Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc.
852 F. Supp. 2d 1027
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- TT filed multiple patent-infringement cases in this district in 2010 regarding electronic trading software displaying market data and enabling order placement.
- The court consolidated the cases and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the written description for the '056 patent and on the eSpeed-based invalidity of the '411 patent.
- The '056 patent concerns user input of a default quantity for multiple orders in the priority view, with a 2007 amendment adding explicit 'default quantity' language.
- The '411/132 patents share a common specification; the '132 patent claims a static display of prices, while the '411 patent claims price axes that may move, a point central to the eSpeed decision.
- Tradestation moved for priority-based dismissal under the eSpeed decision; TT argues priority remains relevant if the '411 claims survive, otherwise moot.
- Open E Cry and optionsXpress also moved, asserting prosecution history estoppel would bar doctrine of equivalents for Brumfield children; the court granted and denied various aspects accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the '056 language on default quantity satisfy § 112 written description? | TT asserts the 1999 specification inherently discloses a default quantity via priority view tokens. | Defendants contend the exact 'receiving a user input indicating a default quantity' step is not disclosed in the 1999 specification. | TT's cross-motion granted; written description satisfied. |
| Are the '411 claims invalid under eSpeed for lack of written description and movement of price axes? | TT contends the '411 claims cover dynamic axes within the common specification. | Defendants rely on eSpeed to limit to static price axes and prohibit automatic movement. | To the extent claims cover price axes that move automatically, invalid under § 112; TT's cross-motion denied. |
| Does eSpeed moot the priority issue for the '411 patent? | Tradestation's priority concern depends on validity under eSpeed. | If '411 claims are invalid under eSpeed, priority becomes moot. | moot as a result of the invalidity ruling. |
| Does prosecution history estoppel apply to Brumfield children? | TT argues no estoppel extension to Brumfield siblings. | OEC and others argue same prosecution history applies to Brumfield children. | TT is estopped from asserting price-axis-moving subject matter against Brumfield children. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ariad Phrms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (written description requires possession as of filing date)
- ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys. Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (written description describes possession and scope)
- PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (written description and enablement interplay)
- Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (written description sufficient if intrinsic disclosures support claims)
- All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (written description must convey possession)
- Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prosecution history can limit claim scope across related patents)
- Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (same claim term across related patents carries same meaning)
- Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (prosecution history can apply to related patents)
- Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience, 363 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (disclaimer scope across related patents)
- Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (prosecution history and claim scope across family)