throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 97
`
` Entered: September 1, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADSTATION GROUP, INC., TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and IBFX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent No. 6,766,304 B2)1
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motions to Submit
`Supplemental Information and Briefing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b)
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00035 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`On August 16, 2016, Patent Owner filed, in each of the above listed
`proceedings, a Motion to Submit Supplemental Information and Briefing in
`both unredacted and redacted forms. Papers 89, 90 (“Motion(s) to Submit”
`or “Mot.”).2 In each of the above listed proceedings, Petitioner filed an
`Opposition (Paper 92; “Opposition” or “Opp.”), and Patent Owner filed a
`Reply in both unredacted and redacted forms (Papers 94, 95; “Reply”).
`Patent Owner also filed Motions to Seal the unredacted versions of its
`motions and replies (Papers 91 and 93; “Motions to Seal”). For the reasons
`stated below, the Motions to Submit are denied and the Motions to Seal are
`dismissed.
`
`ANALYSIS
`On June 27, 2016, Patent Owner filed its Patent Owner Responses.
`
`Paper 64. According to Patent Owner, it did not include certain documents
`and arguments in connection with its Responses, because it was prevented
`from doing so due to a protective order in the related district court
`proceeding. Mot. 2. On July 1, 2016, Patent Owner sought relief from the
`district court protective order, which the district court granted on July 7,
`2016. Mot. 4. On August 10, 2016, Patent Owner requested leave to file
`motions for supplemental information and briefing in each of the above
`listed proceedings. We authorized Patent Owner to file the Motions to
`Submit (Paper 86), and on August 16, 2016, Patent Owner did so.
`Patent Owner moves to submit supplemental information and briefing
`in the form of ten documents and ten pages of additional briefing pursuant to
`
`
`2 Citations are to CBM2015-00161. This decision references only the
`redacted Motion to Submit.
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b). Mot. 2, 6–7. The ten documents Patent Owner seeks
`to enter into the record are as follows:
`1) Deposition Transcript of John Bartleman dated June 8, 2016
`(Ex. 2150);
`2) Deposition Transcript of John Bartleman dated June 9, 2016;
`3) TradeStation Matrix Requirements, dated May 19, 2003 (Ex.
`2144);
`4) Trading Technologies Webpage describing MD Trader, dated
`April 11, 2003;
`5) Trading Options with TradeStation OptionStation, dated
`April 13, 2010 (Ex. 2145);
`6) Barron’s Presentation dated February 15, 2011 (Ex. 2143);
`7) Email from J. Bartleman, dated December 20, 2008;3
`8) Deposition Transcript of Milan Galik dated June 13, 2016
`(Ex. 2154);
`9) Email from M. Galik, dated June 14, 2010 (Ex. 2156);4 and
`10) Email from M. Galik, dated July 19, 2011 (Ex. 2158).
`
`As the moving party, Patent Owner bears the burden of proving that it
`is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.223(b), a party seeking to submit supplemental information
`more than one month after the date a trial is instituted “must show why the
`supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier,
`and that consideration of the supplemental information would be in the
`interests-of-justice.”
`
`Patent Owner presents two arguments why it could not have obtained
`the above documents earlier as follows: 1) Patent Owner did not receive all
`of the documents, testimony, or authentication of the evidence until the
`
`
`3 Patent Owner does not seek to file this exhibit in CBM2015-00179.
`4 Patent Owner does not seek to file this exhibit in CBM2015-00179.
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`second week of June 2016; and 2) Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s
`filing of any of Petitioners’ confidential information in the instant
`proceedings that were submitted under the district court’s protective order.
`Mot. 2.
`
`As to the first argument, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently
`the availability of the documents it now seeks to file in these proceedings.
`Based on the dates listed on the documents themselves, or described by
`Patent Owner,5 only three of the ten documents contain a date sometime in
`June of 2016. The rest predate June 2016 significantly. Further, Patent
`Owner indicates that it obtained at least four of the ten documents from
`Petitioner prior to June 2016. For example, Patent Owner indicates that
`Petitioner produced Exhibit 2144 on December 23, 2015. Mot. 11. Patent
`Owner argues that certain portions of the June 2016 documents authenticate
`some of the earlier documents, and that it did not discover the relevance of
`one document (number 4 from the above list) until June 8, 2016. See, e.g.
`Mot. 9, 12. Patent Owner, however, does not explain why it needed to wait
`to authenticate the documents produced by Petitioner before filing those
`documents in these proceedings or why it waited until June 2016 to
`authenticate documents described as having dates, in some instances, many
`years ago. For example, Patent Owner argues that the deposition of John
`Bartleman obtained on June 8 and 9, 2016 authenticates Exhibit 2144; a
`document described as TradeStation Matrix Requirements, which has a May
`2003 date and which was produced on December 23, 2015. Id. Patent
`
`
`5 Some of the documents were filed previously in the proceedings, while
`others have not been filed per Board instructions. See, e.g., Paper 86, 2.
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`Owner has not explained why it waited until June 2016 to authenticate
`Exhibit 2144. No sufficient explanation in that regard is provided. Nor does
`Patent Owner explain the circumstances surrounding its late discovery that
`the one document was relevant. Mot. 12. The document (number 4 from the
`above list) dates back to 2003. The document has not changed and
`presumably was available to Patent Owner many months before it filed its
`responses. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s first
`argument.
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s second argument.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner prevented Patent Owner from filing the
`documents. Mot. 2–5. In particular, Patent Owner argues that the
`documents are protected by a district court protective order, and that
`Petitioner has relied on paragraph 11 of the protective order to object to the
`submission of documents in the instant proceedings. Id. at 2, fn 3.6
`Paragraph 19 of the protective order, however, includes that the “order is
`without prejudice to the right of any party to seek relief from the Court upon
`good cause shown, from any of the provisions contained herein.” Ex. 2407,
`19. Accordingly, a party may seek relief from the protective order from the
`district court. It is not apparent to us, as Patent Owner asserts, that the relief
`had to come from Petitioner.
`
`
`6 Paragraph 11 from the April 22, 2011 district court protective order,
`includes that protected “material shall not be used for any purpose other than
`in this Proceeding. Specifically, but without limitation, it shall not be used
`in any proceedings in any other court, tribunal, or patent office (including in
`any opposition, reexamination or other proceeding).” Ex. 2407, 10.
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that it was diligent in obtaining the documents it
`seeks to submit. In support of its diligence arguments, Patent Owner argues
`that it contacted Petitioner on several occasions in May and June 2016,
`requesting Petitioner to agree that Patent Owner could use the information it
`now seeks to submit, but Petitioner objected. Mot. 2–3. Patent Owner also
`argues that on July 1, 2016 it sought, and on July 7, 2016 was granted, relief
`from the district court protective order to file certain materials in an offer of
`proof before us. Mot. 4.
`Petitioner filed the first petition in these proceedings on July 20, 2015,
`and we instituted review in the first of these proceedings January 27, 2016.
`See, e.g., Papers 2, 29. Patent Owner was put on notice several months prior
`to May of 2016 of the challenges to the instant patents. Yet, Patent Owner
`does not explain why it waited until May 2016 to seek Petitioner’s
`agreement on evidence protected under the district court’s order, and, more
`importantly, why Patent Owner did not go to the district court to seek relief
`from the protective order prior to July of 2016.7 Patent Owner made a
`litigation decision to wait until a little more than one month before its Patent
`
`
`7 Patent Owner was aware at least two weeks prior to the time its Patent
`Owner Responses were due that it needed to seek relief from the district
`court protective order. See, e.g., Ex. 2140, 5:19–24; see also Paper 60, 10.
`Although Patent Owner previously represented that it believed a motion was
`filed in the district court seeking relief from the protective order two weeks
`before its Patent Owner Responses were due (Ex. 2140, 5:22–24), the instant
`motion appears to indicate otherwise. Mot. 2–3 (indicating that an earlier
`motion “noticed June 15” with the district court was withdrawn from
`consideration). Based on the record before us, it appears that Patent Owner
`did not file such a motion with the district court for consideration until July
`1, 2016, after Patent Owner filed its Responses. Mot. 3–4.
`
`6
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`Owner Responses were due to contact Petitioner regarding the submission of
`hundreds of documents (see, e.g., Ex. 2395), not just the ones it now seeks to
`submit. Moreover, Patent Owner waited after its responses were filed to file
`a motion for consideration with the district court, seeking relief from the
`protective order. Importantly, Patent Owner does not provide an explanation
`for the period prior to May 2016, and thus, Patent Owner has failed to show
`why the information reasonably could not have been obtained at least prior
`to May 2016.
`
`Lastly, we have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that there is no
`burden or prejudice to Petitioner if Patent Owner is permitted to file
`supplemental information and briefing, because Petitioner may respond to
`such information and briefing in Petitioner’s replies. Mot. 7–8. Patent
`Owner’s arguments do not take into account that there likely would not be
`sufficient time for Petitioner to file and serve objections to the evidence, for
`Patent Owner to cure such objections, and for Petitioner to cross examine
`any of the testimonial evidence, all prior to filing Petitioner’s replies, which
`are due September 9, 2016. Paper 51. Petitioner likely would seek further
`adjustment to the already compressed schedule to respond to the additional
`information and briefing. As it is, and due to numerous previously made
`schedule adjustments, there is little to no room to spare for us to complete
`these proceedings within the one year statutory deadline. Moreover, Patent
`Owner has had ample time and opportunity to respond to the Petitions, and
`has done so by filing responses, each of which is at least 77 pages in length.
`Based on the record before us, we determine that authorizing Patent Owner
`to file supplemental information and supplemental briefing at this late
`
`7
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`juncture would severely undermine the Board’s ability to administer and
`complete these proceedings in a just, speedy, and inexpensive way. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`For all of the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Motions to Submit are
`denied. Because we did not rely on the confidential information contained
`in either Patent Owner’s Motions to Submit or in its Replies in rendering
`this decision, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motions to Seal and expunge the
`unredacted versions of those papers.
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions to File Supplemental
`Information and Briefing, filed in each of the above listed proceedings, are
`denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions to Seal in each
`of the above listed proceedings are dismissed; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential (nonredacted) versions of
`Patent Owner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information and Replies, filed
`in each of the above listed proceedings, are expunged from the records of the
`above listed proceedings.
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`CBM2015-00161 (Patent 6,766,304 B2)
`CBM2015-00179 (Patent 7,533,056 B2)
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`John C. Phillips
`phillips@fr.com
`
`Kevin Su
`CBM41919-0005CP1@fr.com
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Matthew A. Argenti
`margenti@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Erika Arner
`Erika.arner@finnegan.com
`
`Joshua Goldberg
`Joshua.goldberg@finnegna.com
`
`Kevin Rodkey
`Kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`
`Rachel Emsley
`Rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`
`Steven Borsand
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`9

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.