Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill.) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motion to terminate Markman proceedings in this patent case involving commodities trading software — click here for much more on this case in the Blog’s archives). Defendants (collectively “CQG”) sought construction of numerous terms, after having participated in the prior action brought against former defendant eSpeed which was ultimately appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Court held as follows:
- The Court declined to construe the “static limitation” terms. In the prior case, Judge Moran construed “static limitation” and that construction was reviewed by the Federal Circuit. Because the Federal Circuit decision was binding upon the Court and because CQG had fully participated in that proceeding, the Court would not further construe these terms.
- The Court also declined to construe the “manual re-centering” terms. These terms appear not in the claims, but in Judge Moran’s construction of the static limitation terms. The Court, therefore, declined to construe them for the same reasons that it would not further construe the static limitation terms.
- The Court declined to construe “single action” because it too had already been construed by the Federal Circuit.
Finally, the Court declined to construe “in response … to sending” because the term did not appear in the claims, but in the Federal Circuit’s construction of the claims. The constructions of claim terms do not warrant construction.