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.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill.) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motion to terminate Markman proceedings in this patent case involving commodities trading software — click here for much more on this case in the Blog’s archives). Defendants (collectively “CQG”) sought construction of numerous terms, after having participated in the prior action brought against former defendant eSpeed which was ultimately appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Court held as follows:
- The Court declined to construe the “static limitation” terms. In the prior case, Judge Moran construed “static limitation” and that construction was reviewed by the Federal Circuit. Because the Federal Circuit decision was binding upon the Court and because CQG had fully participated in that proceeding, the Court would not further construe these terms.
- The Court also declined to construe the “manual re-centering” terms. These terms appear not in the claims, but in Judge Moran’s construction of the static limitation terms. The Court, therefore, declined to construe them for the same reasons that it would not further construe the static limitation terms.
- The Court declined to construe “single action” because it too had already been construed by the Federal Circuit.
Finally, the Court declined to construe “in response … to sending” because the term did not appear in the claims, but in the Federal Circuit’s construction of the claims. The constructions of claim terms do not warrant construction.
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.