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.