DCT

1:11-cv-06704

Realtime Data LLC v. Morgan Stanley

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:10-cv-246, E.D. Tex., 08/17/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendants conduct regular business within the Eastern District of Texas and the acts of infringement allegedly occurred there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that electronic trading and market data systems used by numerous major financial institutions infringe a patent related to specialized data compression techniques designed to accelerate the transmission of financial data feeds.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for high-speed, low-latency transmission of voluminous financial market data, a critical requirement for algorithmic and high-frequency trading platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on the same day the patent-in-suit issued. A subsequent Inter Partes Reexamination of the patent (No. 95/001,581) resulted in a certificate issued on July 8, 2016, which cancelled all 123 claims of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-03 ’651 Patent Priority Date
2010-08-17 ’651 Patent Issue Date
2010-08-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,777,651 - *"System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,777,651, “System and Method for Data Feed Acceleration and Encryption,” issued August 17, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the increasing volume and time-sensitivity of financial data, which creates high costs and latency when transmitted over conventional communication channels with limited bandwidth, such as T1 lines ( Compl. ¶1; ’651 Patent, col. 1:36-54). The use of generic compression algorithms is often inefficient for the structured and repetitive nature of financial data feeds (’651 Patent, col. 3:32-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes to accelerate data transmission by using specialized data compression schemes that are optimized for the specific structure and content of the data, such as financial data packets. The system employs state machines and statistical models (e.g., Huffman or Arithmetic coding) that recognize patterns and character frequencies within specific contexts of a data stream, thereby achieving higher compression ratios and reducing latency (’651 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:14-34; Fig. 2). This effectively increases the transparent bandwidth of the communication channel (’651 Patent, col. 6:10-21).
  • Technical Importance: In a financial environment characterized by the emergence of electronic trading networks and global 24/7 trading, reducing the latency of data delivery provides a significant competitive advantage to market participants (’651 Patent, col. 2:54-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-123 without specifying any particular claims (Compl. ¶40, ¶42, et al.). Independent claim 1 (a method of decoding) and independent claim 13 (a system for encoding) are representative.

  • Independent Claim 1 (Method of Decoding):

    • Receiving an encoded message in a data packet of a financial data stream, the message having data fields and descriptors indicating data field types and encoders used.
    • Analyzing the message to identify a descriptor.
    • Selecting one or more lossless decoders for a data field based on the descriptor and a description file.
    • Decoding the data field using content-dependent data decompression if the descriptor so indicates.
    • Decoding the data field using content-independent data decompression if the descriptor so indicates.

  • Independent Claim 13 (System for Encoding):

    • An input interface to receive a data block.
    • A memory containing a fixed table and an adaptive table of data blocks based on a priori knowledge of the financial data stream.
    • A data encoding engine with instructions to:
      • Analyze the data block's content to determine its type.
      • Select one or more lossless encoders based on the block type and a computer file.
      • Encode the data block using a selected encoder and data from the adaptive or fixed table.
      • Store the encoded data block in the adaptive table to make it available for encoding other blocks.
    • An output interface to output the encoded packet with a descriptor indicating the selected encoder.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a wide range of "financial data compression products and services," including "electronic trading and market data receipt and delivery systems" (Compl. ¶4). For the lead defendant, Morgan Stanley, specific instrumentalities named include Morgan Stanley Electronic Trading (MSET), Morgan Stanley Passport Trading Application, MS Benchmark Execution Strategies (BXS), Smart Order Router Technology (SORT), and MS Pool, among others (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products and services are used for compressing and decompressing financial data as they "communicate with financial exchanges and other financial data sources" (Compl. ¶4). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of these systems, instead asserting on "information and belief" that they perform infringing data compression and decompression as part of their function in electronic trading and market data delivery (Compl. ¶39, ¶40). The accused instrumentalities are positioned as core components of the defendants' financial trading infrastructure (Compl. ¶4).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. Infringement is alleged in a conclusory manner, stating that defendants' systems directly and indirectly infringe claims 1-123 of the ’651 Patent by making, using, selling, or offering services for compressing or decompressing financial data (Compl. ¶39-40). The narrative theory is that the defendants' use of these high-volume electronic trading systems necessitates the use of data compression technology that falls within the scope of the ’651 Patent's claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint broadly accuses dozens of distinct financial products of infringing all 123 claims of the patent. A central dispute will concern whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the specific technical operations of any of these accused systems meet the detailed limitations of any specific asserted claim.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations detailing how any accused product performs the claimed steps. Key technical questions will be: (1) Do the accused systems generate or use a "descriptor" that indicates the compression type, as required by claims like Claim 1? (2) Do the accused systems employ "adaptive tables" for encoding that are updated and used for subsequent encodings, as required by claims like Claim 13?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "descriptor"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in numerous independent claims (e.g., Claim 1, Claim 13) and is fundamental to the claimed invention's architecture. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether any metadata, flag, or header in the accused data streams can be defined as a "descriptor" that indicates the "data field types" and "lossless encoders used."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests a descriptor is a "recognizable data token or descriptor that indicates which data encoding technique has been applied" (’651 Patent, col. 16:24-29). This language could support an argument that any data element conveying compression information qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and related description show a distinct "compression type description" module (138) that appends the descriptor to the data stream (’651 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 16:19-24). This may support a narrower construction requiring an explicit, separate field for this purpose, rather than an implicit indicator.

  • The Term: "content dependent data compression"

  • Context and Importance: This term, and its counterpart "content independent," creates a critical technical distinction in decoding claims like Claim 1. Proving infringement will require showing that the accused systems use a compression method that fits this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be directed at the patent's core novelty—a compression scheme tailored to a specific data model.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that content-dependent schemes are "structured based on the data model associated with the given stream" (’651 Patent, col. 14:56-59). This could be argued to cover any compression algorithm that is specifically chosen or configured because it works well with the known structure of financial data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments describe specific statistical, state-machine-based methods that analyze character frequencies within known packet structures to build custom Huffman or Arithmetic coding tables (’651 Patent, col. 9:14-24, col. 10:46-51). This could support a narrower definition limited to such highly tailored, model-based statistical compression methods.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants indirectly infringe by "actively inducing financial institutions" or "actively inducing financial exchanges to compress financial data" (Compl. ¶39, ¶41). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for induced infringement beyond these conclusory statements.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, the Prayer for Relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶59.F). The complaint does not allege any facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

  • A central issue for this case is one of viability: Given that a post-filing Inter Partes Reexamination resulted in the cancellation of all 123 asserted claims, the fundamental question is whether the lawsuit can proceed or is rendered moot by the absence of any enforceable patent rights.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Assuming the case could proceed, can the plaintiff's high-level allegations survive scrutiny? The case would depend on whether discovery could uncover specific evidence within the defendants' proprietary systems that maps to detailed claim limitations such as the use of "descriptors" to select between "content dependent" and "content independent" decoders, or the use of "adaptive tables" for encoding.
  • A core procedural question at the outset is one of pleading sufficiency: Do the complaint's allegations, which assert 123 claims against a multitude of products across numerous defendants without specific factual support, satisfy federal pleading standards, or would they be vulnerable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim for relief?