Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 1 Filed: 01/18/2013
`2012-1583
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the
`Federal Circuit
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`– v. –
`OPEN E CRY, LLC and OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`– and –
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC. and TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`– and –
`IBG, LLC, THINKORSWIM GROUP, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., TD
`AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP. and INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`(For Continuation of Caption See Inside Cover)
`
`APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS IN CONSOLIDATED
`CASE NO. 10-CV-0715, JUDGE VIRGINIA M. KENDALL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT BRIEF FOR CERTAIN DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
`
`
`
`PHILIPPE BENNETT
`AOIFE BUTLER
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`90 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`(212) 210-9400
`
`
`
`LORA A. MOFFATT
`ANTHONY B. ULLMAN
`SALANS LLP
`Rockefeller Center
`620 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10020
`(212) 632-5500
`
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
`FuturePath Trading, LLC, SunGard Data Systems, Inc.,
`SunGard Investment Ventures LLC and GL Trade Americas, Inc.
`(For Continuation of Appearances See Inside Cover)
`January 18, 2013
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 69
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2130
`TRADESTATION ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
` CBM2016-00051
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 2 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`
`
`– and –
`CQG, INC. and CQGT, LLC,
`
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`– and –
`FUTUREPATH TRADING, LLC, SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
`SUNGARD INVESTMENT VENTURES LLC
`and GL TRADE AMERICAS, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`– and –
`STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, LTD.
` and STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`– and –
`ESPEED MARKETS, LP, BGC CAPITAL MARKETS, LP
`and ECCOWARE, LTD.,
`
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`– and –
`ROSENTHAL COLLINS GROUP, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
`
`
`ADAM G. KELLY
`WILLIAM J. VOLLER
`J. SIMONE JONES
`LOEB & LOEB LLP
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2300
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 464-3100
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
`CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC
`
`
`GARY A. ROSEN
`LAW OFFICES OF
`GARY A. ROSEN, P.C.
`63 West Lancaster Avenue, Suite 1
`Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003
`(610) 658-8790
`Attorney for Defendants-Appellees
`eSpeed Markets, LP, BGC
`Capital Markets, LP and
`Eccoware, Ltd.
`
`
`
`MICHAEL BRETT LEVIN
`CHRISTOPHER P. GREWE
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`(650) 493-9300
`
`– and –
`NATALIE J. MORGAN
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, California 92130
`(858) 350-2300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
`IBG, LLC, Interactive Brokers, LLC,
`Thinkorswim Group, Inc., TD
`Ameritrade, Inc. and TD Ameritrade
`Holding Corp.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 3 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`DAVID J. HEALEY
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Houston Center
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, Texas 77010
`(713) 654-5300
`
`– and –
`ADAM KESSEL
`KEVIN SU
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`(617) 542-5070
`Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
`TradeStation Securities, Inc. and
`TradeStation Group, Inc.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page:4
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL V. OPEN E CRY, LLC
`No. 2012-1583
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellees SunGard Data Systems, Inc., SunGard
`Investment Ventures LLC, GL Trade Americas, Inc., and FuturePath Trading, LLC
`certifies the following:
`
`1. The full name of every party or amicus curiae represented by 1ne is:
`
`SunGard Data Systems, Inc.
`SunGard Investment Ventures LLC
`
`GL Trade Americas, Inc.
`FuturePath Trading, LLC
`
`2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not
`the real party of interest) represented by me is:
`
`See response to number 1.
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`None
`SunGard Data Systems, Inc.:
`SunGard Investment Ventures LLC: SunGard Data Systems, Inc.
`GL Trade Americas, Inc.:
`SunGard Data Systems, Inc., SunGard
`Investment Ventures LLC, SunGard
`Financial Systems (France) SAS, GL
`Trade Holdings Inc.
`None
`
`FuturePath Trading, LLC :
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners and associates that have
`appeared for the party in the lower tribunal or are expected to appear for the party
`in this court:
`
`Salans LLP:
`
`Lora A. Moffat, Anthony B. Ullman
`
`Page 4 of 69
`
`Page 4 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page:5
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`Alston & Bird LLP:
`
`Philippe Bennett, Walter Scott, David Eklund,
`Christopher McArd1e, Maritza Schaeffer, Lara Holzman,
`Bruce Rose, Aoife Butler
`
`Bullaro & Carton PC:
`
`Brian Norkett, Scott Sinson
`
`Date: October 22, 2012 /s/ Lora A. Moffatt
`
`Lora A. Moffatt
`
`Anthony B. Ullman
`SALAN S LLP
`Rockefeller Center
`620 Fifth Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10020-2457
`Tel: 212-632-5500
`Fax: 212-632-5555
`
`Philippe Bennett
`Aoife Butler
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`
`90 Park Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10016-1387
`Tel: 212-210-9400
`Fax: 212-210-9444
`
`Page 5 of 69
`
`Page 5 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page:6
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Trading Technologies
`lntemational, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Open E Cry, LLC
`
`No.
`
`[Z-l§83
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for the (appellee) (emieus) (name of party)
`
`IBG LLC
`if necessary):
`
`certifies the following (use “None" if applicable; use extra sheets
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: IBG LLC; Interactive
`1.
`Brokers LLC ;thinkorswim Group Inc.; TD Ameritrade, Inc.; TD Ameritradc Holding Corp.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in interest) represented by me is: IBG LLC
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more
`3.
`of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: Interactive Brokers, Inc. and
`IBG Holdings LLC
`
`The names of all law finns and the partners or associates that appeared for the party
`4.
`or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC: Natalie J. Morgan, Christopher P. Grewe,
`Abraham DeLaO
`
`Augst22z20l2
`
`Date
`
`E
`
`2
`
`Signature of counsel
`Michael B. Levin
`Printed name of counsel
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc:
`
`Page 6 of 69
`
`Page 6 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page: 7
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Trading, 'I‘echno1ogies
`internationai, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`[:1 Cfrv, [..I..C
`
`M
`
`‘No.
`
`l2—|
`
`3
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel fbr the
`
`tllinkmswim (}Tg_)__[_l£~_!flC.
`if necessary):
`
`certifies the following (use “None” ifapplicablez use extra sheets
`
`(appeilee)
`
`(name of party)
`
`IBG LLC; |me:‘aut.ive
`The full name ofevery party or amicus represented by me is:
`I.
`Brokers L-LC ;1hinkorswim Group £110.; TD Ameritrade. lnc.; TD Amcritrade Holding; C011).
`
`The name of the real party in interest (ifthe party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in interest) represented by me is:
`thinkorswim Group Inc.
`
`All parent Corpurations and any publicly held companies that own I0 percent or more
`3.
`of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: TD Amcritrade Holding Corp.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party
`4.
`or amicus now represented by me in the triai court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are; Wilson Sonsini Goodric-it & Rosati PC : Natalie .5. Morgan, Christopher P. Grewe,
`Abraham DeLaO
`
`Ag51:s1' 22, 20 I 2
`
`“M
`
`....,4_.4._#
`"
`Signature of 6'01: nsel
`Michael B. Levin
`Printed name ofcounsci
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc:
`
`Page 7 of 69
`
`Page 7 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page: 8
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Trading Technologies
`International, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Ogn E Cry: LLC
`
`No.
`
`12-1533
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for the fiat-it-ier (appellee) (emieus) (name of party)
`
`Interactive Brokers LLC
`if necessary):
`
`certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets
`
`IBG LLC; Interactive
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`I.
`Brokers LLC ; thinkorswim Group lnc.; TD Ameritrade, lnc.; TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in interest) represented by me is:
`lnteractive Brokers LLC
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more
`3.
`of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: IBG LLC
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party
`4.
`or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC: Natalie J. Morgan, Christopher P. Grewe,
`Abraham DeLa0
`
`August 22, 20l2
`
`Date
`
`%/T
`
`Signat
`Michael B. Levin
`Printed name of counsel
`
`of counsel
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc:
`
`Page 8 of 69
`
`Page 8 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page:9
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Trading Technologies
`lntemational, Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Open E Cry, LLC
`
`No.
`
`12-l§§}
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for thefie (appellee) (amicus) (name of party)
`
`TD Ameritrade, Inc.
`if necessary):
`
`certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: IBG LLC; Interactive
`1.
`Brokers LLC ;thinkorswim Group Inc.; TD Ameritrade. Inc.; TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.;
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in interest) represented by me is: TD Ameritrade, Inc.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own I0 percent or more
`3.
`of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: TD Ameritrade Online
`Holdings Corp., and TD Ameritrade Online Holdings Corp.‘s parent corporation is TDA
`Holding Corporation.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party
`4.
`or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC: Natalie J. Morgan, Christopher P. Grewe,
`Abraham DeLaO
`
`g g
`
`;
`
`Signature 0 counsel
`Michael B. Levin
`Printed name of counsel
`
`August22, 2012
`
`Date
`
`A
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc:
`
`Page 9 of 69
`
`Page 9 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page: 10
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CTRCUIT
`
`Trading 'l"echn0l0gies
`international, inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsei for the
`
`(appellee) (-amiet-ts) (name of party)
`
`j_‘Q_, met'it'radt~: t-loIdix1g,('Ior;3. _certii'ies the "following (use "None”' ifapplicablc; use extra sheets
`if ncccssmy):
`
`IBG l..,I_-C; interactive
`The full name ofcvcry party or amic-us represented by me is:
`l.
`Brokers LLC ;thinkorswim Group Inc; TD Amcritrade, Inc; TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.
`
`The name oftlie real party in interest (ifthe party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in imerest) represented by me is: "ID Amcritradc Holding Corp.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that (.I\\'ll 10 percent or mart:
`of the stock ofthc party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`The "l"omnto-€)0minion Bank
`
`The names of all lat-v firms and the partners or associates that appeared For the party
`4.
`or ztmicus new represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC‘: Natalie J. Morgan, Christopher P. Grewe,
`Abraham Del.,a(‘)
`
`_.¢}_t_t2ust 22,3012
`Date
`
`.
`
`Signature ofcounscl I
`
`______m____:__
`Michael B. In-zvin
`"Printed name of counsel
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc:
`
`Page 10 of 69
`
`Page 10 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page: 11
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Trading Technologies Intl
`
`V.
`
`Open E Cry LLC
`
`No. 2012-1583
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for the appellee
`
`CQG, Inc.
`if necessary):
`
`certifies the following (use ‘‘None‘’ if applicable; use extra sheets
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`1.
`CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in interest) represented by me is:
`Not applicable.
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that. own 10 percent or more
`3.
`of the stock of the patty or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`None
`
`The names of all law finns and the partners or associates that appeared for the party
`4.
`or amicus now represented by 111e in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are:
`
`William J. Voller III and J. Simone Jones, Loeb & Loeb LLP
`
`August 22, 2012
`
`Date
`
`/s/ Adam G. Kelly
`
`Signature of counsel
`
`Adam G. Kelly
`Printed name of counsel
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc:
`
`Page 11 of 69
`
`Page 11 of 69
`
`

`
`Form9
`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page: 12
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`FORM 9. cerlltlcale of Interest
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v_ OPEN E CRY, LLC
`
`No, 2012-1583
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for the (petitioner) (eppel-lam) (respondent) (appellee) (emieus) (name of party)
`
`°°*‘°°"""“'-""""°°""“"““”""‘°°""'“'“ certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets
`if necessary):
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`eSpeed Markets, LP, BGC Capital Markets, LP, and Eccoware, Ltd.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real
`2.
`party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`N/A
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more
`3.
`of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`BGC Partners, Inc. is a publicly owned parent corporation of eSpeed Markets, LP, BGC Capital
`Markets, LP, and Eccoware, Ltd. CF Group Management, Inc. (the managing general partner
`of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP) beneficially owns 10% or more of the stock of BGC Partners, Inc.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party
`4.
`or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are:
`
`Law Offices of Gary A Rosen, PC: Gary A. Rosen
`Winston & Strawn: George P. Lombardi and Andrew M. Johnstone
`
`Aug. 21, 2012
`
`Date
`
`/s/Gary A. Rosen
`
`Signature of counsel
`
`Gary A. Rosen
`Printed name of counsel
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc; All Counsel
`(See Certificate of Service)
`
`124
`
`Page 12 of 69
`
`Page 12 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583
`
`Document: 88
`
`Page: 13
`
`Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIESINTERNATIONAL. INC. V_ OPEN E CRY, LLC, et al_
`
`No_ 2012-1583
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for the (petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appellee) (amicus) (name of party)
`
`D9fe“d3“t9'APPe"9e3
`if necessary):
`
`certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets
`
`1.
`
`The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`Tradestation Securities, Inc. and Tradestation Group, Inc.
`
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real
`7
`party in interest) represented by me is:
`N/A
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more
`3.
`of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`Monex Group, Inc.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party
`4.
`or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this
`court are:
`
`David J. Healey, Adam Kessel and Kevin Su - Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`George Summerfield - Stadheim & Grear Ltd.
`
`8/21/2012
`Date
`
`Isl David J. Healey
`Signature of counsel
`
`David J. Healey
`Printed name of counsel
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`cc: Counsel of Record
`
`Page 13 of 69
`
`Page 13 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 14 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES................................................................. vi
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE...............................................................................3
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`FACTS RELATING TO THE ’132 PATENT AND THE eSPEED APPEAL7
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The ’132 Patent and Its Specification..................................................7
`The eSpeed Action..............................................................................9
`
`II.
`
`FACTS RELATING TO THE ’411, ’768 AND ’374 PATENTS................15
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The ’411 Patent.................................................................................15
`The ’768 and ’374 Patents. ...............................................................17
`
`III. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW .................................................................17
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The February 9, 2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order. .................18
`The July 31, 2012 Memorandum Opinion and Order. .......................18
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT....................................................................21
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................23
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE STANDARD OF REVIEW................................................................23
`
`THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT’S GRANT OF
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON GROUNDS OF LACK OF WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION ON THE ’411 PATENT, AND ALSO AFFIRM ITS
`GRANT OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE ’768 AND ’374 PATENTS...23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The District Court’s Ruling on Written Description Was Both Proper
`and Compelled by This Court’s Findings in eSpeed..........................27
`Independent of eSpeed, This Court Should Affirm the Judgment
`Below That the ’411 Patent Is Invalid for Lack of Written Description.36
`i
`
`Page 14 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 15 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................43
`
`ii
`
`Page 15 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 16 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)...............................27
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..........24, 39
`
`Aquatex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........23
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....23, 25, 40
`
`Atl. Research Mkt’g Sys., Inc. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011)...........23, 26
`
`Bayer AG v. Biovail Corp., 279 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................28, 34
`
`Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................43
`
`Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) ..........................................................................................................25
`
`Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Union (Indep.) Pension Fund
`v. Steinberg, 32 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 1994) ....................................................34
`
`Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119 (7th Cir. 1987)......................................35
`
`Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir.
`1997) ..........................................................................................................15
`
`Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. TorPharm, Inc., 153 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998). ....................23
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................
`.................................................................................................. 23, 24, 25, 40
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`Cir. 2011)....................................................................................................25
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ..........................................................................................................35
`
`iii
`
`Page 16 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 17 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) ..............................................................................................24, 25, 41
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).....................24, 41
`
`Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008).........................27
`
`Martin v. Garman Constr. Co., 945 F.2d 1000 (7th Cir. 1991) .............................33
`
`Mother’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Mama’s Pizza, Inc., 723 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir.
`1983) ..........................................................................................................33
`
`New Railhead Mfg., LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir.
`2002) ....................................................................................................24, 25
`
`Novosteel S.A. v. U.S., 284 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .........................................43
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................26
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................29
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008).24, 25, 40
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000).................43
`
`Research Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................41
`
`Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) ..........................................................................................................32
`
`Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 319 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003).................23
`
`Tate v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, 431 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005)........35
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. BCG Partners, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (N.D. Ill.
`2012) ............................................................................................................4
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. BCG Partners, Inc., -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2012 WL
`3133628, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106448 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2012) ..............5
`iv
`
`Page 17 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 18 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-cv-5312 (N.
`D. Ill. filed August 12, 2004), aff’d, 595 F.3d 1340 ......................................9
`
`Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 854 (N.D. Ill.
`2007) ......................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....passim
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................25, 41
`
`Vardon Golf Co. v. Karsten Mfg. Corp., 294 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............28
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)...................29
`
`Wavetronix v. EIS Electric Integrated System, 573 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) ..........................................................................................................23
`
`Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468 (1987)..........34
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.......................................................................................passim
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295...................................................................................................35
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54..................................................................................................19
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) section 2163(II)(a) 8th Ed.
`Rev. 5 .........................................................................................................42
`
`v
`
`Page 18 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 19 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5, there is no other appeal in or from the
`
`same civil action in the lower court that was previously before this or any other
`
`appellate court.
`
`This Court’s decision may directly affect the following cases: Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc. v. GL Trade SA, et al. (N.D. Ill. 05 C 4120)
`
`(consolidated with Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. FuturePath Trading
`
`LLC (N.D. Ill. 05 C 5164)), and Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG,
`
`et al. (N.D. Ill. 05 C 4811).
`
`vi
`
`Page 19 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 20 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`1. Whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment that
`
`the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 (the “’411 patent”) that are not limited to a
`
`price axis that is “static” (i.e., a price axis that moves only through manual re-
`
`centering) are invalid for lack of written description?
`
`2. Whether the District Court properly granted final judgment that the
`
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,693,768 (the “’768 patent”) and 7,904,374 (the ’374
`
`patent”), which have the same specification as the ’411 patent, that are not limited
`
`to a “static” price axis are also invalid, under the parties’ agreement that, given the
`
`District Court’s grant of summary judgment on the ’411 patent, the claims of the
`
`’768 and ’374 patents covering price axes that move other than through manual re-
`
`centering are invalid for lack of written description?
`
`3. Whether the District Court properly granted final judgment that the
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 (the “’055 patent”) are invalid in light of: (a)
`
`the District Court’s determination that TT is precluded, under the doctrine of
`
`prosecution history estoppel, from asserting that claims of the ’055 patent can be
`
`infringed under the doctrine of equivalents by price axes that move automatically
`
`(i.e., without manual re-centering), (b) TT’s representation to the District Court
`
`that, in light of the court’s ruling on prosecution history estoppel, the claims of the
`
`1
`
`Page 20 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 21 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`’055 patent are inoperable and invalid, and (c) TT’s request that the court enter
`
`final judgment of invalidity on the ’055 patent?
`
`2
`
`Page 21 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 22 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`In 2010, TT commenced multiple actions against the Defendants. Each
`
`action alleged infringement of multiple patents, including the ’411, ’768, ’374 and
`
`’055 patents at issue here. A002563-75. On February 3, 2011, all of the individual
`
`actions were consolidated before Judge Kendall. A002814-15.
`
`In Spring 2011, in order to streamline the case, the parties stated their
`
`intentions to file summary judgment motions on invalidity issues addressing the
`
`’411 patent and written description and agreed that such motions would be
`
`appropriate before discovery or a Markman hearing. A006256-64, A006273-75.
`
`Judge Kendall agreed. A006472-76.
`
`On May 5, 2011, and August 15, 2011, defendant TradeStation and all other
`
`Defendants, respectively, moved for summary judgment on the ’411 patent
`
`addressing written description. A005496-5509, A014379-434. Also on August
`
`15, 2011, Defendants Open E Cry, LLC and OptionsXpress Holdings, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “OEC”) moved for summary judgment that TT was precluded, under
`
`the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, from asserting that various of the
`
`patents-in-suit, including the ’055 patent, could be infringed under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents by price axes that were not static. A014406-14. TT cross-moved for
`
`summary judgment of validity under Section 112 and for non-applicability of
`
`prosecution history estoppel. A014943-83.
`
`3
`
`Page 22 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 23 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`On February 9, 2012, the District Court granted summary judgment (a)
`
`invalidating all asserted claims of the ’411 patent to the extent they claimed price
`
`axes that were not static and (b) barring TT, under the doctrine of prosecution
`
`history estoppel, from contending that the ’055 patent could be infringed by price
`
`axes that were not static. Trading Techs. Int’l v. BCG Partners, Inc., 852 F. Supp.
`
`2d 1027 (N.D. Ill. 2012); A000002-36.
`
`On April 12, 2012, TT moved for entry of final judgment and for Rule 54(b)
`
`certification on the ’411, ’768, and ’374 patents. A022014-28. Although the
`
`District Court had granted summary judgment on written description grounds as to
`
`the ’411 patent only, TT included the ’768 and ’374 patents in its motion based on
`
`the parties’ agreement that, under the rationale of the District Court’s decision
`
`regarding the ’411 patent, the claims of the ’768 and ’374 patents covering non-
`
`static price axes were likewise invalid for lack of written description. Id.
`
`In subsequent filings before the District Court, TT posited that, in light of its
`
`ruling regarding prosecution history estoppel, the claims of the ’055 patent were
`
`inoperable and invalid, and requested a final judgment of invalidity and a Rule
`
`54(b) certification regarding that patent. A022362-77.
`
`On July 31, 2012, and following TT’s representation that it would grant
`
`Defendants an unconditional covenant not to sue on any claims of the ’411, ’768
`
`and ’374 patents that were limited to “static,” the District Court entered final
`
`4
`
`Page 23 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 24 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`judgment of invalidity on the ’411, ’768, ’374 and ’055 patents, and granted TT’s
`
`request for a Rule 54(b) certification. See Trading Techs. Int’l v. BCG Partners,
`
`Inc., -- F. Supp. 2d --, 2012 WL 3133628, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106448 (N.D.
`
`Ill. July 31, 2012); A00038-59. This appeal followed.
`
`5
`
`Page 24 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 25 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`This appeal concerns a judgment of invalidity of four patents—the ’411,
`
`’768, ’374 and ’055 patents—all of which claim alleged inventions in the area of
`
`electronic trading. A000060-168; A000002-36. The ’411, ’768, and ’374 patents
`
`are continuations of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (the “’132 patent”), which, along
`
`with U.S. Patent No. 6,776, 304 (the “’304 patent”), was the subject of this Court’s
`
`decision in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (“eSpeed” or the “eSpeed Appeal”). A000060-81; A000130-168. The ’055
`
`patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’132 patent. A000082-129.
`
`TT incorrectly asserts that, in her summary judgment ruling, Judge Kendall
`
`addressed written description for each of the ’411, ’768, ’374 and ’055 patents.
`
`Appellant Brief (“TT Br.”) 27-29. As explained above, Defendants’ motion on
`
`written description addressed the ’411 patent, not the ’768, ’374 or ’055 patents,
`
`and the District Court did not address written description as to any of the ’768,
`
`’374 and ’055 patents.
`
`Following the District Court’s ruling regarding the ’411 patent, TT conceded
`
`that the claims of the ’768 and ’374 patents that were not limited to a “static” price
`
`axis would likewise be invalid for lack of written description and requested that
`
`final judgment be entered on them, which the District Court did. A022014-28,
`
`A000038-59. Accordingly, final judgment regarding the ’768 and ’374 patents
`
`6
`
`Page 25 of 69
`
`

`
`Case: 12-1583 Document: 88 Page: 26 Filed: 01/18/2013
`
`depends entirely on the District Court’s ruling on the ’411 patent and, if this Court
`
`affirms that latter judgment, then this Court should affirm the judgments regarding
`
`the ’768 and ’374 patents as well.
`
`* * *
`
`The undersigned Defendants adopt by reference the brief submitted by OEC
`
`regarding Issue No. 3 and the ’055 patent and accordingly w