Trading Technologies Intern., Inc. v. Espeed, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008-1422.,No. 2008-1392.,No. 2008-1393.,2008-1392.,2008-1393.,2008-1422. |
| Citation | 595 F.3d 1340 |
| Parties | TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESPEED, INC., Ecco LLC, Ecco Ware Ltd., and Espeed International, Ltd., Defendants-Cross Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Steven F. Borsand, Trading Technologies International, Inc., of Chicago, IL, 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, IL. Of counsel was George I. Lee.
Gary A. Rosen, Law Offices of Gary A. Rosen, P.C., of Philadelphia, PA, 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, IL. Of counsel were Ivan M. Poullaos, of Chicago, IL and John K. Hsu, of Washington, DC.
Lora A. Moffatt, Salans LLP, of New York, NY, for amici curiae GL Trade SA, et al. With her on the brief was Walter Scott, Alston & Bird LLP, of New York, NY.
Before LOURIE, RADER, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, District Judge.1
Opinion 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.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that eSpeed, Inc., Ecco LLC, Ecco Ware 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 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.
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 '132 patent. The specifications of the patents are, for all relevant purposes, identical.
The patents claim software for displaying the market for a commodity traded in an electronic exchange. '132 patent col.3 ll.11-16. The software's graphical user interface ("GUI") includes "a dynamic display for a plurality of bids and for a plurality of asks in the market for the commodity and a static display of prices corresponding to the plurality of bids and asks." Id. The claimed invention facilitates more accurate and efficient orders in this trading environment. Id. col.3 ll.21-24.
Prior art computer trading displays showed the best bid price and the best ask price (together, "the inside market") in fixed, predetermined grids. The best bid price is the highest price at which there is an offer to buy the contract. The best ask price is the lowest price at which there is an offer to sell the contract. The inside market is the focal point of trading activity because these offers most accurately reflect the current price of the commodity.
Returning to the prior art, these displays had grids for the inside market that never changed. As the market fluctuated, however, the prices listed in those grids changed—often times very rapidly. To buy at the inside market, a trader, for example, placed the mouse cursor on the grids for the inside market and clicked the mouse. Of course, as traders sent bids and offers to the market, the price and quantity of the traded commodity changed. These changes altered the inside market. In the prior art era with fixed grids for the inside market, traders had a problem. A trader who wished to place an order at a particular price would miss that market opportunity if the inside market moved as the trader tried to enter an order. In a fast moving market, missing an intended price could happen often and have very significant economic consequences.
The invention addressed the problem by implementing static price levels. Figures 3 and 4 of the '132 patent illustrate the invention.
'132 patent, figs.3, 4. The figures display the bids and offers for a certain commodity in an electronic exchange. Column 1005 labeled "Prc" shows the contract prices. Id. col.7 ll.36-38. Column 1003 labeled "BidQ" and column 1004 labeled "AskQ" respectively show the bid quantities and the ask quantities for the associated price. Id. col.7 ll.35-36. In Figure 3, the inside market labeled 1020 indicates the best bid price of 89 and the best ask price of 90. Id. col.7 ll.40-42. A trader may enter an order by clicking in the bid or ask grid corresponding to the trader's price. Id. col.4 ll.9-19.
Figure 4 displays the same market at a later time. The bid and ask quantities dynamically change in response to market fluctuations. Id. col.7 ll.48-51. In Figure 4, the inside market has shifted upward such that the best bid price is now 92 and the best ask price is 93. Id. col.8 ll.38-48. While the inside market has changed, the values in the price column remained fixed. Id. col.8 ll.44-48. Over time, the inside market could shift to prices not currently displayed on the trader's screen. Id. col. 8 ll.49-51. In this case, the price column must be re-centered to keep the inside market in view. Id. col.8 ll.49-60.
The claimed invention features static price levels. These unmoving figures have numerous advantages over the prior art. First, a trader can visually follow the market movement as the inside market shifts up and down along the price column. Id. col.5 ll.58-65. Second, and perhaps most important, a trader has confidence in making an offer at the intended price. Id. col.3 ll.3-4. Because the invention has static price levels, the order entry region will remain associated with the same price. Therefore, the trader does not need to worry about "clicking on" or entering an order at the instant after a price change. Thus, the invention prevents accidental orders at an unintended price. The patents tout that these improvements ensure fast and accurate execution of trades. Id. col.3 ll.21-24.
eSpeed, Inc. provides an electronic exchange for trading commodities. It also designs and sells trading platforms for use with its electronic exchange. On August 12, 2004, TT initiated this suit against eSpeed, Inc., alleging that eSpeed, Inc.'s trading platforms infringed TT's patents. After eSpeed, Inc. acquired Ecco LLC in October 2004, TT joined Ecco LLC in the suit. In December 2005, TT amended its complaint to join the subsidiaries eSpeed International, Inc. and Ecco Ware Ltd. This opinion refers to all defendants collectively as "eSpeed." TT asserts the following claims against eSpeed: claims 1, 2, 7, 14, 15, 20, 23-25, 27, 28, 40, 45, 47, 48, 50, and 52 of the '132 patent; and claims 1, 11, 14, 15, and 26 of the '304 patent. Claim 1 is the representative claim for both patents.
Claim 1 of the '132 patent:
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 (emphases added).
Claim 1 of the '304 patent:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorman Prods., Inc. v. Paccar, Inc.
...Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit to determine whether to admit expert testimony. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. , 595 F.3d 1340, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2010).Rule 702 has "a liberal policy of admissibility." Pineda v. Ford Motor Co. , 520 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir.2008......
-
Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP
...Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc. , 595 F.3d 1340, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2010).Rule 702 has "a liberal policy of admissibility." Pineda v. Ford Motor Co. , 520 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir.2008) (q......
-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...the meaning of claim terms, courts must not import limitations into the claims from the specification.” Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2009)). Courts must not limit the broader......
-
IA Labs CA, LLC v. Nintendo Co.
...be subject to modification where necessary in light of the patent's claims and specification. See, e.g., Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1353 (Fed.Cir.2010) (altering the express definition to more accurately comport with the remainder of the patent); Ecolab, Inc.......
-
Foreseeability Does Not Bar The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Including For Means-Plus-Function Limitations
...to prevent vitiation of a claim limitation when the infringement theory is based on the DOE. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting in Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n.8 19 Ring & Pinion, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2962, at *6-7 (citing Ove......
-
Previous Claim Construction Decision Does Not Control Written Description Inquiry
...premised both holdings on deference to the Federal Circuit's prior decision in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("eSpeed"), which considered two related patents from TT's portfolio. Here, because the Federal Circuit concluded that eSpe......
-
Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After In Re Seagate: An Empirical Study
...as indicating support for a non-willful finding.”), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 1063 (1988). 235. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (considering the fact that “Microso......
-
Chapter §7.06 Loss of Right/Statutory Bars Under §102(b)
...it "served Deere's commercial purposes").[553] The Circuit distinguished the case at bar from Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1361–1362 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Trading Techs., the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment that ICA2 ["individual consulting ......
-
Chapter §16.05 Legal Limitations on the Doctrine of Equivalents
...Cir. 2005)).[427] SanDisk, 695 F.3d at 1367.[428] 402 F.3d 1188, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2005).[429] Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).[430] 520 U.S. 17 (1997).[431......
-
Chapter §15.07 Federal Circuit Review of Claim Interpretation Decisions
...Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Mayer, J., dissenting).[392] Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Clark, J., concurring). The Honorable Ron Clark, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, sat by designat......