Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2014) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman denied defendants’ (collectively “CQG” motion for summary judgment of noninfringement in this patent case involving futures trading software. For more on plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) various cases, click here.
CQG argued that TT could not meet its burden of proving infringement because TT did not identify a manual recentering command in CQG’s accused products. The Court previously adopted Judge Moran’s claim construction of “static display of prices” which had been affirmed by the Federal Circuit:
[A] display of prices comprising price levels that do not change positions unless a manual re-centering command is received.
The Court then clarified its construction of “static”:
The proper construction of the term “static” is that price levels will not change unless a manual re-centering or repositioning command is entered. [(Dkt. 826 at 3)]. This means that “static” excludes automatic re-centering and repositioning, but includes systems where the prices never move or [are] repositioned or recentered by manual command.
Based upon the clarification, “static” did not require a manual re-centering command. Because a manual re-centering command is not required by the claims, the absence of the command alone did not warrant summary judgment. The Court also denied TT’s request for attorney’s fees for responding to the motion.
Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. V. Pubs. Int’l, Ltd., No. 13 C 2082, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2014) (St. Eve, J.).
Judge St. Eve construed the disputed terms of the patent in suit in this case regarding graphic indicators on a surface that are not visible to the human eye, but when scanned provide additional information. The Court held that the following three terms need not be construed, relying upon their plain and ordinary meaning:
- Capable of distinguishing the corresponding graphical indicator from adjacent graphical indicators;
- Main information that overlaps and co-exists with the graphical micro-units on the surface of the object; and
- Content information.
The Court construed “header information” as follows:
- Information in the graphical indicator that is used to retrieve the graphical indicator and corresponding content information and is capable of (1) distinguishing the corresponding graphical indictor from an adjacent graphical indicator, and (2) indicating the orientation of the corresponding graphical indicator to the optical device.
The Court also provided several charts that are very helpful in quickly understanding the relative positions and the Court’s conclusions. Before the Court’s analysis of each disputed term, the Court provided a chart listing plaintiff’s proposed construction, defendants’ proposed construction and the Court’s construction. Additionally, at the end of the opinion, the Court concludes with a chart of its constructions. This is a great practice and makes the opinion much more readable.
Costar Realty Info., Inc. v. CIVIX-DDI, LLC, Nos. 12 C 4968, 7091 & 8632, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 23, 2013) (Holderman, Sen. J.).
Judge Holderman construed the disputed claim terms in this patent case involving methods of locating points of interest in a geographic region by accessing a remote database. Before construing the claims, the Court noted the uncertainty regarding the preclusive effect of prior district court constructions with some courts holding prior constructions should be deferred to absent clear error and other courts considering them merely instructive. The Court held that other opinions were not controlling based upon the Supreme Court’s statements in Markman that making claim construction a matter of law would not create consistency, even within a single district. Of particular note, were the following constructions:
- “The request containing (a) at least one user-selected category and (b) a user-selected geographic vicinity” was” construed as “the request containing, in a single electronic representation, (a) at least one user-selected category and (b) a user-selected geographic vicinity”;
- “Advertising information about a business” was construed as “paid promotion of a business name, service, or product”;
- “Advertisements” was construed as “paid promotions”;
- “Database” was construed as “a collection of related information organized for convenient access”;
- “Geographical/geographic position” was construed as “a specific location within a geographic vicinity”;
- “Wherein a user at the port may locate the one item of interest” was construed “so that a user at the port has sufficient information to locate an item of interest”;
- “Spatial detail” was construed as “a system of linked computer networks, world-wide in scope that typically is associated with using TCP/IP as a standard protocol.”
- “At a database, receiving at least in part through the Internet, a request from one of a plurality of ports” did not require construction; and
- “Determining, at the database, a plurality of advertisements in response to the request . . . from the database, transmitting, at least in part through the Internet, the response to the port” did not require a construction.