throbber
4/5/2017
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket