4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------------x
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.
` Petitioners,
` v.
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------------x
` Case CBM2016-00054
` Patent 7,693,768 B1
` 10:00 a.m.
` April 21, 2017
` TELECONFERENCE
`BEFORE:
` SALLY C. MEDLEY, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent
` Judge
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1083
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`-----------------------------------------x
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.
` Petitioners,
` v.
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
` Patent Owner.
`-----------------------------------------x
` Case CBM2016-00054
` Patent 7,693,768 B1
` 10:00 a.m.
` April 21, 2017
` TELECONFERENCE
`BEFORE:
` SALLY C. MEDLEY, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative
` Patent Judge
` JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent
` Judge
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1083
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX
` Attorneys for Petitioners
` 1100 New York Avenue
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` BY: ROBERT E. SOKOHL, ESQ.
`
` McDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
` BY: JENNIFER M. KURCZ, ESQ.
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`Page 3
`
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Good afternoon.
` This is Judge Petravick, on the
` phone with Judge Medley and Judge
` Plenzler.
` This is a conference call for CBM
` 2016-00054.
` Can I know who is on the line for
` the Petitioner?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor this
` is Robert Sokohl representing
` Petitioners, lead counsel.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And is there
` anybody else on the line for Petitioner?
` MR. SOKOHL: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And for patent
` owner?
` MS. KURCZ: Good morning, Your
` Honors, this is Jennifer Kurcz on behalf
` of patent owner Trading Technology.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And is there
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` anybody else on the line?
` MS. KURCZ: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Is there a
` court reporter?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Who arranged
` for the court reporter, the Petitioner?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And you will
` file the transcript when it's available?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` All right, for today we are here to
` discuss your request for an increase in
` the word count limit for the Petitioner's
` reply.
` We will hear from Petitioner first.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you, Your
` Honor.
` As the panel is aware on March 17
` we had a telephone conference to discuss
` Petitioner's request to strike certain
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` portions of the patent owner's reply,
` response as well as increase the word
` count.
` We were asking for authorization to
` file a motion to strike and for an
` increase in the word count, and we believe
` that the court misapprehended what we were
` asking for.
` We never intended to ask for one or
` the other.
` Our intent was to ask for a modest
` increase in the word count and if the
` Board did not agree with our request for a
` motion to strike, that we would ask for
` more words.
` We specifically had mentioned the
` CV and the prior CBMs 2015-00181 and 182
` where we had been -- we had asked and had
` been granted a 1,000 word increase to
` 6,600 words to cover all the issues in the
` CBM.
` We have very similar issues here,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` and our intent was to ask for the same
` modest increase to 6,600 words.
` We believe the Petitioners are
` entitled to respond to all of patent
` owner's arguments.
` We simply can't do that adequately
` in 5,600 words.
` The issues to be discussed, as you
` are likely aware, are CBM eligibility,
` 101, including referencing the CPG Federal
` Circuit case, claim construction, CP
` status on prior art, which the court has
` already ruled on but we still need to deal
` with here in full, multiple secondary
` considerations.
` And in addition to that we had --
` patent owner filed numerous declarations,
` we cross-examined three experts, one
` translator and one trader and we would
` like to be able to use that testimony.
` As the Board is aware, Petitioners
` and patent owners get more words for
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` petitions and responses in CBMs, but
` Petitioner does not get more words in
` their reply.
` And here, because of the large
` number of issues, we believe that the
` Board should use its discretion and
` increase the word count, again, just by
` 1,000 words.
` There are certain issues that we
` could not have anticipated, such as the
` volume of secondary considerations
` arguments that the patent owner has made.
` We also could not have anticipated
` the volume of declarations the patent
` owner would have filed.
` And finally, obviously the CPG
` versus Trading Technologies Federal
` Circuit case is something we should deal
` with.
` Something we didn't have to deal
` with in the prior two CBMs where we got
` the word increase, but I would think the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 8
` Board would want us to deal with that case
` in full in this pleading.
` And if you take just a step back
` and ask us, if this is a request for
` reconsideration of our prior request for
` increase in would count or a new request
` for just 1,000 words because of all these
` issues, we believe just a modest increase
` of 1,000 words is just in this situation.
` Particularly given that the Board
` has granted such a request in the past on
` very similar issues.
` At the end here we want the Board
` to -- we just we don't want to deprive
` Petitioner of an opportunity to fully
` respond.
` Thank you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` We will hear from the patent owner
` now.
` MS. KURCZ: LlThank you, Your
` Honor.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 9
` Petitioners are reraising the same
` request that they previously raised before
` you in March.
` They don't identify facts that have
` changed since that time frame.
` In terms of what we filed that was
` the same then as it is now.
` I know Mr. Sokohl raised the volume
` of secondary considerations as an example,
` but the patent owner's response is the
` same then as it is today.
` And Petitioners did not have a
` court reporter on the last call, the prior
` request back in March, but I actually had
` a different recollection of the request
` for words, and I actually did not recall
` that those were independent.
` So that's my recollection that they
` were not.
` Another point is that overall the
` Petitioner gets more words.
` They fully should have anticipated
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 10
` there is a number of the petitions that
` they have filed.
` They are the ones that raised all
` the issues, and again, Your Honors have
` already considered and addressed their
` request for additional words in an earlier
` order.
` And because they haven't identified
` facts that have changed or things that
` have been overlooked or misapprehended,
` the standard for reconsideration hasn't
` been that it -- excuse me -- it is our
` position that Your Honor should deny this
` request.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right,
` thank you.
` Petitioner, last words?
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure, Your Honor.
` I want to be clear on something.
` As I said earlier it was never our intent
` to ask for one or the other.
` Counselor is right, we did not have
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` a court reporter on that, that was our
` error, in hindsight, and to the extent
` that I was inartful in making our request
` that is my fault, but it was clearly our
` intent to ask for more words, just as we
` had in prior CBMs, and asked for
` additional words if, in fact, the board
` did not agree that patent owner properly
` incorporated material by reference.
` Thank you.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: If I recall
` correctly I asked during the last
` conference call whether there was a
` request for links and the answer was
` yes.
` MR. SOKOHL: You are absolutely
` correct, Your Honor.
` I do recall that, Your Honor, and
` they were linked in the sense that we
` needed more words if we were not going to
` have -- if the board was not going to
` allow us to file a motion to strike.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Again, if I was inartful in my
` answer, that was my fault, but that's what
` I intended.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And if I recall
` correctly, and please correct me if I'm
` wrong, when we granted a request to
` extend the word count for the
` previous -- I will call this back CBMs
` which include more than the 181, the
` 182, the 161 and the 179 CBM, correct?
` In those cases the Petitioner or
` the patent owner had made numerous due
` process arguments.
` MR. SOKOHL: That is correct,
` Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: That's not the
` case here, correct?
` MR. SOKOHL: That is correct, and
` in that situation, frankly, because of
` the even the 6,600 words we have limited
` ability to even respond there.
` We had actually requested more
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 13
` words at that time and the board gave us
` 6,600, which we appreciated.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And those
` arguments aren't raised in the patent
` owner's response in this case?
` MR. SOKOHL: They are not, Your
` Honor.
` MS. KURCZ: LlYour Honor, if
` patent owner can address your question?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Let Petitioner
` finish first then you will have another
` opportunity to respond.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you, Your
` Honor.
` I was just going to say, Your
` Honor, you are right, they are not
` addressed to the best of my knowledge in
` patent owner's response, however the new
` issues today that we didn't have back
` again is of course the CPG Trading
` Technologies case, which the court has
` asked for additional briefing in the past,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` and we would like to incorporate that
` briefing into our response.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right and
` the patent owner?
` MS. KURCZ: LlThank you, Your
` Honor.
` I just wanted to make the record
` clear that we are not waiving any due
` process objections.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Yes, I didn't
` comment on whether you are waiving any
` objections, I was just asking whether
` they were raised in the brief to request
` the word count request.
` MS. KURCZ: LlThank you, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I am going to
` query the panel right now to see if they
` have any questions.
` The panel is going to take a moment
` to consider the request. We are going to
` go off line.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` We will be back shortly.
` Please hold.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Hello, the
` judges have returned.
` Is counsel for Petitioner still
` there?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: And counsel for
` patent owner?
` MS. KURCZ: LlYes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I do have one
` question for the patent owner.
` Was the CPG case addressed in the
` patent owner's response?
` MS. KURCZ: LlYes, I believe so,
` yes.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Okay. And that
` case issued just prior to the patent
` owner's response?
` This would be the first time that
` the Petitioner would be able to address
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` that issue.
` All right, the panel has considered
` your arguments and conferred.
` We are going to grant the
` Petitioner a 500 word extension, but
` solely limited to addressing the CPG case.
` MR. SOKOHL: Okay, thank you,
` Your Honor.
` MS. KURCZ: LlThank you, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` Are there any other questions or
` issues?
` MS. KURCZ: We have none, Your
` Honor.
` MR. SOKOHL: Actually, Your
` Honor, one related issue, forgive me I
` don't have the CBM number in front of
` me, but we will have the exact same
` issue for the '382 Patent.
` Sorry, I forgot the CBM number,
` should we send an e-mail to the panel for
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 17
` authorization for 500 words in that case
` as well?
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: I'm sorry,
` which case are you referring to?
` MR. SOKOHL: It's another -- let
` me see if get it for you, I'm sorry,
` Your Honor.
` We have one more.
` MS. KURCZ: LlI believe it's CBM
` 2016-00090.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you.
` MS. KURCZ: LlFor the '382
` Patent, Mr. Sokohl.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you.
` We would have the same request in
` that case.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: When is your
` Petitioner's reply due in that case?
` MR. SOKOHL: It is due in -- it's
` right around mid-May, I think May
` 14th-ish.
` MS. KURCZ: LlPatent owner would
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 18
` have the same objections, the same issue
` was raised in Your Honors' April 7th
` Order.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: So I am not
` able to bring up the case, but I'm
` assuming there is a 101, are they are
` all the same issues in 101, the prior
` art?
` MR. SOKOHL: All the same.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All the same
` issues?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes, and CPG was
` around -- CPG was dealt with in the POR.
` MS. KURCZ: That's my
` recollection.
` I haven't specifically looked at
` that one, but I believe so.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, I am
` trying to bring the case up on my
` docket.
` MR. SOKOHL: Sorry, Your Honor.
` I should have said this at the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` beginning.
` MS. KURCZ: LlYour Honor, I was
` able to just confirm we did raise CPG.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you,
` that's what I was going to check.
` All right.
` Yes, you can have a 500 word count
` extension limited only to addressing the
` CPG case.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you, Your
` Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: All right, any
` other issues?
` MR. SOKOHL: None for Petitioner.
` MS. KURCZ: None for patent
` owner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Thank you.
` All right, we will be -- we will
` adjourn and I will send out an Order
` memorializing what we discussed on this
` call.
` Please file the transcript.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/21/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Teleconference Transcription
`
`Page 20
` MR. SOKOHL: We will, Your Honor,
` thank you.
` MS. KURCZ: Thank you.
` JUDGE PETRAVICK: Bye-bye.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`412U20t7
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc,
`
`Teleconference Tra nscri ption
`
`CERTTF]CATE
`
`Page 2I
`
`It STEPHEN J. MOORE, a Shorthand
`Reporter and Notary Public of the State of
`New York, do hereby certify:
`
`That the transcript
`hereinbefore set forth i-s a true and
`accurate record of said proceedings.
`
`I further certify
`that I am not
`related to any of the parties to this
`action by bJ-ood or marriage,. and that I am
`in no hray interested in the outcome of
`this matter.
`
`.s#
`
`STEPHEN J. MOORE, RPR, CRR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`'7
`
`B
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`72
`
`13
`
`74
`
`15
`
`76
`
`1-1
`
`1B
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2t
`
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com Digital EvidenceGroup C'rt20t7
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
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
