DCT
1:10-cv-00715
Trading Tech Intl Inc v. BGC Partners Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Trading Technologies International, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
- Case Identification: 1:10-cv-00715, N.D. Ill., 06/15/2011
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's corporate headquarters and office being located in the Northern District of Illinois, where it also regularly conducts business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic trading software products infringe ten U.S. patents related to graphical user interfaces for electronic trading systems.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to graphical user interfaces for electronic trading platforms, a field where the speed and efficiency of displaying market data and executing trades are critical competitive factors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a Second Amended Complaint in a consolidated case. The plaintiff alleges the defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit through various channels, including prior litigation between the parties dating back to 2005, patent markings on the plaintiff's products, and licensing discussions that occurred after the initial filing of the lawsuit in 2010.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-04-09 | Priority Date for ’999 and ’056 Patents |
| 2000-03-02 | Priority Date for ’411, ’768, ’382, ’996, and ’374 Patents |
| 2000-10-06 | Priority Date for ’357, ’651, and ’240 Patents |
| 2004-01-01 | Approximate start of related lawsuit, Trading Technologies v. eSpeed |
| 2005-01-01 | Approximate start of related lawsuit, Trading Technologies v. RCG |
| 2007-05-01 | ’999 Patent Issued |
| 2007-11-15 | Alleged constructive notice of ’999 Patent via product marking |
| 2009-05-12 | ’056 Patent Issued |
| 2009-06-02 | Alleged constructive notice of ’056 Patent via product marking |
| 2009-09-08 | ’357 Patent Issued |
| 2009-11-03 | ’651 Patent Issued |
| 2010-02-10 | Original lawsuit filed in consolidated action |
| 2010-03-09 | ’411 Patent Issued |
| 2010-03-24 | Alleged constructive notice of ’411 Patent via product marking |
| 2010-04-06 | ’768 Patent Issued |
| 2010-05-25 | ’382 Patent Issued |
| 2010-08-01 | Approximate date of licensing term sheet offer for multiple patents |
| 2010-10-12 | ’996 Patent Issued |
| 2011-02-09 | Alleged constructive notice of ’768 and ’382 Patents via product marking |
| 2011-03-08 | ’374 Patent Issued |
| 2011-04-19 | ’240 Patent Issued |
| 2011-05-11 | Alleged actual knowledge of ’996, ’374, and ’240 Patents via application production |
| 2011-06-15 | Second Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 - "User Interface for an Electronic Trading System," Issued May 1, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that in conventional electronic trading systems, individual traders could only see the highest bid and lowest offer for an item, which limited their ability to ascertain market trends from the full volume and rate of change of all outstanding orders (U.S. 7,212,999 Patent, col. 1:35-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a graphical user interface that displays all outstanding bids and offers for a traded item on a graph relative to a value axis. The interface uses icons whose visual characteristics (e.g., size) can represent the quantity of the orders, allowing a trader to visually interpret the full market depth and anticipate demand (U.S. 7,212,999 Patent, col. 2:1-14; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: By providing a comprehensive, graphical view of market depth, the invention aimed to give electronic traders the kind of intuitive market feel that was previously only available to floor traders in a physical trading pit (U.S. 7,212,999 Patent, col. 1:12-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method for displaying market information on a graphical user interface, comprising the elements of:
- displaying a plurality of bid indicators along a scaled axis of prices;
- displaying a plurality of offer indicators along the same scaled axis of prices;
- receiving market information for new orders and generating corresponding bid or offer indicators;
- displaying an order icon for a user's own order;
- selecting the order icon with a user input device and moving it to a location associated with a price on the axis; and
- sending the order to the electronic exchange.
U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 - "User Interface for an Electronic Trading System," Issued May 12, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the time-consuming process of manually entering multiple elements of a trade order (commodity, price, quantity, buy/sell), which increases the risk that market prices will change before the order can be placed (U.S. 7,533,056 Patent, col. 2:48-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a trading interface where price levels are displayed along a static axis. A trader can pre-set a "default quantity" and then send a trade order for that quantity at a specific price with a single action (e.g., a single mouse click) at the location on the display corresponding to that price. This reduces the number of manual inputs required to execute a trade (U.S. 7,533,056 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-10).
- Technical Importance: This "point-and-click" trading method significantly reduced order entry time, a critical advantage in fast-moving electronic markets where latency is a primary determinant of success (U.S. 7,533,056 Patent, col. 2:63-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 requires a method of placing a trade order, comprising the elements of:
- displaying market depth via bid and offer indicators aligned with a static display of prices;
- displaying an order entry region aligned with the static prices;
- receiving user input that designates a default quantity for a plurality of trade orders;
- receiving a command from a single action of a user input device at a location in the order entry region corresponding to a desired price; and
- sending a trade order for the default quantity at the desired price in response to the single action command.
U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 - "Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth," Issued March 9, 2010
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an electronic trading interface with a static price display. Bid and ask quantities are dynamically shown next to the price column, moving up and down as the market changes, which allows a trader to place orders by clicking on a cell corresponding to a desired price and quantity (Count III, ¶2).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count III, ¶6).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count III, ¶6).
U.S. Patent No. 7,587,357 - "Repositioning of Market Information on Trading Screens," Issued September 8, 2009
- Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to automatically repositioning or re-centering a display of market information along a price axis. The display is adjusted to keep a trader-defined item of interest (such as the inside market or a moving average) at a pre-determined location on the screen as the market moves (Count IV, ¶20).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count IV, ¶24).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count IV, ¶24).
U.S. Patent No. 7,613,651 - "Repositioning of Market Information on Trading Screens," Issued November 3, 2009
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is from the same family as the ’357 patent and also covers methods for automatically re-centering a trading display around an item of interest. It allows a trader to maintain focus on a key market indicator as prices fluctuate (Count V, ¶36).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count V, ¶40).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count V, ¶40).
U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 - "Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth," Issued April 6, 2010
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is from the same family as the ’411 patent and also covers a trading interface with a static price display. The invention facilitates rapid, single-click order entry by displaying market depth in a grid format (Count VI, ¶52).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count VI, ¶56).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count VI, ¶56).
U.S. Patent No. 7,725,382 - "Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth," Issued May 25, 2010
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is from the same family as the ’411 and ’768 patents and also covers a trading interface with a static price display. The system is designed to allow traders to intuitively view market depth and execute trades with minimal manual input (Count VII, ¶71).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count VII, ¶75).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count VII, ¶75).
U.S. Patent No. 7,813,996 - "Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth," Issued October 12, 2010
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is from the same family as the ’411, ’768, and ’382 patents and also covers a trading interface with a static price display. The technology focuses on presenting market depth information in an intuitive grid to facilitate click-based trading (Count VIII, ¶90).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count VIII, ¶94).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count VIII, ¶94).
U.S. Patent No. 7,904,374 - "Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth," Issued March 8, 2011
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is from the same family as the preceding four "Click Based Trading" patents. It describes a graphical user interface for electronic trading that displays market depth along a static price axis to enable efficient, click-based trade execution (Count IX, ¶107).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count IX, ¶111).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count IX, ¶111).
U.S. Patent No. 7,930,240 - "Repositioning of Market Information on Trading Screens," Issued April 19, 2011
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is from the same family as the ’357 and ’651 patents. It covers methods for automatically repositioning market information on a trading screen to keep a user-selected item of interest centered or otherwise prominently displayed (Count X, ¶122).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Count X, ¶126).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Onyx, Onyx 2, Onyx Web, and specifically the ABV Window products infringe this patent (Count X, ¶126).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Defendant RCG’s Onyx, Onyx 2, and Onyx Web software, with specific allegations directed at a feature identified as the "ABV Window" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as a "system for electronic trading" that "allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading software upon installation of the software" (Compl. ¶11).
- It is alleged that RCG actively markets, demonstrates, licenses, and sells these products, which provide access to financial exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (Compl. ¶4).
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the ABV Window feature.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’999 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of displaying market information relating to a commodity on a graphical user interface | The accused products provide a system for electronic trading with a user interface (¶11) | ¶11 | col. 4:15-18 |
| displaying a plurality of bid indicators...along a first scaled axis of prices | The complaint alleges the ABV Window is covered by the claims of the '999 Patent, but provides no specific facts on how it displays bid indicators (¶12) | ¶12 | col. 4:54-61 |
| displaying a plurality of offer indicators...along the first scaled axis of prices | The complaint alleges the ABV Window is covered by the claims of the '999 Patent, but provides no specific facts on how it displays offer indicators (¶12) | ¶12 | col. 4:54-61 |
| displaying an order icon associated with an order by the user | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element | N/A | col. 5:29-32 |
| selecting the order icon...and moving the order icon to a location associated with a price | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element | N/A | col. 8:12-25 |
| sending the order to the electronic exchange | The accused system allows users to electronically trade (¶11) | ¶11 | col. 8:26-30 |
’056 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of placing a trade order for a commodity on an electronic exchange | The accused products provide a system for electronic trading (¶28) | ¶28 | col. 12:1-4 |
| displaying market depth...aligned with a static display of prices | The complaint alleges the ABV Window is covered by the claims of the '056 Patent, but provides no specific facts on how it displays market depth (¶29) | ¶29 | col. 12:7-14 |
| displaying an order entry region aligned with the static display of prices | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element | N/A | col. 12:15-20 |
| receiving an input from a user that designates a default quantity | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element | N/A | col. 7:48-54 |
| receiving a command from a single action of a user input device at a location in the order entry region | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element | N/A | col. 12:21-27 |
| sending a trade order for the default quantity at the desired price | The accused system allows users to electronically trade (¶28) | ¶28 | col. 12:26-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: For the ’999 and ’056 Patents and related families, a central issue may be the construction of key terms. For instance, does the term "static display of prices" in the ’056 patent require a display where the price column is completely fixed, and how does that compare to the accused ABV Window's display? Similarly, what constitutes a "single action" to send an order will be a critical question.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes broad allegations that the accused products are "covered by claims" of the patents-in-suit but provides no specific technical details linking product features to claim elements (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 29). A primary point of contention will be evidentiary: what proof will Plaintiff offer that the accused ABV Window, as it actually operates, performs each of the specific, multi-step methods required by the asserted claims?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’999 Patent
- The Term: "indicator"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term is fundamental to infringement of the ’999 Patent family. The dispute may center on whether an "indicator" must be a specific graphical object as shown in the patent's figures or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any numerical or textual representation of bid/offer data in a list or grid format.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims refer generally to "a plurality of bid indicators" without specifying their graphical nature, which may support a construction not limited to the embodiments (U.S. 7,212,999 Patent, col. 14:13).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict "icons" or "tokens" whose size corresponds to quantity, suggesting the invention may be limited to such graphical representations (U.S. 7,212,999 Patent, Fig. 3A; col. 3:55-58).
For the ’056 Patent
- The Term: "static display of prices"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the core of the ’056 patent family's claimed advance is the ability to trade quickly by clicking on a non-moving price axis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of the accused ABV Window relative to how its price information is displayed will determine whether it infringes. The dispute will question what degree of "static" is required by the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires a "static display of prices" that does not move "in response to a change in the inside market," which could be read to permit other types of movement, such as manual re-centering by the user (U.S. 7,533,056 Patent, col. 12:12-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with prior art where price fields fluctuate, emphasizing the stability of the price column as a key feature that "does not normally change positions unless a re-centering command is received" (U.S. 7,533,056 Patent, col. 12:65-67). This may support a narrower construction requiring a price axis that is fixed during active trading.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all ten asserted patents. It alleges Defendant provides user guides, tutorials, and other instructions that actively induce its customers to use the Onyx products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 13, 22). It further alleges the products are especially made for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not explicitly plead "willful infringement." However, for each patent, it alleges numerous grounds for Defendant's pre- and post-suit knowledge, including: Plaintiff's product markings (Compl. ¶15); prior lawsuits between the parties (Count III, ¶9); licensing negotiations (Compl. ¶17); and the filing of the instant lawsuit itself (Compl. ¶16). These allegations of knowledge could form the basis for a later claim of willfulness and a request for enhanced damages.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define foundational terms such as "indicator" and "static display of prices"? The interpretation of these terms will likely determine the scope of the asserted patents and may be dispositive for a large portion of the ten-patent case.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: the complaint provides conclusory infringement allegations without specific factual support. The case will turn on what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the accused "ABV Window" performs the precise, step-by-step methods recited in the independent claims of the asserted patents.
- A significant procedural question will be case management: with ten patents asserted from at least three distinct technological families, the parties and the court may face challenges in efficiently managing discovery, claim construction, and trial for such a large and overlapping portfolio. The degree to which the case can be streamlined to focus on a few representative claims and patents will be critical.