Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, 2007 WL 611258 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).
Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies ("TT") motion for clarification of the Court’s claim construction or in the alternative for reconsideration (more on the claim construction and the case generally here). TT sought clarification of the Court’s construction of "static" and a correction to the Court’s construction of "plurality." The Court defined "static" relative to a "price axis" as a line that does not change position unless it is manually re-centered. TT sought clarification as to whether a product that had a "static" "price axis" for periods of time in between automatic re-centering would fall within the definition of "static" at least for part-time infringement. The Court denied to clarify the construction as TT requested and held that for something to be "static" it must have "a permanent lack of movement."
The Court did, however, reconsider its construction of "plurality." The Court originally construed "plurality" to mean "one or more." But the Court agreed with TT’s argument that the well-established understanding of plurality was that it be "more than one." So, the Court revised its construction accordingly.