Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*
Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motions to reconsider the Court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement regarding defendant eSpeed’s software utilizing automatic and drift recentering of a price axis (discussed here). This opinion is most notable for the Court’s blunt footnote acknowledging that this case will be appealed to the Federal Circuit and that, therefore, the Court believes that “speedy resolution” is in all parties’ best interests:
We recognize that TT may have a valid argument [that an amendment during prosecution did not narrow the claims] and note that this was a close call. We also recognize that our decision may have been influenced by the impending trial and our disinclination to reopen a significant issue for debate. We have previously noted that this case is certain to find itself in front of the Federal Circuit for ultimate resolution and acknowledge our place as a “way station” to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, we are further convinced that speedy resolution of all issues before this court is in everyone’s best interest. . . .
Certainly other courts have thought along these lines, but few voice these opinions.
The Court denied TT’s motions, noting that while they may have come close to rehashing TT’s original arguments, they also more fully developed the arguments. First, the Court held that its narrow constructions of “common static price axis” and “static display of prices” (discussed here and here) were warranted by the intrinsic evidence. Because the Court relied upon the intrinsic evidence, it was not swayed by TT’s arguments that claims issued to TT in foreign jurisdictions (extrinsic evidence) required a broader definition. The Court also rejected similar arguments based upon a patent being prosecuted in the PTO on behalf of eSpeed, which was also extrinsic evidence.
Trial is set to start in this case the week of September 10. Between now and then expect to see several more opinions in this case and its related cases (there are two weighty summary judgment opinions still in my queue, as well as several other smaller opinions and orders). Additionally, I have some other obligations that week, but am planning to blog some of the trial. Stay tuned.