`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC and INTERACTIVE )
` BROKERS LLC, )
` ) Case CBM2016-00054
` Petitioner, ) U.S. Patent No.
` ) 7,693,768 B1
` vs. )
` ) Case CBM2016-00090
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES ) U.S. Patent No.
` INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) 7,725,382
` )
` Patent Owner. )
` _________________________ )
`
` Deposition of DR. DAN R. OLSEN, JR., taken
` in the above-captioned cause, at McDonnell,
` Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff, 300 South
` Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, before
` Rachel F. Gard, CSR, RPR, CLR, CRR,
` commencing at the hour of 8:34 a.m. on
` Wednesday, April 5, 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 1086
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX
` BY: MR. ROBERT SOKOHL
` MR. RICHARD M. BEMBEN
` 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: MS. JENNIFER M. KURCZ
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606
` 312.913.3311
` kurcz@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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 3
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS PAGE
`DR. DAN R. OLSEN, JR.
` Cross-Examination by Mr. Sokohl 4
` Redirect Examination by Ms. Kurcz 118
`
` E X H I B I T S
`TRADING TECH EXHIBITS PAGE
` Exhibit 2174 Declaration of Dr. Dan R. 11
` Olsen, Jr., in
` CBM2016-00054
` Exhibit 2174 Declaration of Dr. Dan R. 11
` Olsen, Jr., in
` CBM2016-00090
`IBG EXHIBITS PAGE
`
` Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent Nos. 16
` 7,725,382 and 7,693,768
`
` (ALL EXHIBITS RETAINED AND NOT ATTACHED)
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`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.)
`WHEREUPON:
` DR. DAN R. OLSEN, JR.,
`called as a witness herein, having been first duly
`sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Olsen.
` A. Good morning.
` MR. SOKOHL: Rob Sokohl with Sterne, Kessler,
`Goldstein & Fox representing petitioners. With me
`is Richard Bemben.
` MS. KURCZ: Jennifer Kurcz with McDonnell,
`Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff representing Trading
`Technologies.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. We have gone through this a few times. So
`I'm still going to go through some basic
`instructions, but hopefully I'll keep it short. We
`can take breaks any time you want. I try to take
`one every hour. But if you want a break, let me
`know. I just ask that you answer the question
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`that's pending.
` Are you on any medications today?
` A. No.
` Q. Any reason why you can't give truthful
`testimony?
` A. No.
` Q. As we've discussed in the past, we have to
`give verbal responses so that the court reporter can
`take that down.
` A. Yes.
` Q. And we'll try not to talk over each other.
`I don't think we had a problem with that last time?
` A. We're polite.
` Q. Please let me know if you don't understand
`a question, I'll try to repeat it.
` A. Okay.
` Q. If for some reason you don't understand
`it -- let me rephrase that. If you answer a
`question, I'm going to assume you understood my
`question. Is that okay?
` A. Sure.
` Q. You understand you're under oath today?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 6
`
`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. How did you prepare for today's
`deposition?
` A. Met with counsel, read the reports, read
`transcripts of the prior depositions.
` Q. Which reports did you read?
` A. The two we have here for the '382 and the
`'768.
` Q. And who did you meet with?
` A. Jennifer Kurcz.
` Q. Anyone else?
` A. It doesn't help to point, does it?
` Q. See, that's why I gave the instructions.
` Anyone else?
` A. No.
` Q. And what documents did you review in
`preparing for this deposition?
` A. For the deposition?
` Q. Uh-huh.
` A. The reports I just described.
` Q. Anything else?
` A. A ruling from the federal circuit, which I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`can't remember the date or ...
` Q. What did it say? What did the ruling say?
` A. It said a lot of things.
` Q. Do you recall anything about it?
` A. The one thing I recall most was that the
`work was embedded in computing technology.
` Q. Okay.
` A. That was the only quote I remember from
`that.
` Q. Do you recall if Trading Technologies was
`a party to that -- on that case?
` A. I believe so, but I couldn't be sure.
` Q. Do you recall any other parties?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you recall what judge?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you recall what court?
` A. I think it was -- I think I remember that
`it was on appeal from some other federal court.
` Q. Okay. A lot of these questions today
`we've asked in the past. Unfortunately, I need to
`ask them again, so we're going to go through that.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Are you a patent attorney?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in
`patent law?
` A. No.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you know what a covered business method
`patent is?
` A. I have read materials on what it means. I
`wouldn't render a legal opinion on it, but ...
` Q. So you haven't studied the case law
`surrounding covered business method patents?
` A. Studied the case law, no. I read a Wiki
`page on it, a Wikipedia page.
` Q. And if I use the acronym CBM to refer to
`covered business method, would that be okay?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Thank you.
` Have you ever used any of Trading
`Technologies' products?
` A. No.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Have you ever heard of the product MD
`Trader?
` A. Other than in the depositions we've had, I
`believe I saw that in the transcript.
` Q. And so you've never used MD Trader?
` A. I have not.
` Q. So you've never traded stock using MD
`Trader?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Have you ever traded stock using an
`interface -- let me rephrase that.
` Have you ever traded stock electronically?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What product did you use?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Scope.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Fidelity.
` Q. Just for completeness, have you ever
`traded any financial instrument using MD Trader?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever -- let me back up.
` What is your area of expertise?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`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. Graphical user interface software.
` Q. And so you consider yourself an expert in
`graphical user interface software?
` A. I do.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in
`trading software?
` A. As in financial trading?
` Q. Correct.
` A. No.
` Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in
`trading?
` A. No.
` Q. Or financial trading, I should say?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever designed a graphical user
`interface for trading financial instruments?
` A. No.
` Q. If I use the acronym G U I, or GUI, for
`graphical user interface, would that be okay with
`you?
` A. That would be fine.
` Q. Excellent. Have you -- you know, tell you
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`what. Let's get the two declarations.
` A. I don't know if you want to do this now,
`but I have two corrections.
` Q. Okay.
` A. That we noted from yesterday.
` Q. Sure. Tell you what. Why don't I give
`you the two documents.
` A. Okay.
` (Trading Tech Exhibit Number 2174
` in CBM2016-00054 marked for
` identification.)
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And then we can -- I'm going to hand you
`what is Trading Tech Exhibit 2174, which is the
`declaration of Dan R. Olsen, Jr., which would be
`you?
` A. That would be me.
` Q. This relates to U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768.
` (Trading Tech Exhibit Number 2174
` in CBM2016-00090 marked for
` identification.)
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 12
` Q. I'm also going to hand you what's been
`marked Trading Technologies Exhibit 2174 -- okay. I
`need to back up. What I previously handed you was
`Trading Tech 2174 in CBM2016-00054.
` I'm now going to hand you what's marked
`Trading Tech 2174 in CBM2016-00090 which relates to
`patent No. 7,725,382, and it's the declaration of
`Dan R Olsen, Jr.
` Again, that's you, correct?
` A. That would be me.
` Q. First, you said you had some corrections.
`Why don't we go through those. Why don't you tell
`me what those are.
` A. So on the declaration for the '768,
`Page 17, Paragraph 28, it looks to me like the third
`sentence, as we read this -- as we read this, there
`could be multiple ways that this could be
`interpreted. So to clarify what I meant here, in
`particular the '768 addresses the technical problems
`of GUIs by using a price axis. If you read it the
`other way, you could assume that the price axis was
`the problem, which is not what I meant, such as 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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 13
`one in the '768 where a trader needs to, I would
`strike "needs to," where a trader efficiently
`locates. And there's also a second "needs to" right
`under that, if you strike that.
` Q. So strikes the two "needs to"?
` A. Yeah, that's it. It's right underneath
`where you struck. There you go.
` Q. Understood.
` A. I think that clarifies the intent of that
`sentence. I read that and gave it a D.
` Q. Would it be the same edit in the '382?
` A. No.
` Q. It would not? So let's go through that.
` A. '382, let's go to Page 20. You see
`Paragraph 34 at the bottom?
` Q. Yes.
` A. That should not really be Paragraph 34. It
`should be indented, as you see up on Paragraph 31.
` Q. Okay.
` A. So that's actually a quote from the claim
`as opposed to my words.
` Q. Okay.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 14
` A. As you read through it, it's jarring.
` Q. I understand what you're saying.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. But just for consistency, if it's okay,
`we'll leave it as a paragraph since it will mess
`everything up. I understand your point.
` A. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure you know
`what I meant.
` Q. Let's start with -- tell you what. For
`ease of reference, I'm going to refer to the
`declaration associated with the '768 patent to be
`the '768 declaration. And then the declaration
`associated with the '382 patent as the '382
`declaration.
` Would that be acceptable?
` A. That would be fine.
` Q. So in the '768 declaration, did you review
`the claims of the '768 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you understand them?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then the same for the '382
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 15
`declaration, did you read the claims for the '382
`patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you understand them?
` A. Yes. At a level sufficient for the
`opinions you see here, yes.
` Q. Obviously we have two declarations today;
`and this deposition deals with both, two patents.
` I'm going to try to ask directed questions
`for the two different declarations. But if I ask --
`if I don't reference the two patents, that question
`is generic to both. Is that acceptable?
` A. If it isn't, I'll try to clarify when we
`get there.
` Q. Thank you. I'm hoping that it's not going
`to be too confusing.
` Did you ever ask Trading Technologies if
`you could use their products?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form. Outside the
`scope.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` 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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 16
` Q. You didn't feel it was necessary to use
`their products?
` A. No, not for this opinion.
` Q. Have you ever spoken to the inventors of
`the '768 patent?
` A. I don't believe so. I've spoken to people
`at Trading Technologies briefly at a demo. But
`other than that, I don't think I've spoken -- I
`wouldn't recognize those people if I saw them.
` Q. Same question for the '382, have you
`spoken to the inventors of the '382 patent?
` A. I have not.
` Q. Get the two patents. Put it in front of
`you. Should have done that first.
` (IBG Exhibit Number 1001 marked
` for identification.)
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked
`IBG 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,725,382.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked
`IBG 1001 as well, which is U.S. Patent
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`No. 7,693,768.
` A. Thank you.
` Q. And if you look at the front page of both
`those patents, you'll see there's a number 75. And
`it says inventors, and it's got three inventors
`listed: Gary Allan Kemp, Jens-Uwe Schluetter, and
`Harris Brumfield.
` A. I see that.
` Q. Just to confirm, you have not spoken with
`these three individuals?
` A. Not to my knowledge.
` Q. Earlier you said you had spoken to some
`individuals at Trading Technologies?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Scope.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. They gave me a tour of their facility.
` Q. Do you recall who you spoke with?
` A. I don't.
` Q. You don't recall anyone you spoke with?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you recall when you spoke to them?
` A. 6 months ago.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 18
` Q. Do you recall what you saw during that
`tour?
` A. A lot of screens and a lot of offices and a
`lot of cubes.
` Q. Anything else that you recall?
` A. All cubes look alike to me.
` Q. Did they give you a demonstration of their
`product?
` A. Not really.
` Q. When you say "not really," what does that
`mean?
` A. It was up on some screens.
` Q. And did anyone discuss what was up on the
`screens with you?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Caution the witness to
`the extent it's attorney-client communications, not
`to reveal those as work product protection.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You can answer.
` A. I'm going to follow counsel.
` Q. So was there an attorney present when you
`were giving this -- being given this tour?
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. I don't know what the offices or the
`positions of the people that gave the tour were.
` Q. Okay. So what was the purpose of the
`tour?
` A. Awareness.
` Q. Okay. So --
` A. They're very proud of their company.
` Q. Great. So did anyone discuss what you saw
`on the screens with you?
` A. No.
` Q. And why did you get a tour of the
`facility?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Scope.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. We were in town.
` Q. Have you spoken to any other of Trading
`Technologies' experts?
` A. No. Not that I know of.
` Q. In forming your opinions that are in the
`'768 declaration and '382 declaration, did you speak
`to any people that trade on an electronic exchange?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. I'll instruct him not
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 20
`to answer with respect to any information that you
`did not rely on in forming your opinions.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You can answer.
` A. No.
` Q. Okay. Thank you.
` Okay. If we turn to Paragraph 15 of the
`'768 declaration -- and for convenience, we'll do
`this at the same time. I believe Paragraph 15 is
`identical in the '382 declaration or virtually
`identical. I didn't check word for word.
` A. I have them both here.
` Q. Do you see in Paragraph 15 you provide a
`definition from Merriam Webster's dictionary of
`technology?
` A. I see that.
` Q. And the definition is, quote: The
`practical application of knowledge, especially in a
`particular area?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And based on this definition, is it your
`opinion that the '768 patent claims are directed to
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes.
` Q. And based on this definition, is it your
`opinion that the claims of the '382 patent are
`directed to technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I'm going to say yes, conditional on
`whether or not "directed to" has some kind of a
`legal meaning.
` Q. Okay.
` A. If you're asking do I believe that these
`claims involve technology, yes, that is my opinion.
` Q. I'll ask the question again just to
`clarify. And based on the definition in
`Paragraph 15, is it your opinion that the claims of
`the '382 patent are technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 22
` Q. And based on this definition, is it your
`opinion that the claims of the '768 patent are
`technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Same objection.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you apply any other definition in
`rendering your opinions in regard to the term
`technology?
` A. No.
` Q. And did you base your opinion that the
`claims of the '768 and '382 patents are technology
`on the definition in Paragraph 15?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Say it again for me, please.
` Q. Sure. Did you base your claims that the
`claims of the '768 patent are technology on the
`definition in Paragraph 15?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you base your opinion that the
`claims of the '382 patent are technology on 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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`definition in Paragraph 15?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I -- can we turn to the last page of your
`declaration, the '768 declaration.
` A. '768, last page.
` Q. Page 26. And is that your signature?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you sign this on January 18th,
`2017?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And could we, just the same question for
`the '382 declaration, is that your signature on
`Page 24?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you signed this declaration on
`February 23rd, 2017?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are these declarations '782 and '328
`complete and accurate?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I assume you meant '768, not '782.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. I did. Let me just ask the question
`again.
` Other than the corrections you've noted
`earlier, are the declarations -- declaration for
`'768 accurate?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let me ask that question --
` A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
` Q. It was a horrible question.
` And other than the correction you noted
`earlier, is the declaration for '382 accurate?
` A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
` Q. Thank you. And who drafted the '768
`declaration?
` A. I did.
` Q. And did you have any assistance from
`anyone other than counsel for Trading Technologies?
` A. No.
` Q. And what is your billing rate?
` A. $500 an hour.
` Q. And in regard to the '768 declaration, did
`you review -- let me rephrase that.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 25
` In regard to the '768 declaration, did you
`review any documents in -- to prepare your
`declaration?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Instruct the witness
`not to answer beyond documents that you relied on in
`forming your opinion.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. Okay. In terms of forming my opinions,
`there are the patents that are listed in the
`declaration. There are two references at the end,
`which were given in the references. There is my own
`knowledge. There are my books. Those are the
`things -- also, Merriam Webster, as you just noted.
`Those are the things I relied on for this
`declaration.
` Q. Were there documents that were provided to
`you by either Trading Technologies or counsel to
`Trading Technologies that you did not rely on?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Instruct the witness
`not to answer with respect to any information
`provided to you that you did not rely on.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 26
` Q. That was a yes-or-no question, so ...
` A. Were there other documents other than what
`I relied on? Yes.
` Q. And what were those documents?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Instruct the witness
`not to answer with respect to documents that you
`received but did not rely on.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I will follow counsel.
` Q. And how do you define "rely on"?
` A. I used them in forming these opinions.
` Q. Okay. And if you read a document, are you
`saying that you can partition in your mind what
`document you've relied on and what document you
`didn't rely on?
` A. Yes. That's what I do for a living.
` MR. SOKOHL: And is there case law, Counsel,
`for an expert that didn't rely on a document, he
`doesn't have to reveal it even though it was
`provided to him?
` MS. KURCZ: Yes, it's in the Federal Rules.
` MR. SOKOHL: I'll have to check that.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But there were documents that were
`provided to you by Trading Technologies or counsel
`for Trading Technologies that you did not review on?
` A. Yes.
` Q. May be repetitive of what I asked you
`earlier. I'll ask you again. Do you consider
`yourself to be an expert in GUIs for trading
`software?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I consider myself an expert in GUIs. I do
`not consider myself an expert in trading
`technologies. Yeah, trading technologies. The
`company name gets confused with the topic. Either
`one.
` Q. Okay. Let's go to Paragraph 28 of the
`'768 patent.
` A. Yes.
` MS. KURCZ: And, Counsel, just so we're
`clear --
` MR. SOKOHL: Did I say '768 patent?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 28
` MS. KURCZ: You did. That's fine. I want to
`make sure that the corrections, to caution the
`witness that you have noted corrections and to
`ensure that you are making the same corrections in
`your testimony.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And --
` A. Oh, I was going to say why don't I see
`those. That's because this is the fresh copy.
` Q. Ah. Would you like a pen to make those so
`that you don't make a mistake?
` A. Well, let me just grab my copy here.
` Q. Whatever is easier for you. I did say the
`'768 patent. I meant the '768 declaration.
` A. Okay. Now I have them both in front of me.
` Q. Okay. Paragraph 68, the second sentence
`it says: We have shown improvements to interfaces
`have long been the subject of patented technologies
`and provide specific benefits.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you familiar with the recent Supreme
`Court case Alice versus CLS Bank?
`
`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
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. I am not.
` MS. KURCZ: Objection to form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If you're not familiar with it, I guess
`you don't have any opinions about whether that
`decision impacts patentability of interface patents?
` MS. KURCZ: Same objection.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I have no opinion on that.
` Q. And so you did not take into account that
`decision in forming your opinions?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Scope.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I did not.
` Q. And you did not take into account that
`decision when you wrote that sentence: We have
`shown improvements in interface have long been the
`subject as the patentable subject matter --
` MS. KURCZ: Objection.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Excuse me. My bad. I misstated the
`sentence, so I just want to correct it for the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`record.
` You did not take into consideration the
`Alice decision when you wrote: Improvements to
`interfaces have long been the subject of patentable
`technologies?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I did not take that opinion into
`consideration, no.
` Q. Have you read the '782 and '382 patents?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. There is no '782 patent.
` Q. I got that wrong. Thank you.
` Have you read the '768 and '382 patents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. There's too many numbers in these cases.
` All right. And when was the last time you
`read the '782 patent?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Oh, I said it wrong again. Now I know
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`why. It's wrong in my notes.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Okay. When was the last time you read the
`'768 patent?
` A. I read parts of it in the last few days.
` Q. Wow. Hold on a second. I've got to make
`the correction in my notes. That's hilarious. All
`right. I'm sorry. What was your answer? Let me
`ask that question again.
` When was the last time you read the '768
`patent?
` A. I read parts of it in the last few days.
` Q. Okay. And what parts?
` A. Mostly claims.
` Q. Anything else you recall?
` A. Not specifically, no.
` Q. In forming your opinion that's put forth
`in the '768 declaration and '382 declaration, did
`you form an opinion as to who was a person of
`ordinary skill in the art?
` A. I did not.
` Q. So do you have an opinion as to who a
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`4/5/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Dr. Dan R. Olsen, Jr.
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is?
` A. Not at this time, no.
` Q. And since you don't have a definition,
`would it be fair to say that you wouldn't know
`whether you are a person of ordinary skill in the
`art?
` A. That would be correct.
` Q. I'll just say that again because the
`question was a little vague.
` And since you don't have a definition,
`would it be fair to say that you wouldn't know
`whether you're a person of ordinary skill in the art
`of the '768 or '382 patents?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Form.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And did you study any prior art of the
`'768 or '382 patents?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection. Scope.
`BY THE WITNESS:
` A. I wouldn't know if it was prior art or not
`because I've not considered exactly when this was --
`
`www.DigitalE