4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
` TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
` TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2016-00090 (Patent No. 7,725,382)
` CBM2016-00054 (Patent No. 7,693,768 B2)
`
` Deposition of ERIC J. GOULD BEAR, taken at
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, IL-CSR, RPR, CLR,
` and CRR, commencing at the hour of 1:00 p.m.
` on Tuesday, April 11, 2017.
`
`____________________________________________________
` 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 1085
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
` TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
` TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2016-00090 (Patent No. 7,725,382)
` CBM2016-00054 (Patent No. 7,693,768 B2)
`
` Deposition of ERIC J. GOULD BEAR, taken at
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, IL-CSR, RPR, CLR,
` and CRR, commencing at the hour of 1:00 p.m.
` on Tuesday, April 11, 2017.
`
`____________________________________________________
` 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 1085
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN FOX
` BY: ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQ.
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQ.
` 1100 New York Avenue, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` 202.371.2600
` rsokohl@skgf.com
` rbemben@skgf.com
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
` BY: JENNIFER M. KURCZ, ESQ.
` LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR., ESQ.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` 312.913.3311
` kurcz@mbhb.com
` sigmond@mbhb.com
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`ERIC J. GOULD BEAR
` Examination by Mr. Bemben 4
`
` EXHIBITS
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`Exhibit 2168 Declaration of Eric J. 9
` Gould Bear in Support of
` Patent Owner's Response
` (CBM2016-00090)
`Exhibit 2168 Declaration of Eric J. 13
` Gould Bear in Support of
` Patent Owner's Response
` (CBM2016-00054)
`IBG PAGE
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,693,768 27
` (CBM2016-0054)
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,725,382 31
` (CBM2016-00090)
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`(Witness sworn.)
` ERIC J. GOULD BEAR,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Good afternoon. Please state your
`full name and address.
` A. Eric Justin Gould Bear, 809 Jewel
`Street, Austin, Texas 78704.
` Q. My name is Richard Bemben. I'm an
`attorney at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox. We
`represent petitioners in this case. And with me
`is Robert Sokohl.
` MR. BEMBEN: Counsel, would you like
`to introduce yourselves.
` MS. KURCZ: Jennifer Kurcz on behalf
`of patent owner Trading Technologies. And with me
`is Leif Sigmond, Jr. We're from the law firm of
`McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Mr. Bear, you've been deposed before;
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`is that correct?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. How many times?
` A. About half a dozen.
` Q. So you're familiar with the process
`here. I'll ask the questions and you answer them.
`Please provide clear verbal responses so we can
`develop a record.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I ask that we don't speak over each
`other. Let me finish my question and I'll let you
`finish your answer. Is that fair?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. If I ask you a question that you don't
`understand, please ask me to clarify it.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And if I ask a question and you answer
`it, I'll assume that you've understood it. Is
`that fair?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. During the deposition I encourage you
`to take breaks if you need to. I try to take a
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`break every hour or so. If you need a break,
`please just let me know and all I ask is that you
`answer the pending question. Is that okay?
` A. Okay.
` Q. You understand that you're under oath;
`correct?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Is there any reason that you cannot
`give truthful and complete testimony today?
` A. No, there isn't.
` Q. Okay. Mr. Bear, you understand that
`you're testifying in two covered business method
`reviews today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And do you understand that the patent
`owner is Trading Technologies International?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is it okay if I refer to Trading
`Technologies International as "TT"?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you are testifying on behalf of
`the patent owner; is that correct?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Are you testifying today as an expert?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What is your area of expertise?
` A. My area of expertise is user interface
`design.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. As far as this patent is concerned,
`that's the area.
` Q. So you're not an expert in trading
`financial instruments?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Have you ever designed a graphical
`user interface for trading financial instruments?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. What graphical user interface did you
`design?
` A. I led a team that designed the user
`interface for Charles Schwab's active trading
`platform.
` Q. Have you designed any other graphical
`user interfaces for trading financial instruments?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. That is the only one that I can
`recall.
` Q. If I say "GUI," G-U-I, for graphical
`user interface, will you understand what I mean?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Are you represented by counsel today?
` A. Present counsel is representing me for
`this deposition.
` Q. Okay. And what did you do to prepare
`for this deposition?
` A. I reviewed materials that I had cited
`in the declaration; I reviewed the declaration;
`and I reviewed the transcript from the last
`deposition in the sister matter.
` Q. Did you meet with anyone?
` A. Present counsel.
` Q. Anyone else?
` A. Briefly met with other counsel.
` Q. Do you recall their names?
` THE WITNESS: What's Mike's last name?
` MS. KURCZ: Gannon.
` THE WITNESS: Michael Gannon.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Did you meet with anyone from TT?
` A. No.
` Q. You mentioned that you reviewed
`materials -- strike that.
` Mr. Bear, I'm going to hand you
`what has been marked as Trading Tech Exhibit 2168
`in CBM2016-00090. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Have you seen that document before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. What is it?
` A. This is a declaration that I prepared
`in support of the patent owner's response in the
`'382 CBM matter.
` Q. If we go to Page 30, is your signature
`on Page 30, Mr. Bear?
` A. That is my signature.
` Q. So I believe you referred to this
`matter as the '382 CBM matter. Is it okay if we
`refer to this declaration as the '382 declaration?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. When was the last time you reviewed
`the '382 declaration?
` A. This morning.
` Q. Are there any corrections as you sit
`here today that you'd like to make to the '382
`declaration?
` A. There is one small correction that I'd
`like to make.
` In Paragraph 30 -- and I pointed
`this out in the last deposition as a mistake in
`the declaration related to that and I forgot to
`make the change, so it carried forward. In the
`sentence, the third sentence begins about halfway
`down the paragraph, it says "this is especially
`true of the users of the claimed invention" comma.
`That comma should be stricken. And it's the same
`in the '768 declaration, which is also Paragraph
`30.
` Q. Other than the correction that you
`just pointed out in Paragraph 30, are there any
`other corrections that you'd like to make at this
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`time?
` A. That's the only one I can think of at
`this time.
` Q. So other than that correction, this
`'382 declaration is complete and accurate in your
`opinion?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you write the '382 declaration?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. You wrote every words of it?
` A. I did write every word of it.
` Q. And when you were preparing to draft
`the '382 declaration, what materials did you
`review?
` A. I reviewed the '382 Patent, the
`federal circuit's opinion in the related eSpeed
`proceedings, the federal circuit's 112 opinion in
`the related proceedings, Judge Coleman's opinion
`in the related CQG proceedings that held that the
`related '132 and '304 patents are patent eligible,
`the federal circuit's CQG opinion affirming Judge
`Coleman's decision, portions of the declaration by
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 12
`Kendyl Roman in support of the petition for the
`CBM review of the '382 Patent, the petition for
`the CBM review, and the PTAB's decision to
`institute the corresponding CBM review.
` Q. Those materials that you just listed
`are from Paragraph 21 of your declaration; is that
`correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Other than the materials listed in
`Paragraph 21 of your declaration, did you review
`any other materials when you prepared the '382
`declaration?
` A. Those are the ones that I recall.
` Q. You mentioned that yesterday when you
`were preparing for the deposition you reviewed
`some materials. Were those the materials listed
`in Paragraph 21 of your declaration?
` A. Yes. And I reviewed the declarations
`and the transcript of the related deposition from
`last time.
` Q. Was there anything else that you
`reviewed yesterday?
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Not that I can recall.
` Q. Thank you. Let me introduce your
`other declaration.
` I am handing you what's been marked
`as Trading Tech Exhibit 2168 in CBM2016-00054.
`(Document tendered to the witness.)
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Have you seen that document before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. What is it?
` A. This is my declaration in support of
`the patent owner's response in the CBM concerning
`the '768 Patent.
` Q. If I refer to this as your '768
`declaration, will you know what I'm referring to?
` A. Yes, I will.
` Q. And if we turn to Page 29, is that
`your signature?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Was the last time you reviewed the
`'768 declaration yesterday?
` A. This morning.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 14
` Q. This morning. And other than the typo
`that you mentioned in Paragraph 30 of the '768
`declaration, are there any other corrections that
`you'd like to make to it at this time?
` A. Not at this time.
` Q. Did you write the '768 declaration?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Every word?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you review the same materials
`when preparing the '768 declaration that you did
`when preparing the '382 declaration?
` A. Not exactly.
` Q. Okay. What materials did you review
`when you prepared the '768 declaration?
` A. I reviewed the '768 Patent, the
`federal circuit's opinion in the related eSpeed
`proceedings, the federal circuit's 112 opinion on
`the related proceedings, Judge Coleman's opinion
`on the related CQG proceedings that held that the
`related '132 and '304 patents are patent eligible,
`portions of declarations by Kendyl Roman in
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 15
`support of the petition for CBM review of the '768
`Patent, the petition for CBM review, TT's
`preliminary response to the petition, and the
`PTAB's decision to institute the corresponding CBM
`review.
` Q. The materials that you just listed are
`from Paragraph 21 of the '768 declaration; is that
`correct?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. So when you prepared the '768
`declaration, did you review anything in addition
`to those materials that you just listed?
` A. Not that I can recall.
` Q. All right. I'd like to discuss your
`background a bit, but I think it might be helpful
`if we -- can you confirm for me, if you look at
`Paragraphs 4 through 20 of your '768 declaration
`and 4 through 20 of your '382 declaration, can you
`just verify that those are the same so we can just
`talk about one of those?
` A. I see a minor difference in Paragraph
`4 of the two due to the time that passed between
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 16
`writing the '768 declaration and writing the '382
`declaration, the number of patent applications it
`lists me as inventor changed from 80 to 90 and the
`number of those applications that issued as U.S.
`patents changed from 70 to 75. Other than that, I
`believe these paragraphs are the same.
` Q. Thank you.
` So if we turn to Paragraph 12 of
`the '768 declaration, you mentioned that you held
`faculty positions at San Francisco State
`University and the University of Texas at Austin;
`correct?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. What faculty positions have you held
`at the San Francisco State University?
` A. I don't recall the specific title at
`San Francisco State University. I was on the
`faculty and taught courses.
` Q. Were you a full-time professor?
` A. No.
` Q. Were you an adjunct professor?
` A. No.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 17
` Q. How about at the University of Texas
`at Austin, what faculty positions did you hold
`there?
` A. Initially I was a visiting professor
`and then a senior lecturer and senior research
`fellow, or something to that effect.
` Q. Were you ever on the full-time faculty
`at the University of Texas at Austin?
` A. No.
` Q. Were you an adjunct professor ever at
`the University of Texas at Austin?
` A. No.
` Q. In paragraph 11 you mention that you
`have I'm sorry -- strike that. Paragraph
`7 -- strike that too.
` Paragraph 9, please. You mention
`that you have a degree, Bachelor of Arts from
`Wesleyan University in cognitive science; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then you mention example
`coursework includes biological, neurophysiology,
`artificial intelligence programming, and LISP, and
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`research in human perception, and audiovisual
`phenomenon as presented and measured by computing
`machines; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are those examples of coursework that
`you completed?
` A. Yes. Those are examples of coursework
`that I completed.
` Q. In Paragraph 11 you mention that you
`also received a Master's of professional studies
`from NYU; is that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Other than the Bachelor's from
`Wesleyan University and the Master's from NYU, do
`you have any other degrees?
` A. No, I don't.
` Q. Have you ever traded financial
`instruments professionally?
` A. No, I haven't.
` Q. Have you ever traded commodities on an
`electronic exchange?
` A. Yes, I have.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. When?
` A. In the last 20 years.
` Q. Did you use software to trade?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. What software did you use?
` A. I used the software provided by my
`bank.
` Q. Have you ever used any of Trading
`Technologies' software?
` A. I don't believe so.
` Q. Do you know what an open outcry market
`is?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: I do not.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Do you know what a market order is?
` A. I believe so.
` Q. What is it?
` A. I believe that a market order is a
`request to buy or sell at the going price.
` Q. Do you know what a limit order is?
` A. I believe so.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. What is it?
` A. I believe it's an order to buy or sell
`within a particular range.
` Q. When was the first time that you heard
`of TT?
` A. A few years ago.
` Q. How did you hear of TT?
` A. I was at an event and introduced to
`the TT executives.
` Q. Which TT executives did you meet at
`that event?
` A. Jay Knobloch and Steve Borsand.
` Q. Do you recall what year that was in?
` A. I don't specifically recall.
` Q. Was that before 2015?
` A. Yes, it was.
` Q. Was it before 2010?
` A. I believe it was after 2010.
` Q. So sometime between 2010 and 2015?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Where was the event?
` A. In Austin, Texas.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Do you recall what the event was?
` A. I don't recall what it was called.
` Q. Do you recall what the event was
`about?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. This is
`getting outside the scope of this declaration.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. You can still answer.
` A. Fair enough.
` Individuals and companies with an
`interest in patents were gathering to discuss the
`impact of the pending Alice case at that time.
` Q. When was the first time that Trading
`Technologies reached out to you to provide a
`declaration regarding their patents?
` A. I don't recall the date.
` Q. Was it sometime in 2015 or 2016?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall the
`specific date.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Have you provided a declaration for
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Trading Technologies other than for a CBM
`proceeding?
` A. I don't think so.
` Q. After you first met the executives
`from Trading Technologies, did you stay in contact
`with them?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form, scope.
` THE WITNESS: We were in contact a
`couple of times after, before being engaged.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Do you currently have any financial
`interest in Trading Technologies?
` A. Not that I'm aware of.
` Q. Have you ever been employed by Trading
`Technologies other than as a technical expert?
` A. No, I haven't.
` Q. Have you ever worked for Trading
`Technologies in any capacity other than as a
`technical expert?
` A. No, I haven't.
` Q. Do you know Harris Brumfield?
` A. I do not.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. You've never met him?
` A. I don't think so. Although it's
`possible I had a phone conversation with him once,
`but I don't recall.
` Q. Do you know Gene Quinn?
` A. We've had communications --
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. How did you meet him?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Let's turn to your CV. Let's turn to
`Page 36 of your CV, in fact, and look at the top
`where it says IP Watchdog.
` A. And, to be clear, the CV is slightly
`different in the two.
` Q. Okay. Let's look at the CV on the
`'768 declaration.
` Is IP Watchdog a blog?
` A. You could call it that.
` Q. Is Gene Quinn involved with IP
`Watchdog at all?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes, he is.
` Q. How is he involved with IP Watchdog?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: He publishes articles on
`the site.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. And so you have published articles on
`IP Watchdog; is that correct?
` A. I believe I published one article on
`IP Watchdog, and I've been interviewed for other
`articles on IP Watchdog.
` Q. Who interviewed you for those articles
`on IP Watchdog?
` A. Gene Quinn.
` Q. Have you ever discussed TT's patents
`with Gene Quinn?
` A. I have.
` Q. What did you discuss with Gene Quinn
`about TT's patents?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall the
`specifics of what we discussed. I know that there
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`were conversations about patent eligibility.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. About the patent eligibility of TT's
`patents specifically?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this was in -- was this in 2013
`when you had these discussions with Gene Quinn?
` A. According to the dates here in my CV,
`there's 2013 and there's another set of pieces in
`2014.
` Q. Did you discuss patent eligibility of
`TT's patents with Gene Quinn before TT hired you
`as a technical expert?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you know Dennis Crouch?
` A. I've had conversations with him.
` Q. When did you meet Dennis Crouch?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Have you ever discussed TT's patents
`with Dennis Crouch?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MS. KURCZ: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. So as you sit here today, you don't
`recall whether you talked about TT's patents with
`Mr. Crouch; correct?
` A. I can't recall any specific times when
`we did.
` Q. Okay. Let's look at Paragraph 3 of
`your '768 declaration.
` Do you see where you say the '768
`Patent claims a new and improved graphical user
`interface? It's kind of the third line down.
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. What do you mean by "new"?
` A. What I mean by "new" here is that it
`didn't exist before.
` Q. And how did you form the opinion that
`the '768 claims didn't exist before?
` A. I reviewed the patent's specifications
`and figures and claims; I looked at the fact that
`there were dozens, if not hundreds, of prior art
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`cited in the front matter of the patent; the
`eSpeed proceedings and the federal circuit's
`opinion, Judge Coleman's opinion in the CQG
`proceedings holding that the related '132 and '304
`Patents are patent eligible; and analyzing the
`relationship between the claimed invention and
`what was cited in the specification as prior art
`systems all led me to believe that the '768 Patent
`claimed a new and improved graphical user
`interface.
` Q. You said "what was cited in the
`specification as prior art systems." What do you
`mean by that?
` Would you like a copy of that?
` A. I would love a copy of the patents.
` Q. Okay. Mr. Bear, I'm going to hand you
`what's been marked as IBG 1001. (Document
`tendered to the witness.)
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Have you seen that before?
` A. Yes, I have.
` Q. What is it?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 28
` A. This appears to be a copy of the '768
`Patent.
` Q. Before rendering your opinion in the
`'768 declaration, did you read the '768 Patent?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. And is it okay if we refer to this as
`the '768 Patent?
` A. Yes, it is.
` Q. Did you understand the '768 Patent
`when you read it?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Did you read the claims of the '768
`Patent?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Did you understand the claims of the
`'768 Patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Back to my other question. So
`previously you testified about what was cited in
`the specification as prior art systems, and I
`asked what did you mean by that?
` A. The specification uses Figure 2 as a
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 29
`representative of graphical user interfaces that
`existed before the invention.
` Q. When you refer to prior art in your
`'768 declaration, are you referring to Figure 2 in
`the '768 Patent?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Can you rephrase that?
`BY MR. BEMBEN:
` Q. Sure. If you look at Paragraph 42 for
`instance and down towards the bottom, fifth line
`from the bottom on Page 23, you mention "prior
`art."
` Do you see that?
` A. I do see that, yes.
` Q. What did you mean by "prior art"?
` A. In this sentence, "the prior art
`accomplishes receiving user input and placing a
`trade order without falling within the scope of
`the claims of the '768 Patent" is referring to
`patents and systems that existed before the
`priority date of the '768 Patent.
` Q. Let me ask you a broader question.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` When you prepared your '768
`declaration, did you analyze prior art of the '768
`Patent?
` A. I did not analyze prior art outside of
`the patent itself.
` Q. And when you say "the patent itself,"
`do you mean Figure 2 of the patent, of the '768
`Patent?
` A. No. When I refer to "the patent," I'm
`referring to the front matter, the list of dozens
`or hundreds of prior art. I'm not saying I
`reviewed them but I reviewed the fact that they
`were present and considered by the examiner in
`issuing the patent, the complete specification,
`the figures, the tables, and the claims. That's
`what I refer to as "the patent."
` Q. Okay. Did you review any of the
`pieces of prior art that are listed on the face of
`the patent?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Let's just turn to the '382
`declaration, and I'm going to ask you the same
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`question.
` Did you review any prior art when
`you prepared the '382 declaration? Would you like
`the '382 Patent?
` A. That would be great.
` Q. Okay. Let me introduce that first.
`So I am going to introduce to you what has been
`mark as IBG 1001. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` A. Thank you.
` Q. Do you know what this document is?
` A. Yes. This looks like a copy of the
`'382 Patent.
` Q. And it's okay if we refer to this as
`the '382 Patent?
` A. Yes, it is.
` So if I could ask you to clarify in
`your question --
` Q. Hold on a second. Let me ask the
`questions. I have questions about the '382
`Patent.
` A. Okay.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/11/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Eric J. Gould Bear
`
`Page 32
` Q. Did you read the '382 Patent before
`rendering your opinion in the '382 declaration?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Did you understand the '382 Patent?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. Did you read the claims of the '382
`Patent?
` A. Yes, I did.
` Q. And did you understand the claims of
`the '382 Patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So, now, my question: When you
`prepared the '382 declaration, did you analyze any
`of the prior art of the '382 Patent?
` A. If you could clarify what you mean by
`"prior art,"
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
