`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
` TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. and
` TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
` Petitioners
`
` v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2016-00087 (Patent No. 7,412,416)
`
` Deposition of CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS, taken at
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, IL-CSR, RPR, CLR,
` and CRR, commencing at the hour of 1:03 p.m.
` on Monday, May 8, 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 1058
`IBG v. TT
`CBM2016-00087
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
` 312.913.3311
` gannon@@mbhb.com
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` Steve Borsand, Esq.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 3
`
` INDEX
` PAGE
`CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS
` Examination by Mr. Sokohl 4, 131
` Examination by Mr. Gannon 118
`
` EXHIBITS
`TRADING TECH PAGE
`Exhibit 2169 Declaration of Christopher 7
` H. Thomas
` (CBM2016-00087)
`IBG
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent 7, 412,416 125
` (CBM2016-00087)
`THOMAS
`Exhibit 1 VIII Claim Construction 119
`
`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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`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.)
` CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS,
`having been first duly sworn, was examined and
`testified as follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Thomas. How are
`you?
` A. Good.
` Q. You've gone through this a few times.
`I know you know the ground rules. But are you on
`any medications today that would not allow you to
`give truthful testimony?
` A. No.
` Q. Any other reason why you wouldn't be
`able to give truthful testimony?
` A. No.
` Q. If you don't understand the question,
`just ask me to clarify it.
` A. Okay.
` Q. If you answer it, I'm going to assume
`you understood it.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
` A. Correct.
` Q. If you want to take a break, just ask.
`I'd just ask that you finish the question that's
`pending.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Let me just give you the documents.
`I'm going to hand you what has been marked Exhibit
`2169 in CBM2016-00087 which is the declaration of
`Christopher H. Thomas for U.S. Patent Number
`7,412,416. (Document tendered to the witness.)
` Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes, I do.
` When I was reviewing this document,
`there's a section in here, Claim Construction,
`that is wrong.
` Q. Okay.
` A. And I made a correction to it. So I'd
`like to mark that, if I can.
` Q. Sure. We'll get to that. We can do
`it now.
` A. Okay. Just let me briefly explain it.
` Q. Sure, go ahead.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
` A. In my claim construction --
` Q. What page are we talking?
` A. It's Paragraph 64.
` Q. Paragraph 64?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay.
` A. I mistakenly, it's a computer readable
`medium construction and I mistakenly had that in
`from I believe the '999 Patent because there was
`such a lot of carryover. I made a mistake when I
`was drafting it because I refer to Claim 23, it's
`not Claim 23, it's Claim 14. And the explanation
`is not technically correct. So I just wanted to
`make it correct for completeness.
` Q. So I was going to ask you, did you
`review this declaration before you signed it?
` A. Yeah, I did.
` Q. And did you not notice this error when
`you signed it?
` A. No, I did not.
` Q. Okay. I mean your opinions are what
`they are.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
` A. Right.
` Q. Is that your signature on Page 57?
` A. Yes, I believe, yes, it is, yes.
` Q. Did you find any other errors when you
`were reviewing your declaration?
` A. No, no.
` Q. Let me just give you the patent so you
`have it. I'm going to hand you what's been marked
`as IBG 1001, which is U.S. Patent Number
`7,412,416. And if it's okay with you, I'll refer
`to this as the '416 Patent.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you recognize that?
` A. I do.
` Q. Have you reviewed this patent before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you've reviewed the claims of this
`patent?
` A. I have read the claims, yes.
` Q. In regard to your declaration, which
`is Exhibit 2169, I'm just going to refer to that
`as the Thomas declaration.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
` A. Sure.
` Q. What is your expertise that you're
`opining on in regard to the Thomas declaration?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: You asked me what I'm
`opining on in here?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What is your area of expertise?
` A. It is the design of, design and
`implement and program graphical user interfaces
`for trading, electronic trading.
` Q. Are you opining as an expert in any
`other field in regard to this declaration?
` A. Actually, I think I say that my
`expertise is in that. So I believe that -- I
`don't believe so, no.
` Q. Are you an expert in graphical user
`interfaces for products other than financial
`products?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I'd have to look at the
`definition of an expert for that field to see if I
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`fall into that. I don't know. I could be.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Are you here to testify as an expert
`in graphical user interfaces for products other
`than financial products?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I am here to testify as
`an expert for graphical user interfaces for
`electronic trading.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If we look at Claim 1 of the '416
`Patent, I believe in the first element it talks
`about a vertical axis of price values.
` Do you see that?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Are you familiar with what a static
`price axis is?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: A static price axis?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 10
` THE WITNESS: Are you referring to a
`static price axis as used in other patents in
`these proceedings?
` MR. SOKOHL: Yes.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Specifically the '132 Patent.
` A. I am familiar with that.
` Q. Is the vertical axis of price values
`recited in Claim 1 a static price axis?
` A. Claim 1 doesn't say anything about a
`static price axis.
` Q. Did you review the prosecution history
`of the '416 Patent?
` A. I don't believe I did, but I just want
`to make sure. No, I don't believe I did.
` Q. Just to follow up on one of my last
`questions. In regard to independent Claim 14 --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- I'd like to ask you the same
`question. Is the vertical axis of prices a static
`
`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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
`price axis?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Claim 14 does not
`require a static price axis.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In the Thomas declaration, you have a
`discussion about your understanding of a POSITA
`versus Mr. Roman's understanding of a POSITA. Do
`you recall that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Does the difference between the two
`impact any opinion you have put forth in your
`declaration?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form?
` THE WITNESS: I think it does because
`it -- I believe that Mr. Roman's definition does
`not place enough emphasis on experience based on
`the knowledge of somebody familiar with the needs
`of an electronic trader. And I believe that that
`would have an impact on determining the
`unconventional nature of the claims of the '416
`Patent and also whether they are technical in
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
`nature.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let's look at Claim 1 again.
` A. Okay.
` Q. It says in the first step "displaying
`a chart on a graphical user interface."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. "Comprising a vertical axis of price
`values and a horizontal axis of time."
` A. Yes.
` Q. First of all, do those axes need to be
`visible?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: You know, that's not
`part of my declaration. I haven't opined on that.
`I don't have an opinion on that. I'd have to
`review that. I don't have an opinion on that at
`the moment.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do you understand Claim 1?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
` A. Yes.
` Q. I think you earlier said that the
`unconventional nature of Claim 1, Mr. Roman's
`definition of POSITA, wouldn't allow him to
`understand the unconventional nature of Claim 1.
`I think that's what you said.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't think I actually
`said that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. What did you say?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I said that -- I think
`you asked me if there was a difference between the
`two, and I think I said that having experience
`from someone with input of the knowledge of an
`electronic trader over the time period would allow
`the POSITA to better determine whether something,
`a GUI tool was conventional or not.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And in order to determine whether a
`GUI tool is conventional, would you need to
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`understand the scope of Claim 1?
` A. Right. But you asked me whether the
`axes needed to be displayed.
` Q. Correct.
` A. Well, Claim 1, Claim 1 says, that
`element says "displaying a chart on a graphical
`user interface comprising a vertical axis of price
`values and a horizontal axis of time." It doesn't
`say whether you need to display the axis. Either
`way it doesn't say.
` Q. In the next step it says "displaying
`indicators representing historical trading data
`for the good at locations along the vertical axis
`of price values and the horizontal axis of time."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many indicators need to be
`displayed?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: So I can correct that
`question, what was wrong with the form of that
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`question, "How many indicators need to be
`displayed?"
` MR. GANNON: I just objected to scope.
`I think it's outside the scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: Okay. You objected to
`form and scope. So I wanted to correct the
`question.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How many indicators need to be
`displayed in Claim 1?
` MR. GANNON: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: It is just merely saying
`displaying indicators which represent the
`historical trading data for the good at the
`location along the vertical axis and the
`horizontal axis of time. So it doesn't state how
`many.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What would be the minimum number that
`would have to be displayed?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 16
` THE WITNESS: The word "indicators"
`itself suggests plural. So at a minimum that's
`two.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Okay. And does the claim specify what
`type of historical trading data needs to be
`displayed?
` A. The claim does not. But the
`specification does speak about the different types
`of trading data that can be used. So one of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`the historical data could represent different
`facets of the underlying instrument being traded,
`and that's explained in the specification.
` Q. So historical trading data can be a
`plethora of type of data?
` MR. GANNON: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the specification
`does explain that it could be several different
`metrics, whatever the trader wants to view.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Does Claim 1 specify what 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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
`indicators look like?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: No. But, again, in the
`specification, and you can look at the figures,
`the specification speaks about it and the figures
`illustrate the indicators too, the trading data.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And those are examples shown in the
`specification; correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Other than the plural indicators, does
`Claim 1 require anything else be displayed on the
`GUI?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`foundation, and scope.
` THE WITNESS: It has to provide a
`plurality of locations on the graphical user
`interface to place an order icon with a pointer of
`a mouse.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Do those have to be displayed, those
`locations?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: According to the claim,
`they have to be provided.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Provided.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Which is different than displayed;
`correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Could be.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. In fact, they could be an invisible
`location on the screen; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Could be.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Claim 1 doesn't require any real-time
`market data to be displayed; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Although those words may
`not be in Claim 1, by reading -- the specification
`discloses is a live market. There is no
`disclosure in the specification of anything but a
`real-time market which would necessitate live
`market data.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But the claims don't have any real
`market data displayed; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope, asked and answered.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I'm going to ask that question again.
`It was a bad question.
` A. Okay.
` Q. But Claim 1 does not require any
`real-time market data be displayed; correct?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form, asked
`and answered, scope.
` THE WITNESS: Like I said, those words
`are not in Claim 1. But in the light of the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
`specification, it's the only thing disclosed.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. You refer to the alleged invention in
`independent Claims 1 and 14 as GUI tools. Is that
`your phrase?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If I refer to the GUI tool of Claim 1
`and 14, using your language, that would be
`appropriate?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I just don't want the record to
`reflect that somehow I'm acquiescing to that.
` The GUI tool of Claim 1 -- using
`the GUI tool of Claim 1, could you trade on the
`inside market?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: You could trade at any
`price along the price axis.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. If we turn to Paragraph 22 of your
`declaration.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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. Okay.
` Q. You state in the first sentence "to
`understand the claimed invention and its
`unconventional nature." What's unconventional
`about Claim 1?
` A. Because it was -- when Claim 1 is read
`as a whole, it's very unconventional in terms of
`how electronic trading was undertaken at the time.
` Q. Could you be specific other than "the
`claim as a whole"?
` A. Sure. Well, I mean you have to
`consider the claim as a whole. So when you read
`the claim as a whole, the invention, all the
`claims, the invention is all of the claims, it is
`very unconventional in terms of what was available
`at the time.
` What was available at the time were
`your typical what we've been referring to as a
`Figure 2 type, always centered GUIs, and where the
`market was always centered at the inside market.
`And then the other type of order entry tool that
`was available at the time, order tickets.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 22
` So it was a radical departure from
`there.
` Q. When you say "always centered" in
`regard to Figure 2, earlier we talked about the
`fact that Claim 1 did not have a static price
`axis; correct?
` A. Correct.
` Q. Why would the inside market not always
`be centered in a GUI tool as recited in Claim 1
`for example?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Because there's no --
`when you read the specification and you look at
`the figures, there is no way that you can -- for
`example, if we look at Figure 3-A, when you have
`the historical market data and then you have what
`is annotated as number 304 and -- 300 are the
`bids, 304 are the asks. You cannot have the bids
`and asks like that when everything is always
`centered. It just doesn't work that way. It just
`doesn't work that way.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 23
`
`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. Okay. So I'd like to reference Claim
`1.
` A. Yes.
` Q. Does Claim 1 require inside market
`data be displayed?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: No. Claim 1 does not
`require that.
` But going back to your previous
`question, it's unreasonable to say that it would
`be an always centered display because when you
`look at everything that's disclosed in the
`specification, including the figures, that's just
`not the case. I mean one of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time would know that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But Claim 1 doesn't even recite the
`inside market.
` A. If it was always centered, you cannot
`perform the required step of Claim 1 which states
`generating an order to buy or sell the particular
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 24
`quantity of the good at a particular price value
`responsive to placing the order icon at the
`specific location.
` You can't do that. If it's always
`centered, you can't drag something on a specific
`price because it's always changing. So you
`wouldn't be able to do it.
` Q. Okay. Of course you could move --
`well, you're telling me that you can't move an
`icon to a place on the price axis even if it's
`moving?
` A. No, but --
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. I guess I don't understand your
`question. It's not static, right, Claim 1.
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form, asked
`and answered.
` THE WITNESS: But that's not what --
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let me ask a different question.
` A. Hold on one second.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
` Q. Sure, go ahead.
` A. That is not -- like I said before, it
`is completely unreasonable to say that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would conclude that
`reading the specification and looking at all the
`figures. That's just not what is disclosed in the
`specification.
` Q. Do you know whether it's appropriate
`to read limitations from the specification into
`the claims?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer and I
`don't believe I'm reading limitations into a
`claim. I am reading the claim in the light of the
`specification. And in the light of the
`specification concluding that that could be an
`always centered axis makes no sense.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is it possible for Claim 1 to be
`broader than shown in Figure 3?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: But it's not just Figure
`3. It's all the figures in the specification.
`It's the whole specification as a whole.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is it possible for Claim 1 to be
`broader than all the figures in the specification?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: That's not in my
`declaration. I haven't considered that. I would
`have to think about that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So I'd like to focus on Claim 1.
` A. Okay.
` Q. I didn't ask you questions about
`Figure 3-A.
` A. Okay.
` Q. First of all, does Claim 1 require
`price levels to be displayed along the price axis?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 27
` THE WITNESS: Actually displaying the
`price levels?
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Correct.
` MR. GANNON: Same objections. Also,
`lack of foundation.
` THE WITNESS: It says to display a
`chart on a graphical user interface. Again, when
`you read the specification and you look at all the
`figures, it's the only reasonable thing to
`conclude is. It doesn't specifically say that you
`display price values, but all the disclosures in
`the specification display price values.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How do you know -- how do you
`determine whether or not you're reading a
`limitation into the claim versus reading the
`claims in light of the specification?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer. So I
`believe that when you're looking at the broadest
`
`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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 28
`reasonable interpretation, which is what I believe
`is supposed to be done in these proceedings, one
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time would --
`that would be the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of what one of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time would believe something means
`in light of the specification. And that's I
`believe what I'm doing.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But do you agree that there is a claim
`construction principle that says you don't read
`limitations from the specification into the
`claims?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope, calls for a legal conclusion.
` THE WITNESS: Again, I'm not a lawyer,
`I mean I haven't done any, apart from one piece of
`claim construction section in my declaration.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Have you been instructed as to whether
`or not there is a claim construction principle as
`to whether or not you read limitations into 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
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. 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
`
`claims?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: No. I have been
`instructed on broadest reasonable interpretation,
`and I believe that's what I'm doing.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How do you determine whether or not
`you're construing a claim under broadest
`reasonable interpretation or reading a limitation
`into the claim improperly?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: I have been informed of
`what the broadest reasonable interpretation is,
`and I believe that that's what I'm doing.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Is there any indication in Claim 1
`that -- strike that.
` Is Claim 1 limited to financial
`goods?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: That's not in my
`declaration. I haven't considered that. I would
`need to consider that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Well, in Claim 1 it says "a method for
`facilitating trading and displaying information
`regarding the buying and selling of a good."
` Do you see that?
` A. Uh-huh.
` Q. What type of good is being bought and
`sold in Claim 1?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form,
`scope.
` THE WITNESS: Well, the specification
`talks about financial trading, it includes that.
`Is it limited to it? I'm not sure. I'd have to
`look at that.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. When considering the unconventional
`nature of Claim 1, did you consider whether this
`claim related to goods beyond financial goods?
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 31
`
`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,
`foundation, scope.
` MR. SOKOHL: Just for clarity of the
`regard, why is that beyond the scope? I'm trying
`to understand his understanding of the claim and
`he opined on this claim.
` MR. GANNON: Well, first of all, your
`question assumed a fact that's not in evidence.
` MR. SOKOHL: That's why I'm asking the
`questions.
` MR. GANNON: Well, no. My problem
`with the question was it assumed a fact that
`hasn't been established.
` MR. SOKOHL: Which is what?
` MR. GANNON: That the claims are
`related to goods beyond trading I think you said.
` THE WITNESS: Could you ask it again?
` MR. GANNON: And, for the record, my
`scope objection is it's beyond any opinion in his
`declaration.
` MR. SOKOHL: If he opined on the scope
`of this claim in any way, then it's not beyond the
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`scope. Thank you for clarifying.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let me ask my question again. When
`you opined on the unconventional nature of Claim
`1, did you consider whether the claim related to
`goods beyond financial products?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I was asked to opine on
`the unconventional nature of the claims from the
`'416 Patent with regards to conventional GUIs that
`were available for electronic trading at the time.
`So electronic trading.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And how do you define "electronic
`trading"?
` A. Electronic trading, trading on an
`electronic exchange.
` Q. And what types of goods are you
`referring to being traded on an electronic
`exchange?
` MR. GANNON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I believe that anything
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2017
`
`202-232-0646
`
`
`
`5/8/2017
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. TTI, Inc.
`
`Christopher H. Thomas
`
`