DCT

1:10-cv-00715

Trading Tech Intl Inc v. BGC Partners Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-00715, N.D. Ill., 06/24/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the defendants maintain a regional office and regularly conduct business in the district, including providing trading software for use with Chicago-based exchanges.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s eSpeed electronic futures trading platform infringes four patents related to graphical user interfaces for electronic trading systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to graphical user interfaces designed to facilitate high-speed electronic trading of financial instruments, a domain where speed and clarity of information presentation are critical for market participants.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-04-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 Priority Date
2000-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 Priority Date
2003-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,587,357 Priority Date
2003-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,613,651 Priority Date
2009-05-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 Issued
2009-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,587,357 Issued
2009-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,613,651 Issued
2010-03-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 Issued
2010-06-24 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 - "User Interface for an Electronic Trading System," Issued May 12, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In electronic trading, traders lacked an intuitive way to view market trends beyond the single highest bid and lowest offer, making it difficult to anticipate market demand and make informed, rapid transaction decisions (U.S. Patent 7,533,056, col. 1:12-2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a graphical user interface that displays all outstanding bids and offers for a traded item as icons or tokens. These indicators are positioned along a value axis, allowing a trader to visually assess market depth, view trends in orders as they occur, and anticipate market movements (U.S. Patent 7,533,056, col. 2:3-13, Abstract). Figure 3A, for example, illustrates a "Priority View" where bid and offer icons (300, 304) are displayed along a value axis (332).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to "open the book" to all traders, providing a graphical representation of market depth that was previously unavailable or difficult to process, thereby enhancing a trader's ability to react quickly to market changes (U.S. Patent 7,533,056, col. 2:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • Displaying a plurality of bid indicators for a commodity, each at a bid location corresponding to a bid value.
    • Displaying a plurality of offer indicators for the commodity, each at an offer location corresponding to an offer value.
    • Displaying an order entry region for placing trade orders.
    • Receiving a command from a user to send a trade order via the order entry region.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,587,357 - "Repositioning of Market Information on Trading Screens," Issued September 8, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In volatile electronic markets, crucial information such as the inside market (the best bid and ask prices) can quickly move off-screen, forcing a trader to manually re-center the display, which is inefficient and can lead to missed opportunities (’357) Patent, col. 1:39-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides for the automatic repositioning of a price axis on a trading display. The system is configured to keep a pre-selected "item of interest"—such as the inside market, a last traded price, or a moving average—centered or within a designated region of the display, thereby ensuring critical information remains in view (’357 Patent, col. 2:1-12, Abstract). Figure 5 illustrates this concept, showing an item of interest ("A") moving to a new position ("A'") and triggering a repositioning of the price axis (502).
  • Technical Importance: This automation allows traders to maintain focus on market activity without being distracted by the need to manually adjust their display, which is particularly valuable in fast-moving markets (’357 Patent, col. 1:46-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶32). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • Identifying an item of interest associated with a first price level.
    • Detecting a first change in the value of the item of interest to a second price level.
    • Automatically repositioning the price axis based on the first change, so the second price level is moved to a designated location.
    • Detecting a second change in value during the repositioning.
    • Automatically repositioning the price axis a second time based on the second change.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,651 - "Repositioning of Market Information on Trading Screens," Issued November 3, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’357 Patent, also addresses the problem of market information moving off-screen. It claims a method and system for repositioning a static price axis based on events, such as the inside market moving, to keep a user-selected item of interest centered in the display region, thereby improving efficiency for electronic traders (’651) Patent, col. 1:39-51, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The "eSpeed software" is accused of infringing the patent (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 - "Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth," Issued March 9, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a graphical user interface for electronic trading that addresses the time-consuming nature of traditional order entry. The solution is a display with a static price column and adjacent, dynamic columns for bid and ask quantities, allowing a trader to place an order for a specific price and quantity with a single click of a user input device in the appropriate column, significantly speeding up the trading process (’411) Patent, col. 1:15-23, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The "eSpeed software" is accused of infringing the patent (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is identified as the "eSpeed futures trading platform ('the eSpeed software'), and in particular the eSpeedometer module" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as "trading software" that is used with exchanges in the Northern District of Illinois, including the Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT") and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME") (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the operation, features, or architecture of the eSpeed software or the eSpeedometer module. No allegations are made regarding the product's specific market position or commercial importance beyond its function as a trading platform. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to construct a claim chart mapping specific elements of any asserted claim to specific functionalities of the accused eSpeed software. The allegations are conclusory, stating that the defendants' act of making, using, or selling the eSpeed software infringes "one or more claims" of each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶23, 32, 41, 50). No specific infringing features are described.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the lack of specific infringement allegations, the primary points of contention are likely to be fundamental and broad.

  • Evidentiary Questions: A central issue for discovery will be establishing the actual functionality of the eSpeed software and its eSpeedometer module. The case will depend on what evidence emerges regarding how the accused software displays market data, handles order entry, and manages the user's view of the market.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute will raise the question of whether the functionalities of the eSpeed software, once ascertained, fall within the scope of the patent claims. For example, does the eSpeed software's interface display market depth in a way that meets the "plurality of bid indicators" limitation of the ’056 Patent, and does it automatically re-center the display in a manner that satisfies the "repositioning the static price axis" limitation of the ’357 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’056 Patent

  • The Term: "bid indicators... at a bid location corresponding to a bid value" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, which is a graphical representation of market depth. The definition of what constitutes an "indicator" and how direct the "correspondence" to a value must be will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the visual representation of market data is the core of the alleged invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to indicators generally as "icons" or "tokens," suggesting the form is not limited (’056) Patent, col. 2:7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiments shown, such as in Figure 3A, depict indicators (300, 304) as distinct graphical objects aligned along a numerical price axis (332), which could be used to argue for a more limited interpretation requiring a specific visual layout (’056 Patent, col. 6:10-14).

For the ’357 Patent

  • The Term: "repositioning the static price axis" (Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term captures the core function of the invention: automatically adjusting the user's view. The dispute will likely involve whether the accused software performs an action that qualifies as "repositioning" and whether its price axis is "static" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the repositioning event broadly as being triggered by any "item of interest" moving outside a certain tolerance, suggesting flexibility in what triggers the function (’357 Patent, col. 7:4-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently distinguishes the claimed invention from manual re-centering, stating the repositioning is "automatic" (’357 Patent, col. 1:40-42). This could support a narrower construction requiring the action to be fully automated in response to market events, without any user intervention.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that the BGC entities "promote, advertise and instruct customers and potential customers about the... products and uses of the products, including infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶24, 33, 42, 51). The basis for contributory infringement is the allegation that the accused products are "not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶25, 34, 43, 52).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful" infringement. It also does not plead any facts suggesting that the defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents, which would be a predicate for establishing willfulness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be one of technical evidence: what are the specific functionalities of the accused eSpeed software platform? The complaint's lack of technical detail makes discovery the central battleground for establishing the facts of how the accused system operates with respect to displaying market data, entering orders, and managing the user's view.
  • A second core issue will be one of claim scope: how broadly will key terms such as "displaying... a plurality of bid indicators" (’056 Patent) and "repositioning the static price axis" (’357 Patent) be construed? The resolution of these terms will define the boundaries of the patents and determine whether the yet-to-be-disclosed features of the accused product infringe.
  • A final question will concern indirect infringement: assuming direct infringement is found, what evidence does Plaintiff have that Defendants specifically intended for their customers to use the eSpeed software in an infringing manner, as required to prove inducement?