The Court also struck some, but not all, of the experts’ opinions based upon trader usage. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2014) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted in part and denied in part defendants’ (collectively “CQG”) motion to strike portions of plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) expert reports that allegedly sought to introduce theories and analysis not contained in TT’s Final Infringement Contentions (“FIC”), which were tendered in November 2013.
For certain independent claims, TT failed to supplement its FIC with manual re-centering elements as required by the Federal Circuit’s and the Court’s claim constructions. It was not enough that dependent claims contained an identification of the manual re-centering elements in the accused products and that the “new” arguments for the independent claims were of the same scope. The Court, therefore, struck TT’s experts new opinions as to those limitations.
TT did, however, sufficiently disclose its argument regarding modifying .ini files, even though in its FIC it refers to changing .ini files instead of modifying them. The Court, therefore, denied the motion as to those theories.
TT did not sufficiently disclose its copying arguments related to willfulness. So, those arguments were struck. TT was, however, allowed to have its experts testify as to certain deficiencies in CQG’s noninfringement opinion letters, although not that the letters were a basis for willful infringement.
The Court struck TT’s doctrine of equivalents theory regarding disabling the Market Window because it was not disclosed in the FIC. TT’s argument regarding the state of the DOM Grid, however, was merely a refinement of an argument already in TT’s FIC. So, the arguments were allowed. The Court also struck an argument based upon the use of a ChartTrader and Price Hold features together because it was not sufficiently explained.
The Court also struck some, but not all, of the experts’ opinions based upon trader usage.
On March 5, 2014 from 5:30 to 7:30, the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) is hosting its annual Federal Judicial Panel at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Margaret Duncan of McDermott, Will & Emery will moderate a panel consisting of N.D. Illinois Judges Coleman, Darrah, and Kendall. The panel will discuss:
- N.D. Illinois 2013-2014 IP litigation trends
- The Supreme Court’s IP docket
- Patent Office litigation and its effect on district courts
- Electronic discovery
The panel costs $30 (members) or $35 (non-members). Register here.
DSM Desotech, Inc. v. 3D Sys. Corp., No. 08 C 1531, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2013) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman awarded defendants (collectively “3D Systems”) approximately $140K in fees and costs as the prevailing party. Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- The Court awarded witness fees for days testifying, but not days traveling.
- The Court awarded subsistence costs, up to the allowed $71/day.
- The Court awarded Bates-labeling costs, but not costs for confidentiality branding.
- 3D Systems was allowed to recover for two copies of each deposition exhibit, but not the full four that it made.
- 3D Systems was allowed to recover for three copies of summary judgment motions because 3D Systems had encountered trouble downloading multiple copies of its briefs.
- 3D Systems did not recover for rough drafts or ASCII versions of deposition transcripts.
- Video synchronization costs were not awarded because there were not sound or comprehension problems that required putting the text on the screen.