Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trading Technologies International, Inc v. Cqg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


January 6, 2011

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
CQG, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This is one of several patent infringement actions, brought by Trading Technologies International, Inc. ("Trading Technologies"), that are pending on this Court's calendar--other such cases are scattered around this District Court, having been assigned at random to the calendars of other District Judges (just as this one came to this Court's calendar). For a number of years the various cases have been inactive, initially pursuant to an understanding under which this Court's former colleague, the late Judge James Moran, tried one of the cases and his decision was then taken up to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That back-burner status has continued since then for other reasons.*fn1

As chance would have it, still another of the Trading Technologies cases has just been randomly selected by the computer for reassignment as part of the initial calendar of our newest colleague, Judge Edmond Chang (who is due to be sworn in tomorrow, January 7). Both that and the periodic printout that this Court regularly obtains, covering all motions open in cases on its calendar, have currently highlighted the several months' pendency of Dkt. No. 84 in this action, Trading Technologies' motion to strike certain affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

That motion, initially filed on September 1, 2010 for presentment two days later, has heretofore been deferred by agreement on the original explanation that a global settlement was then under discussion. This Court regards any situation in which any part of a motion crop lies fallow for such an extended period as undesirable, both procedurally and substantively. Accordingly the motion is denied, without prejudice to its possible reassertion as and when the parties are ready to proceed substantively with this lawsuit.*fn2


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.