53: “Ex.2169, ¶¶123-137, 140; Ex.2170, ¶30; Ex.2534,
`
`¶¶2-7; Ex.2171, ¶¶42-44; Ex.2173, ¶¶17-23, 27-30; see generally
`
`Ex.2223.”
`
`• ’090 POR at 62: “Ex.2169, ¶¶106-113; Ex.2223 (Anthony, Decl., ¶5;
`
`Glickman, Decl., ¶¶4-5; Grisafi, Decl., ¶¶4-5; McElveen, Dec., ¶¶4-5;
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`Feltes, Decl., ¶¶4-5; Northway, Decl., ¶¶4-5; Zellinger Decl., ¶5);
`
`Ex.2226; Ex.2534, ¶¶2-7.”
`
`• ’054 POR at 65: “Ex.2169, ¶141; Ex.2240; Ex.2241; Ex.2242;
`
`Ex.2243; Ex.2244; Ex.2245; Ex.2246; Ex.2251; Ex.2252; Ex.2253;
`
`Ex.2254; Ex.2255; Ex.2256; Ex.2257; Ex.2258; Ex.2259; Ex.2260;
`
`Ex.2261; Ex.2262; Ex.2263; Ex.2264; Ex.2265; Ex.2266; Ex.2267;
`
`Ex.2268; Ex.2269; Ex.2270; Ex.2271; Ex.2272.”
`
`Like the ’054, for each of these string citations, the Patent Owner fails to
`
`explain—in the ’090 POR—how the cited documents support its arguments. In the
`
`most egregious example on page 65, the ’090 POR provides a citation to 30
`
`exhibits without any explanation of what those exhibits are or how they are
`
`relevant. As in the ’054, such citations fail to put Petitioners on notice of Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments, and force Petitioners and the Board to play archeologist with
`
`the record. Again, the string citations identified above are quintessential
`
`incorporations by reference, which are improper and should be stricken.
`
`D.
`
`In this case, striking both Exhibit 2233s and the PORs’ string
`citations is the appropriate relief.
`
`Striking both Exhibit 2233s and the PORs’ string citations is the appropriate
`
`relief. A covered business method review is intended to be an inexpensive
`
`alternative to district court litigation. In that vein, the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide recommends that “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise,
`
`well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable
`
`evidence of record.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Ignoring the Office’s guidance, Patent Owner boasts that it dumped a
`
`“mountain” of documents into this proceeding. (’054 POR at 43; ’090 POR at 47.)
`
`That is true. But given this admission, it is incumbent on Patent Owner—not
`
`Petitioners and the Board—to organize its evidence and present its arguments in
`
`the POR. Patent Owner failed to do so, and should be held accountable.
`
`Petitioners recognize that other panels faced with improper incorporations
`
`by reference have exercised their discretion and simply refused to consider the
`
`incorporated arguments. See, e.g., Cisco, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10. But, in
`
`this case, Patent Owner’s impermissible incorporations are unduly prejudicial to
`
`Petitioners. First, Patent Owner’s continued disregard for the Rule prohibiting
`
`incorporation by reference is reason enough to grant the requested relief.
`
`Second, Patent Owner should not be able to flood the this proceeding with a
`
`“mountain” of documents beyond what the Office’s Rules permit. While the Board
`
`has discretion to refuse to consider the documents that Patent Owner impermissibly
`
`incorporates by reference, those documents remain in the record unless stricken.
`
`Third, Petitioners must address many issues (e.g., eligibility under § 101,
`
`CBM eligibility, TSE’s status as prior art, prima facie obviousness, the “mountain”
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`of secondary consideration evidence) within the stringent word limit for a CBM
`
`reply (i.e., 5,600 words). 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(1). So, in this case, Petitioners must
`
`not only be an archeologist and speculate as to Patent Owner’s interpretation of
`
`these incorporated materials, but they also have to respond to these arguments
`
`within the word limits set by 37 C.F.R. §42.24(c)(1).
`
`Finally, Patent Owner’s incorporation by reference is particularly egregious
`
`in this instance because Petitioners raised this very issue in its previous Replies.
`
`See e.g., IBG, CBM2015-00182, Paper 96 at 19 (Petitioners’ September 9, 2016
`
`Reply, stating: “Nor is TT permitted to circumvent the PTO’s word-count
`
`requirements by incorporating arguments from other sources into its POR. 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.6(a)(3).”). But, unlike the Board who acknowledged this improper
`
`incorporation by reference in its Final Written Decisions, the Patent Owner
`
`doubled down and increased the pages it incorporated by reference. (Compare ’054
`
`Exhibit 2233 (890 pages), with, CBM2015-00182 Exhibit 2233 (121 pages).)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated above, the Board should strike both Exhibit 2233s; the
`
`’054 POR’s string citations at pages 38, 42-43, 51, 55, 61, and 65; and the ’090
`
`POR’s string citations at pages 42, 46, 53, 62, and 65.
`
`
`Date: March 17, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`CBM2016-00054 (Patent 7,693,768 B1)
`CBM2016-00090 (Patent 7,725,382 B2)
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PETITIONERS’
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE was served electronically via e-mail on March 17, 2017,
`
`in its entirety on Attorneys for Patent Owner:
`
`Erika H. Arner (Back-up Counsel) erika.arner@finnegan.com
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Back-up Counsel) joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`Kevin D. Rodkey (Back-up Counsel) kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`Rachel L. Emsley (Back-up Counsel) rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`Cory C. Bell (Back-up Counsel) cory.bell@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`trading-tech-CBM@finnegan.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand (Back-up Counsel) tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`Jay Q. Knobloch (Back-up Counsel) jay.knobloch@tradingtechnologies.com
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Michael D. Gannon (Back-up Counsel) gannon@mbhb.com
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. (Lead Counsel) sigmond@mbhb.com
`Jennifer M. Kurcz (Back-up Counsel) kurcz@mbhb.com
`Cole B. Richter (Back-up Counsel) richter@mbhb.com
`MCDONNELL, BOEHNEN, HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`
`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: March 17, 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
