DCT

1:10-cv-00929

Trading Tech Intl Inc v. Rosenthal Collins Group LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-00929, N.D. Ill., 03/09/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant is an Illinois corporation with headquarters in the district, regularly conducts business in the district, and its trading software provides access to exchanges located there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s RCG Onyx electronic trading software infringes five patents related to graphical user interfaces for electronic trading systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to user interface technologies for electronic financial trading, specifically graphical methods of displaying market data and facilitating rapid trade execution.
  • Key Procedural History: While not mentioned in the 2010 complaint, subsequent Post-Grant Review proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all claims (1-35) of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 and all claims (1-15) of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056, as certified on May 4, 2020, and April 29, 2020, respectively. This later invalidation of the first two asserted patents is a dispositive event for the claims related to them.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-04-09 Priority Date for ’999 and ’056 Patents
2000-03-02 Priority Date for ’411 Patent
2003-06-30 Priority Date for ’357 and ’651 Patents
2007-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 Issues
2009-05-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 Issues
2009-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,587,357 Issues
2009-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,613,651 Issues
2010-03-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 Issues
2010-03-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 - User Interface for an Electronic Trading System

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional electronic trading systems as providing individual traders with limited information, typically only the highest bid and lowest offer for a given item, which complicates the task of ascertaining market trends (e.g., the volume of orders or the rate of change) ('999 Patent, col. 1:40-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a graphical user interface that displays "all of the outstanding bids and offers for an item," allowing a trader to view market depth and better anticipate demand ('999 Patent, col. 2:15-21). Orders are displayed as icons along a static value or price axis, with the size or other visual characteristic of the icon representing the order's quantity, enabling quick visual assessment of the market ('999 Patent, col. 2:58-65; Fig. 3A).
  • Technical Importance: This "price ladder" or "depth of market" display approach sought to provide electronic traders with a more intuitive and comprehensive view of market liquidity, akin to the information available in an open-outcry trading pit.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 (Method):
    • displaying a plurality of bid indicators, each at a location along a first scaled axis of prices corresponding to a price associated with the bid;
    • displaying a plurality of offer indicators, each at a location along the first scaled axis of prices corresponding to a price associated with the offer;
    • receiving market information representing a new order to buy or sell;
    • in response, generating and placing a corresponding bid or offer indicator along the scaled axis of prices;
    • displaying an order icon associated with an order by the user;
    • selecting the order icon and moving it with a pointer to a location associated with a price along the axis; and
    • sending an order associated with the order icon to an electronic trading exchange.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 - User Interface for an Electronic Trading System

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’056 Patent, which is a continuation of the application that led to the ’999 Patent, addresses the same problem of limited market visibility in conventional electronic trading interfaces (’056 Patent, col. 1:47-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as in the parent ’999 Patent: a graphical user interface that displays market depth along a price axis, allowing traders to quickly interpret market trends (’056 Patent, col. 2:20-26). This patent focuses on a method of operation for facilitating trading via such an interface, including receiving user input for a "default quantity" and sending orders based on a single user action (e.g., a click) at a desired price level on the axis (’056 Patent, col. 14:1-21).
  • Technical Importance: This invention aimed to increase the speed of order entry by pre-configuring order parameters like quantity, enabling traders to react to market changes with a single input action.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶19). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 (Method):
    • receiving bid and offer information from an electronic exchange;
    • displaying a plurality of bid and offer indicators representing quantity at locations corresponding to prices along a price axis;
    • receiving a user input indicating a default quantity for orders;
    • receiving a user input indicating a desired price for an order, specified by selecting one of a plurality of locations along the price axis; and
    • sending the order for the default quantity at the desired price to the exchange.
  • 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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the issue of market data moving off-screen in a static price-ladder display. The invention is a method for automatically repositioning or re-centering the price axis around a specific "item of interest" (e.g., the inside market or a moving average) when that item moves beyond a certain limit, keeping the most relevant market data in view (’357 Patent, col. 2:48-54, col. 2:61-64).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶28).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the RCG Onyx software of infringing the ’357 patent (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,651 - Repositioning of Market Information on Trading Screens

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the application for the ’357 Patent, this patent also describes automatically re-centering a price axis display around an item of interest. It further specifies that the display includes an "order entry region" that moves along with the price axis, allowing a user to place an order by selecting a location in that region even while the axis is being repositioned (’651 Patent, col. 14:30-49).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the RCG Onyx software of infringing the ’651 patent (Compl. ¶37).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for displaying market information and facilitating trading where a static price axis is flanked by dynamic bid and ask quantity display regions. The invention claims a method of receiving a "single action" from a user (e.g., a single click) in an order entry region to both set the price and send the order, with the order having a pre-set default quantity (’411 Patent, col. 13:5-16).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the RCG Onyx software of infringing the ’411 patent (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "RCG Onyx software" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the RCG Onyx software as "trading software" that provides users with access to financial exchanges, including the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (Compl. ¶4).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant markets, demonstrates, licenses, and sells this software in the district (Compl. ¶4). It further alleges that Defendant promotes, advertises, and instructs customers on how to use its products through its website and the distribution of user guides and tutorials (Compl. ¶11).
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of the accused product's specific features or operation.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient technical detail to construct one. The allegations are general, stating that the RCG Onyx software infringes "claims of the ['999 patent]" without identifying specific claims or mapping product features to claim elements (Compl. ¶10). The complaint makes identical general allegations for the ’056, ’357, ’651, and ’411 patents (Compl. ¶¶19, 28, 37, 45). The complaint repeatedly cites an "Exhibit A" as evidence, but this exhibit was not provided.

In lieu of a claim chart, the infringement theory, inferred from the patents-in-suit, is that the RCG Onyx software provides a graphical user interface for electronic trading that includes a price-ladder display showing market depth, and that it allows users to place trades by clicking on or interacting with this display.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary dispute may center on the scope of method claims requiring specific user actions. For example, regarding claim 1 of the ’999 Patent, a question may arise as to whether the accused software’s order entry mechanism constitutes "selecting the order icon and moving the order icon with a pointer" as recited in the claim, or if it uses a different workflow.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question may be whether the accused software displays "all of the outstanding bids and offers," as described in the ’999 Patent specification, or only a subset of the available market depth. The complaint does not provide evidence to resolve this. For the ’357 and ’651 patents, a key technical question would be whether the accused software performs an automatic "repositioning" of its price axis based on a pre-defined "item of interest," or if any re-centering is performed manually by the user.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

(Based on representative claim 1 of the ’999 Patent and claim 1 of the ’056 Patent)

  • The Term: "a first scaled axis of prices" (’999 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears foundational to the claimed graphical display. The dispute may turn on whether this axis must be static, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it can encompass dynamic or alternative representations of price. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the basic structure required for infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly require the axis to be static, which could support a construction that reads on any linear representation of price levels.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the axis as a static reference against which dynamic bid and offer icons move (e.g., ’999 Patent, Fig. 3A). The summary of the invention distinguishes the claimed interface from conventional systems, suggesting a specific graphical arrangement is central to the invention (’999 Patent, col. 2:21-25).

  • The Term: "default quantity" (’056 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed method of rapid order entry. The definition will determine what level of user pre-configuration is required for the accused software to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused product's quantity setting functionality meets the claim's requirements.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify how the default quantity is set, potentially covering any system where a quantity can be pre-selected or is automatically populated before an order is sent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim describes a method to "facilitate trading" where the user input for quantity is separated from the input for price, implying a specific workflow where the quantity is set in advance of the price-setting action. The detailed description does not appear to provide a specific definition beyond this contextual use.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both active inducement and contributory infringement for all five patents. It alleges Defendant induces infringement by promoting, advertising, and instructing customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner, specifically through its website and the distribution of user guides and tutorials (Compl. ¶¶11, 13, 20, 22, 29, 31, 38, 40, 46, 48). It alleges contributory infringement by stating the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶12, 21, 30, 39, 47).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. The prayer for relief requests an assessment of costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, but does not request enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which is the statutory basis for willfulness findings (Compl. p. 8).

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

  1. Claim Scope and Validity: A central issue for the three patents not subject to Post-Grant Review cancellation (’357, ’651, ’411) will be the patentability of their claims over the prior art. Given that the core concept of a "price ladder" display was a subject of extensive litigation involving the parent patents, the validity of these related patents, which claim specific features like automatic re-centering and single-action order entry, will likely be a primary focus.
  2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key question will be one of factual proof: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the RCG Onyx software, as it operated in the relevant time period, actually performed the specific steps required by the asserted claims? The bare allegations of the complaint provide no technical details, meaning the case will depend entirely on evidence developed during discovery concerning the accused software's functionality.
  3. Indirect Infringement Intent: For the inducement claims, a critical question will be one of knowledge and intent: can Plaintiff show that Defendant specifically intended for its customers to use the RCG Onyx software in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims? This will require evidence that Defendant's user guides or other instructional materials actively taught the claimed methods.