Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, 2007 WL 704525 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).
Judge Moran granted plaintiff Trading Technologies’ ("TT") motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories regarding defendant eSpeed’s patent licenses (more on this case in the Blog’s archives). The Court held that the licenses could be relevant to three of the Georgia Pacific factors: 1) Rates paid by the licensee for patents similar to the patents in suit; 2) customary royalty rates in the industry; and 3) the royalty that would have been agreed upon in an arms length negotiation. The Court acknowledged that the eSpeed licenses were not for the same technology as the patents in suit, but held that the fact that the patents were all for technology within the futures trading industry was sufficient to make them potentially relevant. And the Court noted that if the eSpeed patents are ultimately not comparable to the patents in suit, the licenses covering the eSpeed patents will not be given weight in the final determination.