Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC
728 F.3d 1309
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- TT appeals district court summary judgments invalidating claims of four TT patents for lack of written description and for prosecution history estoppel.
- Patents at issue are the ’411, ’768, ’374, and ’055, all linked to the earlier ’132 patent; ’055 is a continuation-in-part with added matter.
- The ’411, ’768, and ’374 share the same written description as the ’132/’304 family but claim non-static displays.
- TT pursued two prosecution strategies: (1) canceling “static” language for ’411/’768/’374; (2) CIP disclosures for the ’055 patent redefining “static.”
- The district court treated the prior eSpeed decision as controlling on both written description and prosecution history estoppel.
- The Federal Circuit reverses, remands for §112 written description analysis on ’411/’768/’374 and decides the ’055 prosecution-history issue requires a different consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether eSpeed governs written description here | TT contends eSpeed does not resolve the current written description questions. | Defendants contend eSpeed controlling analyzes the same limitation and bars validity. | eSpeed does not control; remand for §112 analysis. |
| Written description sufficiency for ’411/’768/’374 | Common disclosure supports broader non-static claims. | eSpeed limits the scope to manual re-centering under the written description. | Not decided; remand for merits under §112. |
| Prosecution history estoppel or disclaimer for the ’055 patent | CIP added matter changes scope; estoppel should not extend from parent. | eSpeed analysis extends to ’055 via same limitation in same context. | Estoppel does not apply to the ’055 patent; reverse. |
| Effect of CIP on ’055’s written description scope | New matter in CIP broadens claim support for automatic repositioning. | The district court correctly applied eSpeed-based estoppel to limit scope. | Not barred; TT entitled to judgment that ’055 is not invalid for lack of written description. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (static vs. non-static displays; prosecution history estoppel in related patents)
- Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (written description possession standard)
- Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 311 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (prosecution history estoppel/disclaimer context)
- Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prosecution disclaimer/applicability to claim scope)
- Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (extent of prosecution history estoppel across related patents)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction guidance and specification role)