Extract
Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Espeed, Inc., (2010)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1392, -1393, -1422
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ESPEED, INC., ECCO LLC, ECCOWARE LTD., and ESPEED INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,Defendants-Cross Appellants.Steven F. Borsand, Trading Technologies International, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief were Paul H. Berghoff, Leif R. Sigmond, Jr., Matthew J. Sampson, Michael D. Gannon, S. Richard Carden, Jennifer M.Kurcz and Paul A. Kafadar, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago,Illinois. Of counsel was George I. Lee.Gary A. Rosen, Law Offices of Gary A. Rosen, P.C., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for defendants-cross appellants. Of counsel on the brief were George C. Lombardi, Raymond C. Perkins and James M. Hilmert, Winston & Strawn, LLP, of Chicago, Illinois. Of counsel were Ivan M. Poullaos, of Chicago, Illinois and John K. Hsu, of Washington, DC.Lora A. Moffatt, Salans LLP, of New York, New York, for amici curiae GL Trade SA, et al. With her on the brief was Walter Scott, Alston & Bird LLP, of New York, New York.Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisSenior Judge James B. MoranUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1392, -1393, -1422TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ESPEED, INC.,ECCO LLC, ECCOWARE LTD., and ESPEED INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,Defendants-Cross Appellants.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in case no. 04-CV-5312, Senior Judge James B. Moran.DECIDED: February 25, 2010Before LOURIE, RADER, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.1Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge RADER, in which District Judge CLARK joins. Circuit Judge LOURIE concurs in the result. Concurring opinion filed by District Judge CLARK.RADER, Circuit Judge.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that eSpeed, Inc., Ecco LLC, Eccoware Ltd., and eSpeed International Ltd. (collectively, "eSpeed") infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 ("'132 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 ("'304 patent") with one accused service product, but not 1 Honorable Ron Clark, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.willfully. The district court further held that the two other accused products did not literally infringe and then precluded Trading Technologies International, Inc. ("TT") from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. After giving the patents-in-suit a filing date back to the provisional application, the district court found that the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) did not apply. The district court also found no indefiniteness problem in the asserted claims. Finally the district court detected no inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit. Because this record discloses no reversible error, this court affirms.I.TT is the owner by assignment of the '132 and '304 patents. Both patents share a common provisional application filed on March 2, 2000. The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") issued the '132 patent on August 3, 2004, based on a June 9, 2000 application. The PTO issued the '304 patent on July 20, 2004, based on a June 27, 2001 application. The '304 patent is a divisional of the ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
