8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES,
` INC.; TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
` and IBFX, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 7,772,132)
` CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411)
` CBM2015-00161 (Patent No. 6,766,304)
`
` VOLUME I of II
` PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Deposition of CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS, taken at
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
`before Donna M. Kazaitis, CSR, RPR, CLR, and
`CRR, commencing at the hour of 9:09 a.m. on
`Tuesday, August 23, 2016.
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1052
`CBM2015-00181
`
`IBG 1064
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES,
` INC.; TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
` and IBFX, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 7,772,132)
` CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411)
` CBM2015-00161 (Patent No. 6,766,304)
`
` VOLUME I of II
` PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Deposition of CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS, taken at
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
`before Donna M. Kazaitis, CSR, RPR, CLR, and
`CRR, commencing at the hour of 9:09 a.m. on
`Tuesday, August 23, 2016.
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`IBG 1052
`CBM2015-00181
`
`IBG 1064
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00054
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`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: MICHAEL D. GANNON, ESQ.
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60606-6709
` 312.913.2139
` gannon@mbhb.com
`
` FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
` BY: KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQ.
` 271 17th Street, NW
` Suite 1400
` Atlanta, Georgia 30363-6209
` 404.653.6400
` kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`
`1
`
`23
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS
` Examination by Mr. Sokohl 5
`
` EXHIBITS
`
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`
`Exhibit 2169 Declaration of Christopher 6
` H. Thomas (CBM2015-00182)
`Exhibit 2169 Declaration of Christopher 7
` H. Thomas (CBM2015-00161)
`
`Exhibit 2169 Declaration of Christopher 7
` H. Thomas (CBM2015-00181)
`Exhibit 2170 Declaration of Michael Burns, 209
` (CBM2015-00161, CBM2015-00181,
` CBM2015-00182)
`Exhibit 2171 Declaration of Timothy 218
` Geannopulos, (CBM2015-00161,
` CBM2015-00181, CBM2015-00182)
`Exhibit 2218 Declaration of James J. 202
` Zellinger (CBM2015-00182)
`
`Exhibit 2219 Declaration of Ray Cahnman, 207
` (CBM2015-00182)
`Exhibit 2242 6/8/04 e-mail, 240
` (CBM2015-00182)
`
`Exhibit 2243 1/30/04 e-mail, 247
` (CBM2015-00182)
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 4
`
` EXHIBITS
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`Exhibit 2244 2/10/04 e-mail, 255
` (CBM2015-00182)
`
`Exhibit 2245 5/26/04 e-mail string, 262
` (CBM2015-00182)
`Exhibit 2283 Consent Judgment, 229
` (CBM2015-00182)
`
`IBG
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,772,132 9
` (CBM2015-00182)
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7,676,411 9
` (CBM2015-00181)
`Exhibit 1004 TSE Operation Guide, 271
` (CBM of U.S. Patent '056)
`
`TS
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 6,766,304 9
` (CBM2015-00161)
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Can you state your name for the
`record.
` A. Christopher Thomas.
` Q. And you understand you're under oath
`today?
` A. I do.
` Q. Are you on any medications?
` A. No.
` Q. Any reason you can't give truthful
`testimony?
` A. No.
` Q. How did you prepare for today's
`deposition?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. Just
`caution the witness not to reveal any
`attorney-client work product information.
` THE WITNESS: I met with the lawyers
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`and I reviewed my declarations, materials I
`considered in them, patents.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Did you meet with anyone other than
`the attorneys to prepare for this deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you look at any documents that
`were not attached to your declarations?
` A. I don't think I looked at anything
`that wasn't considered.
` Q. Let's get the formality out of the
`way. I am going to hand you what's been marked
`Trading Tech Exhibit 2169 in CBM2015-00182 which
`is the declaration of Christopher Thomas for U.S.
`Patent Number 7,772,132. (Document tendered to
`the witness.)
` A. Okay.
` Q. Do you recognize that document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is this your declaration?
` A. It appears to be, yes.
` Q. And is that your signature on Page
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`158?
` A. It is.
` Q. And you executed this on June 24,
`2016?
` A. I did.
` Q. I hand you what's been marked Trading
`Tech Exhibit 2169 in CBM2015-00161 for U.S. Patent
`Number 6,766,304, and this is the declaration of
`Christopher H. Thomas. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` Do you recognize that document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is that your signature on Page
`141?
` A. It is.
` Q. And you signed this on June 24, 2016?
` A. I did.
` Q. And then I am going to hand you what's
`been marked Trading Tech Exhibit 2169 in
`CBM2015-00181 for U.S. Patent Number 7,676,411
`entitled "Declaration of Christopher H. Thomas."
`(Document tendered to the witness.)
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Do you recognize that document?
` A. I do.
` Q. Is that your signature on Page 141?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you signed this on June 24, 2016?
` A. I did.
` Q. Are you familiar with the -- I'm only
`going to give you the last three numbers. If you
`need more, I'll give them to you -- the '556
`Patent?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: That's the point. That's
`why I'm asking.
` MR. GANNON: Figured.
` THE WITNESS: I may have read it at
`some point.
` MR. GANNON: Mr. Sokohl, just for the
`record, Mr. Thomas does have some corrections to
`the '132 declaration.
` MR. SOKOHL: Are you testifying here
`today?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 9
` MR. GANNON: No. I'm just stating for
`the record that Mr. Thomas has corrections to the
`'132 declaration, Exhibit 2169 in CBM2015-00182.
`Just letting you know in case you wanted to look
`at those corrections or become aware of those
`corrections.
` MR. SOKOHL: Thank you.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I'm going to hand you U.S. Patent
`Number 6,772,132 which is marked IBG 1001. Just
`hold on to that. (Document tendered to the
`witness.)
` I am going to hand you what's been
`marked IBG 1001, and it's U.S. Patent Number
`6,766,411. This is from CBM2015-00181. (Document
`tendered to the witness.)
` And I was going to state for the
`record that U.S. Patent Number 6,772,132, which is
`IBG 1001, was from CBM2015-00182.
` And, finally, I'm going to hand you
`what's been marked TS 1001 from CBM12015-00161
`which is U.S. Patent Number 6,766,304.
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` So let's refer to the three
`declarations first.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Other than what's in Section IX of the
`'132 declaration and the '411 declaration, are
`these substantially the same?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If you know.
` A. Other than --
` Q. So Roman numeral IX deals
`specifically -- I can point you to each of those
`sections in each declaration. So if you look at
`the '132 declaration on Page 131, you'll see Roman
`numeral IX, the claimed invention is not obvious.
`And we have a similar section in '411, which is on
`Page 134, which says the claimed invention is not
`obvious. There is no similar section in the '304.
` A. Correct.
` Q. Other than those two sections, are the
`declarations substantially the same?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`foundation.
` THE WITNESS: There's some common
`elements.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Some common elements or almost all
`common elements?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: A lot of the background
`is the same.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you recall any differences between
`the three declarations other than Roman numeral
`IX?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`foundation.
` THE WITNESS: Like I said, a lot of
`the background is the same.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If we look at the '132, '411, and '304
`Patents, can we agree they have the same
`inventors?
` A. The inventors of the three patents
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`here appear to be the same, correct.
` Q. And did you speak to any of these
`inventors prior to signing your declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. So you didn't speak to Mr. Kemp?
` A. No.
` Q. You didn't speak to Mr. Schluetter?
` A. No.
` Q. And you have not spoken to
`Mr. Brumfield?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you ever spoken to Mr. Brumfield?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When did you speak to Mr. Brumfield?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You can answer.
` A. 2007 for the eSpeed case and last
`year, 2015, before the CQG case.
` Q. And do you recall what you spoke about
`in 2007?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 13
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form. I'm
`going to caution the witness not to reveal any
`information that would reveal work product
`information.
` So with that instruction, you can
`answer if you can.
` THE WITNESS: To some of those
`conversations I can't speak about.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you recall what you spoke about
`with Mr. Brumfield in 2007?
` MR. GANNON: Same objection and
`instruction.
` THE WITNESS: Like I said, I can't
`answer that for --
` MR. SOKOHL: I'm allowed to know what
`he relied on for his opinions, and talking to one
`of the inventors is certainly relevant.
` So I would instruct you to
`answer -- well, I can't instruct you to do that.
`I would ask you to answer. And I'd like to know,
`first of all I'd like to know if you recall which
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 14
`is a "Yes" or "No" answer do you recall what you
`spoke to Mr. Brumfield about in 2007?
` MR. GANNON: So, Mr. Sokohl --
` MR. SOKOHL: Your objection is noted.
` MR. GANNON: Well, your --
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you recall what you spoke to
`Mr. Brumfield about in 2007? It's a "Yes" or
`"No."
` MR. GANNON: Same objection and
`instruction.
` THE WITNESS: Generally, yes.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What did you speak to Mr. Brumfield
`about in 2007?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the question to
`the extent it involves revealing work product
`information.
` THE WITNESS: I recall speaking to him
`about trading in general. Having been a trader
`myself, I have been aware of him for a long time.
`He was somebody that was a very big trader and it
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 15
`was interesting to understand how he traded in the
`pits, that type of thing, and how he was trading
`electronically. Other times I've talked to him I
`really, I mean I saw him at the trials and it was
`more of just a "Hello, How are you doing" type of
`thing. But I have not talked to Mr. Brumfield
`about anything to do with these declarations.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Did you speak to Mr. Brumfield in 2007
`about the patents?
` MR. GANNON: Same objection, same
`instruction.
` To the extent the information calls
`for revealing work product information, you are
`instructed not to answer.
` THE WITNESS: I did not talk to him
`about the substance of the patents at all.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. That was in 2007; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. And you mentioned that you spoke to
`him, Mr. Brumfield, about a year ago?
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 16
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you speak to him -- well, do
`you recall what you spoke to him about a year ago?
` MR. GANNON: Same objection and same
`instruction.
` THE WITNESS: Again, it was during the
`trial and it was just more general conversation.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. The CQG trial?
` A. Correct. I apologize. The CQG trial,
`that's correct.
` Q. And did you speak to him about the
`patents at that time?
` A. No.
` Q. So is it fair to say then that nothing
`in your declaration is based on what Mr. Brumfield
`told you?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`foundation.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think that's
`fair.
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 17
`
`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. Do you know what Mr. Kemp's background
`is -- let me rephrase that just to be more
`specific because that's too general.
` Do you know what Mr. Kemp's
`educational background is?
` A. I believe he has a degree of some
`type.
` Q. Do you know in what?
` A. No.
` Q. How about Mr. Schluetter, do you know
`what his educational background is?
` A. No.
` Q. What about Mr. Brumfield?
` A. I believe Mr. Brumfield has a
`Bachelor's, it might be in economics or something
`like that.
` Q. Does Mr. Brumfield have any technical
`background?
` A. What do you mean by "technical"?
` Q. I don't know. What do you mean by
`"technical"?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 18
`
`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 a very broad topic.
` Q. It is. You seem to have used it in
`your declarations, so you must have an
`understanding of what the word "technical" means;
`right?
` A. You mean technology?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Sure, generally.
` Q. He does?
` A. I have an understanding of what
`technology is.
` Q. Does Mr. Brumfield have a background
`in technology, to your knowledge?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Technology as it applies
`to software development, I don't believe so.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What about Mr. Schluetter, does he
`have a technology background as it relates to
`software development?
` A. I believe so.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`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. What about Mr. Kemp?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What type of background does Mr. Kemp
`have in software development?
` A. What do you mean by that? What's his
`experience?
` Q. Well, I mean you said that he has, you
`said you believed he had some technical
`background.
` A. Correct.
` Q. Do you know what it was?
` A. Well, he was one of the main people at
`Trading Technologies when it started. So I mean
`they were developing software and I believe he was
`one of the main people that was doing it.
` Q. Did Mr. Brumfield have any experience
`designing GUIs prior to filing the '132, '411, and
`'304 Patents -- actually, I'm going to restate
`that question.
` I'm going to limit that to just the
`'132. Did Mr. Brumfield have any experience
`designing GUIs prior to filing the '132 Patent?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. To the extent you know.
` A. I don't know.
` Q. Let's turn to the '132. We're going
`to turn to all of them. Turn to Paragraph 22.
` A. In all of them?
` Q. Well, we'll find out in a second.
`Let's start with the '132.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Let's just look at the '132
`declaration.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Paragraph 22.
` A. Yes.
` Q. You use the term in the first sentence
`"GUI tool."
` A. Yeah.
` Q. And in the second sentence you use the
`term "GUI."
` Do you see that?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yeah.
` Q. What's the difference between the two
`terms?
` A. The same answer I gave you in the '056
`deposition.
` Q. I know, but we're going to ask it here
`again. Some questions I'm going to have to
`repeat.
` A. But I need to see what I said in that
`because I don't want to mischaracterize what I
`said.
` Q. There's no way I can show that to you.
` I'm asking you today as you sit
`here what's the difference between a GUI tool and
`a GUI?
` A. I just don't want to be inconsistent
`in what I said, so I'd like to see it.
` Q. I'm sorry, sir, but you're going to
`have to answer that question.
` A. Okay. Well, here I say "In general,
`the term 'GUI' refers to a human machine interface
`that allows users to interact with the machine by
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 22
`utilizing graphical elements as opposed to, for
`example, text-based interfaces."
` "With a GUI tool, the user may
`interact with the graphical elements on a display
`such as using a keyboard, a mouse, a stylus, a
`finger, or other pointing devices. GUI tools are
`constructed using a combination of software and
`hardware tools. In addition to desktop and laptop
`computers, GUI tools are used in a variety of
`handheld devices."
` Q. Is there a difference in your mind,
`therefore, between a GUI tool and a GUI?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form, asked
`and answered.
` THE WITNESS: I think that would have
`to be on a case-by-case basis.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What about in the case of the '132
`Patent?
` A. It's a GUI tool.
` Q. And is there a GUI as part of that GUI
`tool?
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 23
` A. There is a human machine interface as
`part of it.
` Q. Let's turn to the '132 Patent; shall
`we?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's look at Claim 1. What elements
`of Claim 1 relate to the human machine interface?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the whole claim as
`a whole is relating to the GUI tool. I mean you
`can't just single out parts of the claim that
`relate to a piece of it. The tool is the whole
`claims, it's the whole thing. You can't just
`single out parts of it and say well, this relates
`to this and this relates to that. You can't do
`that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. So is a GUI tool made up of a
`GUI?
` A. No.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`mischaracterizes.
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 24
` THE WITNESS: It is a GUI tool, the
`structure, makeup, and functionality of which is
`detailed in the claims.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So you stated in your declaration that
`a GUI tool is a human machine interface. And, as
`I understand it, that human machine interface is
`part of the GUI tool; is that correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And your testimony is that Claim 1 of
`the '132 Patent relates to the GUI tool?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: The claims of the
`patent, the GUI tool is detailed in the claims of
`the patent. The structure, makeup, and
`functionality of it is detailed in the claims of
`the patent.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. And, therefore, you can't
`identify the human machine interface portion of
`
`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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`the GUI tool that is recited in Claim 1?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: The whole tool, like I
`said, the GUI tool is detailed in the claims of
`the patent. You can't just pull out an element
`here and an element here and say this is
`responsible -- I mean when you're looking at it,
`you have to look at the claims as a whole.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And if we look at Claim 1 of the '411
`Patent, would your answer be the same?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And the same for the '304 Patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When you use the term "structure,
`makeup, and functionality," what's the difference
`between the structure and the makeup?
` A. Well --
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`foundation.
` THE WITNESS: -- it's the common
`meaning of the words, "structure" and "makeup."
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 26
`
`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. What are those common meanings?
` A. I haven't offered a definition in my
`declaration, but I can give you a general
`understanding of it.
` Q. Sure.
` A. Structure of something is, I'd say,
`how it's laid out. And makeup is what it's
`composed of. I'm saying generally now.
` Q. What about the functionality? What do
`you mean by "functionality"?
` A. Well, how it functions.
` Q. When you say the structure is how it's
`laid out, what's laid out?
` A. The GUI tool.
` Q. And what do you mean by "laid out"?
` A. Exactly that.
` Q. Exactly what?
` A. Laid out.
` Q. What is laid out?
` A. The GUI tool.
` Q. What do you mean by the GUI tool is
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`laid out?
` A. Exactly that.
` Q. You mean how it's displayed?
` A. No. That's not what I said.
` Q. I'm asking you. You didn't give me an
`answer, so I figured I'd suggest something.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`argumentative.
` THE WITNESS: It is how it is laid
`out.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So can you be more explicit when you
`say "how it is laid out"? What is laid out?
`Where is it laid out?
` A. The GUI tool.
` Q. What is this, an Abbott & Costello
`episode? Sorry about that.
` A. The GUI tool, like I said, is detailed
`in the claim and it's further described in the
`specification. The specification shows the layout
`and the makeup of it.
` Look at Figure 3, look at Figure 4.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 28
`It's a preferred embodiment. It's not the only
`way but it's an embodiment.
` Q. And isn't that what's shown in Figures
`3 and 4 a GUI?
` A. It's a GUI tool.
` Q. But if it is a GUI tool, do we agree
`that a GUI is distinct from a GUI tool?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I would have to look at
`the GUI and the GUI tool that you are proposing
`and see if they're distinct.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. We're only talking about three
`patents here. So I'm referring specifically to
`the GUI tool/GUI described and claimed in the
`'132, '304, and '411 Patents.
` A. Right.
` Q. So that's the example we're talking
`about.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Is there a difference between the GUI
`tool and the GUI in each of these three patents 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 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`8/23/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Protective Order Materials - Pursuant to Protective Order
`
`Christopher Thomas
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Claim 1?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Like I said, the GUI
`tool in Claim 1, it describes the GUI tool.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is Figure 3 and Figure 4 a display?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Figure 3 and Figure 4 in the '132,
`'411, and '304 Patents --
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Figure 3 and Figure 4
`show an embodiment of the GUI tool as described in
`the patent.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. -- is that a display?
` MR. GANNON: Objection, asked and
`answ
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
