Header graphic for print
Chicago IP Litigation Tracking Northern District of Illinois IP Cases

Tag Archives: CQG

Trading Technologies: Federal Circuit Claim Constructions are Binding

Posted in Claim Construction

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.

Trading Technologies: New Expert Opinions Doomed by Lack of Inclusion in LPR Final Contentions

Posted in Experts, Local Rules

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.

 

Court Does Not Dismiss “Me Too” Patent Counterclaims

Posted in Pleading Requirements

Trading Techs. Int’l., v. CQG, No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2012) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant CQG’s affirmative defenses and declaratory judgment counterclaim.  The Court dismissed CQG’s bare-bones defenses which stated in their entirety:

  •  “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppels, acquiescence, implied license, and/or unclean hands.”
  • “Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages for the time period that it was not in compliance with the marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.”

The Court, however, gave CQG twenty-one days to amend the defenses to include sufficient factual support.

The Court denied TT’s motion to dismiss CQG’s declaratory judgment counterclaims as redundant.  While some judges in the Northern District dismiss such claims, the Court held that CQG’s counterclaims would allow the Court to retain jurisdiction if TT dismissed its claims and, therefore, were not redundant.

Trading Technologies: Court Quashes Subpoena

Posted in Discovery

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc., No. 05 C 4088, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 19, 2011) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group’s ("RCG") motion for protective order and to quash third party subpoenas as to third party CQG. The subpoenas sought information regarding RCG’s use of CQG’s trading software. The Court previously entered judgment against RCE and the only issue left in the case is a January 23, 2012 damages trial. But the judgment and the damages trial were limited to RCG’s use of its software, not other third parties that have not yet been held to infringe, such as CQG’s software.

Trading Technologies: “Mirror Image” Patent Counterclaims Struck Sua Sponte as “Meaningless”

Posted in Pleading Requirements

Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 10 C 718, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2011) (Shadur, Sen. J.).*

Judge Shadur sua sponte dismissed defendants’ (collectively "CQG") noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims. The Court explained that "mirror image" noninfringement and invalidity patent counterclaims are "seemingly meaningless." And the "amorphous nature" of CQG’s counterclaims resulted in them being especially unnecessary. The Court, therefore, dismissed the declaratory judgment counterclaims.

*Click here for much more on this and TT’s other cases in the Blog’s archives.

Trading Technologies: Motion Not Allowed to Lie “Fallow”

Posted in Local Rules

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 10 C 718, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2011) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur denied plaintiff Trading Technologies’ ("TT") motion to strike certain of defendants’ (collectively "CQG") affirmative defenses and counterclaims.* The motion was originally filed September 1, 2010 and had been stayed by agreement as the parties attempted to negotiate a global settlement. Because allowing motions to lie "fallow" for so long was "undesirable" the Court dismissed the motion with leave to refile it should the parties restart the substantive portion of the case.

Click here for much more on this and the related Trading Technologies cases in the Blog’s archives.

Answer and Counterclaims Struck Sua Sponte

Posted in Pleading Requirements

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 10 C 718, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur sua sponte struck defendants’ answer and counterclaim with leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim based upon a variety of pleading deficiencies. First, the Court struck statements that the patents-in-suit "speak for [themselves]" and related answers citing State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). But the Court granted CQG leave to replead those answers.

The Court also struck several affirmative defenses. CQG’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) defense was struck because it was not an affirmative defense. And no leave to replead was granted because when plaintiff Trading Technologies’ ("TT") allegations were accepted as true CQG’s defense was "simply dead wrong." The Court also struck various affirmative defenses that were only "skeletal recitals" of legal doctrines, with leave to replead if CQG could. Finally, the Court struck CQG’s noninfringement defense because denials in the answer already brought infringement into issue.

The Court also struck CQG’s counterclaim with leave to replead for failure to meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards. Finally, the Court ordered that CGQ’s counsel should not charge CQG for preparing CGQ’s amended answer and counterclaim and should send CQG a copy of the Court’s Order.

Trading Technologies v. eSpeed: Parties Ordered to Work Out Discovery Issues

Posted in Discovery

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2009) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran denied a motion to reconsider an earlier order continuing a summary judgment motion and staying the case pending the appeal of a related case, Trading Technologies v. eSpeed.*  The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding how to exchange defendants’ sensitive trading information.  The Court previously ordered defendants to work with plaintiff Trading Technologies ("TT") to determine how to produce defendants’ raw transaction data, which was required for a damages calculation.  The parties could not agree on how to exchange the information because of defendants’ unwillingness to provide  such sensitive data to TT without restrictions.  The Court ordered the parties to continue trying to resolve the issue and suggested various ways that the information could be exchanged without forcing defendants to provide all of their sensitive business information.

Click here for much more on this case and the related cases in the Blog’s archives.

Court Lacks Sufficient Evidence to Rule Upon Personal Jurisdiction

Posted in Jurisdiction

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. GL Consultants, No. 05 C 4120, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2007) (Gottschall, J.).*

Judge Gottschall denied defendant GL Trade SA’s ("GL SA") motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, with leave to refile after completion of jurisdictional discovery.  GL SA is a French company located in Paris.  GL SA does not have an office or any assets in Illinois, but it does have a subsidiary, defendant GL Americas, Inc. ("GL Americas").  GL Americas maintains a regional office in Chicago.  The Court noted that despite three rounds of briefing on jurisdiction, neither party "provided anything of substance to the court."  Plaintiff Trading Technologies ("TT") treated GL SA’s subsidiary GL Americas as GL SA, and had not submitted evidence of GL SA’s specific contacts with Illinois.  GL SA submitted several declarations, but none sufficiently clarified that GL SA did not have minimum contacts with Illinois.  As a result, the Court held that it lacked sufficient evidence to rule upon the motion, and granted TT’s motion for jurisdictional discovery.

Continue Reading

Third Parties’ Communications With Other Third Parties Are Not Relevant

Posted in Discovery

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies’ ("TT") motion to compel additional production from third party Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME").  TT served CME with a subpoena seeking, among other things, anything referring or relating to potential prior art to the patents at issue and communications between CME and any other entity regarding the patents at issue, including any joint defense agreement between CME and such parties.  After TT filed the motion to compel, CME produced thousands of pages, including what it stated were all documents in its possession regarding possible prior art.  Because all prior art documents had been produced, the Court denied TT’s motion to compel additional prior art-related documents.

Continue Reading

Court Reminds Parties of Their Discovery Obligations

Posted in Discovery

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 05 C 4120, (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ ("TT") motion to compel additional production from defendants GL Consultants, Inc. and GL Trade SA (collectively "GL").  The Court required GL to update certain interrogatory responses and to produce documents based upon an earlier priority date that GL had argued for, as opposed to stopping at the later priorit date alleged by TT.  The Court also required GL to provide TT access to original source code and certain electronic archives, without regard to whether TT had provided GL similar access.  Finally, the Court denied TT’s request to lower the confidentiality designation of the source code for GL’s "GL Tradepad" software.  But what is most interesting about the Court’s opinion is its reminder to the parties about how the Court expects them to conduct discovery:

Continue Reading

Joint Defense Agreement May Protect Third Party Communications

Posted in Discovery

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, 05 C 1079, 05 C 4088, 05 C 4120, 05 C 4811 & 05 C 5164, 2007 WL 1302765 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ ("TT") motion to compel production of defendants’ communications between themselves (more on this case in the Blog’s archives).  Defendants asserted claims of attorney-client and work product privileges regarding various communications and information exchanged as part of a joint defense agreement among, at least, the various defendants and DJ-plaintiff (collectively "defendants") in the patent suits regarding TT’s patents.  The Court explained that the joint defense privilege protects communications and exchange of information between parties that have expressly decided to cooperate in a litigation – with or without a written agreement.  The Court held that defendants had expressed a sufficient intent to cooperate in their respective litigations against TT and, therefore, held that defendants need not produce communications made in relation to their joint defense.  The Court required that defendants produce any written joint defense agreement or, in the absence of a written agreement, the identities of all members of the joint defense.  The Court further held that third parties need not be identified to the extent that their identities are protected as work product, but that third parties should be identified if defendants’ communications with them are allegedly protected by attorney-client privilege.  The Court also required that defendants produce all prior art in their possession, regardless of how it was located.  And finally, the Court noted that "it must rely on the integrity of counsel to determine what is and is not privileged."  As a result, the Court required that defendants produce "any communications not protected by a legitimate privilege . . . ."

You can download the opinion here.