`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`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.
` Petitioners,
` v.
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
` Patent Owner
` __________
` Case CBM2015-00181
` U.S. Patent 7,676,411
` Case CBM2015-00182
` U.S. Patent 6,772,132
` __________
` Washington, D.C.
` May 5, 2016
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
` KENDYL A. ROMAN
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 1 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`2
`
` Cross-Examination of KENDYL A. ROMAN, a
`witness herein, called for examination by counsel
`for Patent Owner in the above-entitled matter,
`pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn by
`SUSAN L. CIMINELLI, CRR, RPR, a Notary Public in and
`for the District of Columbia, taken at the offices
`of Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox, 1100 New York
`Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. at commencing at 9:03
`a.m.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 2 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`On behalf of the Patent Owner:
` LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR., ESQUIRE
` MICHAEL GANNON, ESQUIRE
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP
` 300 South Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 6066-6709
` (312) 913-0001
` sigmond@mbhb.com
` gannon@mbhb.com
` -and-
` KEVIN D. RODKEY, ESQUIRE
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
` Dunner, LLP
` 3500 Suntrust Plaza
` 303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
` Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3263
` (404) 653-6484
` Kevin.Rodkey@finnegan.com
`On behalf of the Petitioners:
` RICHARD M. BEMBEN, ESQUIRE
` ROBERT SOKOHL, ESQUIRE
` Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
` 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
` (202) 371-2600
` rbemben@skgf.com
` rsokohl@skgf.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 3 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`4
`
` C O N T E N T S
`KENDYL A. ROMAN EXAMINATION
` By Mr. Sigmond 5
`
` Afternoon Session - Page 128
`
` E X H I B I T S
`EXHIBIT NO. PAGE NO.
`Exhibit 1019 (IBG) Declaration '411 13
`Exhibit 1007 (IBG) Declaration '132 14
`Exhibit 1017 (IBG) TSE Trading Terminal
` Operating Guide 111
`Exhibit 1025 (IBG) Roman CV 27
`Exhibit 1021 (IBG) Materials considered '411 22
`Exhibit 1020 (IBG) CV 27
`Exhibit 1026 (IBG) Materials considered '132 22
`Exhibit 1012 (IBG) CBM of '132 63
`Exhibit 1001 (IBG) CBM of '411 44
`Exhibit 1001 (IBG) CBM of '132 44
`Exhibit 2104 (IBG) 181 Table of Contents 21
`Exhibit 2105 (IBG) 182 Table of Contents 21
`Exhibit 2106 document 149
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 4 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`Whereupon,
` KENDYL A. ROMAN,
`was called as a witness by counsel for Patent Owner,
`and having been duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` CROSS EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Roman.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Nice to see you again. Could you please
`state your name and address for the record?
` A. Kendyl Allen Roman, and the address of my
`lab is 3277 Kifer Road, Santa Clara, California.
` Q. And you understand you're under oath this
`morning?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And this means you're sworn to tell the
`truth as if you were in a court with a judge and a
`jury?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there anything that would prevent you
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 5 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`from giving truthful testimony today?
` A. No.
` Q. Have you taken any medication that would
`prevent you from giving full and truthful answers?
` A. No.
` Q. I took your deposition a couple of days
`ago, right, Tuesday?
` A. I recall that.
` Q. And I think then you told me you had
`about 40 days of depositions. Is that still true,
`maybe plus one?
` A. Yes. More than 40. And now it would be
`more than 41. Probably closer to 45, but --
` Q. And if I recall, those depositions were
`primarily as an expert witness?
` A. I believe they are all expert witness
`depositions.
` Q. Today if you don't understand any of my
`questions, please ask me to clarify and I'll do my
`best.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And if you do give an answer I'm going to
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 6 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`assume that you understood the question. Is that
`fair?
` A. That's fair.
` Q. And you know how I do breaks. If you
`need a break, tell me. But we'll probably break
`every hour, hour and a half, whatever is good for
`you.
` A. I'll let you know.
` Q. What did you do to prepare for your
`deposition today?
` A. I met with counsel, these two gentlemen
`who are at the table. And I read the documents
`related to the '411 patent and the '132 patent.
` Q. When you said related to the '411 and
`'132 patent, what do you mean by that?
` A. So specifically, it would have been the
`petition in each case. My declaration in each case.
`A list of materials. CV. Patent Owner's
`preliminary response, the Board institution, and
`then not -- well, all of the references that were
`instituted, and I looked at some other of the
`supporting references.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 7 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Okay. When you say some other.
`Supporting references, what do you mean?
` A. Well, for example, I don't believe
`Silverman was instituted in the '411. But I looked
`at Silverman and got familiar with it.
` Q. Anything else that you can recall?
` A. Well, of course I looked at Belden, and
`Belden and Gutterman are different patents, but they
`both talked about the Action software development
`tool, and so I had remembered seeing that in my
`early days of my own development of graphical user
`interface development tools, and so I just refreshed
`my memory on its features by watching a video I
`think from 1988.
` Q. What video was that?
` A. It's a video called Action. And I think
`it has 1988 in the title. So if you did a Google
`search for Action, exclamation mark, and 1988, I
`think it would come up.
` Q. And that's something you just found
`publicly on the Internet?
` A. Yes.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 8 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. And how long is that video?
` A. Oh, it's 13 minutes or so.
` Q. And why did you watch that video?
` A. I just -- I had remembered that
`originally we had software development environments
`that helped us organize our code and was more
`focused on -- on writing the code, but didn't have
`the ability to do graphical layout.
` Then one of the first programs I remember
`using was an early database tool, and it actually
`had the ability to drag and drop different objects
`on to the screen, and then you could tie code to
`that. I think that was the -- I think it was
`Paradox.
` And then, anyway, by 1993, I think I talk
`about this in my CV, that I worked on the Apple
`media tool, which was a tool that allowed
`non-programmers to generate applications using a
`graphical user interface, and it allowed you to take
`different objects and those objects represented a
`lot of programming that supported the function of
`that object.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 9 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` And it allowed you to lay out the user
`interface and then set certain actions. And it
`turns out Action was a little earlier than the Apple
`media tool, but it had many of the same concepts.
`And I just wanted to refresh my recollection of what
`level of programming was required.
` And unlike the Apple media tool, it did
`require -- I think it did require some programming,
`but they actually show on the video creating the
`Macintosh application in a few minutes. I think the
`video is 13 minutes long and during just the last
`part, they actually create a graphical user
`interface, and it's a fully operating application.
` And not only that, they show that you can
`easily take an existing application and copy it and
`make a slightly different application that was
`different. And so they actually create two working
`graphical user interfaces in a couple of minutes.
` Q. Besides that, is there anything else
`that's not in your -- oh, strike that.
` Those things you referred to that you
`looked at, the petition, the declaration, that was
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 10 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`for both the '132 and the '411 CBMs?
` A. Yes. For each of them.
` Q. Besides what we've already talked about,
`did you review anything else in preparation for your
`deposition?
` A. Yes. So I was thinking about when I went
`and visited the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and
`there was also some discussion of the Chicago Board
`of Trade, and so I just wanted to make sure I had
`that understanding correct. Also -- well, so what
`I'll say is my understanding is that they are the
`same entity today.
` But when I was there in Chicago, they
`were separate entities, and you can ask me questions
`about it, but I looked at that. Confirmed that
`Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of
`Trade were separate entities. They coexisted for a
`hundred years or so. Chicago Mercantile Exchange
`started out selling butter and dairy products, and
`the Chicago Board of Trade started out with a
`different set of commodities. They are now one
`entity. So I just wanted to clarify that for
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 11 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`myself.
` Q. So you looked on the Internet or --
` A. Yes. I looked on the Internet. And in
`those, in the articles about Chicago Board of Trade,
`it talked about Globex, and it also talked about the
`Bourse in Paris which is no longer called that
`either. But it's like Paris Eurotrade or Euronet or
`something like that. But when I was there, and saw
`the Bourse in Paris, it was still called the Bourse.
` Q. Did you look at anything else in
`preparation for your deposition?
` A. I did look at the Japanese version of
`TSE. I think that's listed, but that's -- do you
`have my list of materials for the two cases?
` Q. I do. I do.
` A. Yes. I could confirm which document that
`was if you want.
` Q. Okay. We'll get to that. Anything else
`outside of your declarations that you looked at to
`prepare for your deposition?
` A. That's all I recall.
` Q. Did you read your transcript from this
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 12 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`past Tuesday?
` A. No, I did not.
` (Exhibit No. 1019 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. Okay. Why don't we give you your -- both
`declarations. I'm going to hand you what's been
`already marked, and I might struggle with this a
`little today because there is two proceedings we are
`here for today. So I'm going to try to be pretty
`precise and say a lot of numbers, but we might get
`some shorthand names, all right? So I'm going to
`hand you what's been marked as IBG 1019 in the CBM
`proceeding 2015-00181. Did I get that right?
` A. We haven't seen it, so --
` MR. SOKOHL: Don't know.
` THE WITNESS: I can't say.
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. Anyway, Mr. Roman, this is your
`declaration from the CBM relating to the '411
`patent?
` A. Are you going to give me the one with the
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 13 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`brown binder or --
` Q. No. This is mine. This has all my notes
`on it.
` A. Oh, okay. Well, I don't want those.
` Q. So IBG 1019 is your declaration in the
`'411 CBM, and I guess I'll first ask if you
`recognize the document.
` A. I do recognize it. It has my signature
`in blue on page 106, executed the 10th of September.
` (Exhibit No. 1007 was
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. And then I'm going to hand you what's
`been marked IBG 1007 in CBM number 2015-00182, which
`is the CBM for the '132 patent. And I might refer
`to this today as your '132 declaration, if that's
`okay with you?
` A. I think that works for me.
` Q. And the one we just marked that's -- that
`we looked at, IBG 1019 for the '411, I might refer
`to that as your '411 declaration, if that's okay
`with you?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 14 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`15
`
`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 okay.
` Q. So can you look at the '132 application,
`Exhibit 1007, and tell me if you recognize it?
` MR. SOKOHL: Objection. I'll just
`correct. I've got to correct it. You said '132
`application. You meant '132 declaration.
` MR. SIGMOND: Declaration. Sorry.
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. I do appreciate that. The '132
`declaration. Exhibit 1007?
` A. In the '132 case.
` Q. CBM. Yes?
` A. It appears to be my declaration and I
`haven't verified the whole thing, but it was
`executed by me on the 11th of September in San
`Francisco, and has my signature in black.
` Q. On page 93?
` A. Page 93. Yes.
` Q. Why don't we also mark -- or why don't I
`show you -- actually, let's stick with this for a
`minute. Now, did you prepare both of these
`declarations?
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 15 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`16
`
`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. And we talked about the process for
`preparing yesterday, how you prepared your
`declaration -- or sorry, on Tuesday, we talked about
`your process for preparing the declarations,
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Any difference with these two?
` A. No. I would say it was the same process.
`You know, first of all, I did lots of analysis. I
`did searching for prior art, and you know, I wrote
`much of the materials in my earlier declarations.
` And for these two declarations, which are
`fairly similar, except for the small variations in
`the claims, and slight differences in the prior art
`that was used, both of them, I would say used common
`elements from prior declarations.
` And so a lot of it was kind of cut and
`paste as a lot of that was clerical work either done
`by my staff or the law firm. But I made the final
`edits and, you know, only signed what I had finally
`approved.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 16 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Besides the attorneys, did anyone help
`you in preparing these two declarations, the '411
`declaration and the '132 declaration?
` A. Well, based on the dates, you know,
`the -- if I recall, the '056 was the 1st of
`September and these are the 10th and the 11th,
`respectively. So I don't think anyone on my staff
`actually did anything additional to what had already
`been done.
` Q. So what we talked about on Tuesday?
` A. Right. So my staff helped in the same
`ways. They had to help me with the original
`research. They had helped me with some of the
`figures. They had helped me, yes, with some of my
`figures. They had helped me with my list of
`materials. They had helped prepare some of the
`prior art, like we don't have the list of materials,
`but I recall Macintosh, Inside Macintosh, the
`promotional edition. And I believe the staff helped
`prepare the documents which ultimately were
`submitted.
` Q. You know, I forgot to ask you, your
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 17 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`deposition -- sorry. Boy. Hope it doesn't go like
`that all day. Your deposition preparation
`yesterday, how long did the meetings with the
`lawyers last?
` A. It was similar. I think we met from 10
`to 5 or maybe 5:30. And then went to dinner on my
`own and, well, I met -- well, that's irrelevant.
`And then I -- then I read -- read through everything
`I talked about earlier.
` Q. After dinner?
` A. After dinner.
` Q. How long -- let's first take Exhibit 1019
`in the '411 CBM. Your '411 declaration. How long
`did you spend preparing this declaration?
` A. I would say collectively I spent over a
`hundred hours doing the work that ultimately led to
`this declaration. This particular one, again, you
`know, the engagement, my understanding of the claim
`construction. My understanding of obviousness,
`level of skill in the art, background on the
`technologies, claim construction overviews of the
`various pieces of art, Togher.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 18 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` And then the work of generally doing the
`analysis of those claim elements that were common,
`of course, were all things that were done
`previously. So this work actually was -- other than
`the cutting and pasting sections of prior
`declarations that took hundreds of hours, putting
`this one together didn't take that long, that much
`time.
` But it did require time to look at the
`new references. I did some searching to find new
`references that, you know, there is small little
`differences and just wanted to make sure that those
`small differences were covered and -- and reviewed
`the new prior art that was found. And then I had to
`work through each of the claims to make sure they
`were fully covered, but -- and described.
` Q. And I'm going to ask the same question
`for the Exhibit 1007 in the '132 CBM. Your
`declaration there. How long did it take you to
`prepare that?
` A. I'd say the answer is about the same. I
`think it took a little longer because I did it
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 19 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`first.
` Q. I probably should have asked that.
` A. No. No. The other way around, the one
`that I signed on the 10th was completed first. So
`that's the '411 was done first. The '132 took a
`little less time, but it still had -- you know, half
`the document still was specific to the claims,
`roughly half. And that part had to be -- required
`some specific focus.
` Q. Your sections on -- in both the '411 and
`'132 declarations, qualifications and understanding
`of claim construction and understanding of
`obviousness and level of skill in the art which is
`the first section of each of those declarations,
`it's basically the same, right?
` A. I would say --
` MR. SOKOHL: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I would say the first 24
`pages are almost identical. When we start the claim
`construction, I think starts to deviate. And then,
`of course, there are common elements after that, but
`that's when the variation really starts to happen.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 20 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. And the first 24 pages of these
`declarations are similar to the declaration for the
`'056?
` MR. SOKOHL: Objection. Relevance.
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. Only if you recall. Just if you know.
` A. There is some common elements. I think
`these two are highly similar. I think there is more
`variation in the prior declarations.
` Q. You showed up today with a couple of
`tables of contents that you created for the '132 and
`'411 declarations. I'm wondering why don't we mark
`those?
` A. That would be great.
` Q. Or are they already marked?
` MR. SOKOHL: They are not marked.
` MR. SIGMOND: Okay. Why don't we mark
`those. Go off the record for a second.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` (Exhibit No. 2104, 2105 were
` marked for identification.)
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 21 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. I'd like to mark as Exhibit 2104, a table
`of contents for your '411 declaration that you
`prepared and handed me this morning. So Exhibit
`2104 is -- purports to be a table of contents for
`your '411 declaration, which is Exhibit 1019 in the
`'411 CBM. And I'm going to mark as Exhibit 2105,
`the table of contents -- or it purports to be a
`table of contents that you prepared for your
`declaration in the '132 CBM, that declaration and
`that CBM is 1007. Does that sound right, Mr. Roman?
` A. Yes.
` (Exhibit No. 1026, 1021 were
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. And why don't we look at Exhibit 1026 in
`the '132 CBM and 1021 in the '411 CBM. Just kind of
`get those laid out on the table. Because I know you
`were asking for them.
` MR. SOKOHL: I was confused. I was like,
`where is that.
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 22 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. So Exhibit 1026 is the list of materials
`that you considered for your '132 declaration, and
`Exhibit 1021 is the list of materials you considered
`in the '411 -- in your '411 declaration. So you
`recognize Exhibits 1026 and 1021, Mr. Roman?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I think you were kind of asking for these
`before, so I figured I'd put them in front of you?
` A. I appreciate that. Thank you.
` Q. Are the items listed on the same -- only
`if you know, are they -- are they similar for the
`most part?
` A. They are --
` Q. Can I strike that question?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is the prior art listed in both of these
`-- you know what? Strike that. Let's start over.
` So let's look at Exhibit 1026, which is
`the '132 declaration list of materials. These are
`the materials you considered to prepare your
`declaration for the '132?
` A. That's correct.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 23 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. And let's look at Exhibit 1021 in the
`'411 CBM. This is the list of materials that you
`considered to prepare your '411 declaration. Is
`that correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let's look at -- in Exhibit 1026, in the
`'132 CBM, let's look at item number 13. Was that
`provided to you by counsel, or did you obtain that?
` A. It was provided by counsel.
` Q. And actually, I had the same question
`about number 12. Was that provided by counsel or
`did you obtain that?
` A. It was provided by counsel.
` Q. And those two items are in Exhibit 1021
`of the '411 CBM, correct?
` A. I'm looking at item 6 in the '411. It
`seems to match, based on the shorthand of TSE JP.
`Seems to match number 12 in the '132. And number 7,
`again with shorthand, TSE seems to match the -- so
`number 7 in the '411 seems to match number 13 or
`item 13 in the '132. And what I'll say is I only
`had one copy, and so they were the same. What I
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 24 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`reviewed last night was just one copy of each of
`those.
` Q. And for your -- for preparation of the
`'411 declaration, counsel provided you items
`numbered 6 and 7 of Exhibit 1021 from the '411 CBM?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Sorry. All the numbers are --
` A. Yes.
` Q. I'm just trying to make a record that I
`can decipher later. All right, let's -- why don't
`we start with the '411 and let's look at paragraph 5
`of your declaration, Exhibit 1019 in the '411 CBM.
` A. So the '411, and we are looking at
`paragraph 5.
` Q. Paragraph 5. Yes. Your '411
`declaration, paragraph 5.
` A. Yes. I have it in front of me.
` Q. And Mr. Roman, this is the prior art you
`specifically reviewed to prepare your '411
`declaration?
` A. I also reviewed items in -- identified in
`paragraph 6 and paragraph 7.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 25 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` Q. Now, you call this all prior art in
`paragraph 5. Did you assume that it was, in fact,
`prior art?
` MR. SOKOHL: Objection. Foundation.
`Form.
` THE WITNESS: Well I think you
`mischaracterize what this says. It says the
`following prior art was used in the petition.
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. I understand.
` A. So for my purposes, I've just identified
`what I found in the petition.
` Q. Right. And did you assume it was all
`prior art?
` MR. SOKOHL: Objection. Form.
` THE WITNESS: I guess the problem I have
`with your question is I did make that assumption,
`but that wasn't the only thing I did. I looked at
`dates on each of the documents. And did my own
`confirmation.
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. Um --
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 26 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. To the extent there is a debate about
`whether or not something is prior art, I've made the
`assumption that it is prior art.
` Q. I understand. And when I talk to you
`today, if I call something prior art, it's -- I'm
`just trying to help identify it as you identified
`it. I'm not conceding that it's prior art.
` A. Okay.
` Q. All right. You might as well get his
`CVs, because I think we are going to look at those,
`but while we are waiting for Kevin to do that, there
`is a section called qualifications in both of your
`declarations. I think in the '411, it starts on
`page 5. Do you see that? The '411 declaration, it
`starts on page 5.
` A. I see that. Yes.
` (Exhibit No. 1025, 1020 were
` marked for identification.)
`BY MR. SIGMOND:
` Q. And I'm going to show you what's
`previously been marked in the '132 CBM as IBG 1025
`and the '411 CBM as what's been marked IBG 1020.
`
`202-220-4158
`
`Henderson Legal Services, Inc.
`www.hendersonlegalservices.com
`
`Page 27 of 225
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2166
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00181; CBM2015-00182
`Roman, Kendyl A.
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`