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.