United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
December 1, 2005.
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff,
CQG, INC., and CQGT, LLC, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Trading Technologies International, Inc. (TT) has eight pending
actions in this jurisdiction involving alleged infringement of
the same patents. They are as follows:
1. This action.
2. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Technologies
International Inc., 05 C 4088 (Moran).
3. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 05
C 4811 (Moran).
4. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. REFCO Group
Ltd., 05 C 1079 (Andersen).
5. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Man Group PLC,
05 C 2164 (Hart).
6. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. GL Consultants,
Inc., 05 C 4120 (Gottschall).
7. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Peregrine
Financial Group, Inc., 05 C 4137 (Kocoras).
8. Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Future Path
Trading LLC, 05 C 5164 (Shadur). TT seeks to reassign the last five cases to this court, and the
defendants, or at least most of them, oppose.
Reassignment in the circumstances does not fit easily within
the strictures of our local rules. The eSpeed case is far ahead
of any of the others. Infringement issues may be similar but
maybe not. It would be an imposition on the rest of the
defendants if their attorneys had to sit through infringement
depositions, or at least infringement testimony at trial,
respecting one defendant.
Still, there is much to be said for the reassignment of the
cases to this court for the oversight of common issues. Just
recently the attorneys in the first case went to Japan for prior
art depositions. It would be exceedingly inefficient if total
separation of the cases necessitated seven more trips to Japan.
Equally inefficient would be multiple depositions of the
inventors, others involved in the development of the TT software,
and third parties with knowledge of prior art.
I have proposed to the five other judges involved that I accept
assignment of the five other cases for the limited purpose of
dealing with common issues. That includes coordinated discovery
where possible. It also means ruling on common issues to some
extent. I expect that the Markman hearing in the eSpeed case
will come long before discovery is completed in other cases. I
expect to make rulings binding in the eSpeed case only.
However, it may be that other judges may give some deference to
my rulings, particularly since the Federal Circuit does not give
any expressed deference. Therefore, I will permit attorneys in
the other cases to participate in the Markman hearing, if they
wish. They will have access to the prior depositions, exhibits
and the preliminary injunction transcript.
The five other judges agree to the reassignments for the
purposes expressed. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order I am
requesting the Executive Committee to reassign the five cases to me for those purposes.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.