Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. GL Consultants, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

November 18, 2014

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
GL CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

SARA L. ELLIS, District Judge.

In this long-running patent dispute, Trading Technologies International, Inc. ("TT") contends that Defendants SunGard Financial Systems (France) SAS, GL Trade Americas, Inc., SunGard Data Systems Inc., and SunGard Investment Ventures LLC (collectively, "GL Trade"), as well as Defendant FuturePath Trading LLC ("FuturePath"), have developed and sold electronic trading software products that infringe U.S. Patent No. 6, 766, 304 (the "304 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 6, 772, 132 (the "132 patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit"). As relevant to the present motions, TT alleges that GL Trade's GL WIN electronic trading application with versions 5.9 and thereafter of the QuickTrade file/module infringe claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16-18, 20-23, 25, and 27-40 of the 304 patent and claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-16, 20, 22-25, 27-30, 32-35, 37-40, 42-45, and 47-56 of the 132 patent. TT also contends that all versions of FuturePath's PhotonTrader 2 electronic trading application with the TradeMatrix file/module infringe claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, 20-23, and 26-40 of the 304 patent and claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-16, 20, 22, 24-25, 27-30, 32, 34-35, 37-40, 42, 44-45, and 47-56 of the 132 patent. Defendants have moved for summary judgment that these accused products do not infringe the patents-in-suit because the claims' static limitation is not met. TT has filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment that the accused products meet the static limitation. Because the Court finds that the accused products do not literally infringe and TT cannot take advantage of the doctrine of equivalents for all but a small number of the QuickTrade versions at issue, Defendants' motions [581, 610] are granted in part and denied in part and TT's motion [786] is denied.

BACKGROUND

I. Patents-in-Suit

The patents-in-suit relate to computer software used for electronic trading in the futures market. They disclose a static price axis and a dynamic display of bid and ask indicators. This combination was intended to ensure that a user can track changing market prices without the prices changing on him or her. With a static price level, the user will not enter an order at an unintended price.

The 132 patent has three independent claims: claims 1, 8, and 14. The 304 patent has two independent claims: claims 1 and 27. Claim 1 of each patent is the representative claim. Claim 1 of the 132 patent states:

A method of placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price, using a graphical user interface and a user input device, said method comprising:
setting a preset parameter for the trade order
displaying market depth of the commodity, through a dynamic display of a plurality of bids and a plurality of asks in the market for the commodity, including at least a portion of the bid and ask quantities of the commodity, the dynamic display being aligned with a static display of prices corresponding thereto, wherein the static display of prices does not move in response to a change in the inside market;
displaying an order entry region aligned with the static display prices comprising a plurality of areas for receiving commands from the user input devices to send trade orders, each area corresponding to a price of the static display of prices; and
selecting a particular area in the order entry region through single action of the user input device with a pointer of the user input device positioned over the particular area to set a plurality of additional parameters for the trade order and send the trade order to the electronic exchange.

132 patent col. 12 ll. 1-27.

Claim 1 of the 304 patent states:

A method for displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price on a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of locations in a bid display region, each location in the bid display region corresponding to a price level along a common static price axis, the first indicator representing quantity associated with at least one order to buy the commodity at the highest bid price currently available in the market;
dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality of locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask display region corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis, the second indicator representing quantity associated with at least one order to sell the commodity at the lowest ask price currently available in the market;
displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to fixed price levels positioned along the common static price axis such that when the inside market changes, the price levels along the common static price axis do not move and at least one of the first and second indicators moves in the bid or ask display regions relative to the common static price axis;
displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis; and
in response to a selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange.

304 patent col. 12 ll. 35-col. 13 ll. 3. Each asserted claim of the 132 patent includes limitations containing the phrase "static display of prices." Each asserted claim of the 304 patent includes limitations reciting a "static price axis" or a "common static price axis." The difference in terminology in the 132 patent and 304 patent between the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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