Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`STATES DISTRICT
`UNITED
`OF
`DISTRICT
`NORTHERN
`DIVISION
`EASTERN
`
`COURT
`ILLINOIS
`
`Trading Technologies
`
`International,
`
`Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`eSpeed, Inc., ITSEeeo Holdings Limited,
`and Ecco LLC
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No.
`
`04 C 5312
`
`Judge James B. Moran
`
`Magistrate Sidney I. Schertkier
`
`FILED
`
`OCT 1 o 2007
`
`B. Moron
`Judge James
`United States District Court
`
`JURY VERDICT
`
`FORM
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2098
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2014-00137
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`STATES DISTRICT
`UNITED
`OF
`DISTRICT
`NORTHERN
`DIVISION
`EASTERN
`
`COURT
`ILLINOIS
`
`Trading Technologies
`
`International,
`
`Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`eSpeed, Inc., ITSEeeo Holdings Limited,
`and Ecco LLC
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No.
`
`04 C 5312
`
`Judge James B. Moran
`
`Magistrate Sidney I. Schertkier
`
`FILED
`
`OCT 1 o 2007
`
`B. Moron
`Judge James
`United States District Court
`
`JURY VERDICT
`
`FORM
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2098
`TD Ameritrade v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2014-00137
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`EXPLANATION
`
`REGARDING
`
`INDEPENDEI(cid:127)T
`
`AND DEPENDENT
`
`CLAIMS
`
`On
`
`this Verdict
`
`Sheet
`
`you will
`
`find
`
`that
`
`independent claims
`
`are
`
`listed
`
`in boldface, and
`
`dopendcnt claims
`
`in regular typeface.
`
`This
`
`is not
`
`an
`
`indication
`
`that
`
`some
`
`claims
`
`are more
`
`important than
`
`others.
`
`Rather,
`
`as explained in
`
`the
`
`jury instructions,
`
`if you
`
`find
`
`that
`
`an
`
`independent claim
`
`is not
`
`infringed, you need
`
`not
`
`consider
`
`whether
`
`the dependent claims
`
`listed
`
`underneath
`
`it arc
`
`infringed. Similarly,
`
`if you
`
`find
`
`than
`
`an
`
`independent claim
`
`is valid, you need
`
`not
`
`consider
`
`whether
`
`the dependent claims
`
`listed
`
`underneath
`
`it (cid:127)tre
`
`valid.
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT
`
`NO,
`
`1: DIRECT
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`(eSoeed_(cid:127)
`
`1. For each of the Asserted
`
`Claims, did TT prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that eSpeed directly infringed? (A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT
`
`on
`
`the
`
`issue', a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for eSpeed on
`
`the issue.)
`
`'132
`
`Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim
`
`20:
`
`Claim
`
`23:
`
`Claim
`
`24:
`
`Claim 25:
`
`Claim
`
`27:
`
`/
`
`(cid:127)'(cid:127)
`
`t(cid:127)
`t/(cid:127)
`J
`/
`I//"
`f
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`(cid:127)
`
`Claim
`
`28:
`
`Claim
`
`50:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim 40:
`
`Claim
`
`45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52:
`
`'304 P(cid:127)¢fnt
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`11:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`I (cid:127):
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`(cid:127)
`
`f
`t(cid:127)__
`(cid:127)
`/
`#/"
`(cid:127)
`f
`f
`
`f
`f
`/
`d'(cid:127)
`/
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`SPECIAL VERDICT NO. 2: CONTRIBUTORY
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`(eSveed)
`
`2, For each of the claims
`
`below, did TT prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that
`
`eSpeed eonWibutorily infi'inged? (A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the
`
`issue;
`
`a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for eSpeed on
`
`the issue.)
`
`' 132 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim 40:
`
`Claim
`
`45:
`
`Claim 47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`/
`
`f
`
`f
`
`v/(cid:127)
`
`f
`
`t/(cid:127)
`(cid:127)
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT
`
`NO. 3: INDUCEMENT
`
`TO INFRINGE
`
`(eSpeed)_
`
`3. For each of the Asserted Claims, did TT prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that cSpeed induced
`
`infringement by others?
`
`(A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the issue; a
`
`"No'"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for eSpeed on
`
`the issue.)
`
`(cid:127) 132 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`!:
`
`Claim
`
`2;
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 20;
`
`Claim
`
`23:
`
`Claim
`
`24:
`
`Claim
`
`25:
`
`Claim
`
`27:
`
`28:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`/
`
`f
`
`(cid:127)'/
`
`,(cid:127)"
`
`(cid:127)"
`
`f
`
`"/-
`
`f
`
`f
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Claim
`
`Claim 50;
`
`Claim
`
`14;
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`40:
`
`Claim 45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52:
`
`'304
`
`Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1 :
`
`Claim
`
`11:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`(cid:127)
`
`f
`
`(cid:127)
`
`f
`
`t '(cid:127)
`
`//(cid:127)
`
`/
`
`(cid:127)"
`
`t(cid:127)
`
`f
`f
`f
`
`f
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT
`
`NO.
`
`4: DIRECT
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`(Coco)
`
`4. For each of the Asserted Claims, did TT prove by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence
`
`that Ecco directly infringed? (A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT
`
`on
`
`the issue; a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is
`
`a finding for Ecco
`
`on
`
`the issue.)
`
`(cid:127)J.3 2 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim
`
`7:
`
`Claim
`
`20:
`
`Claim
`
`23:
`
`Claim
`
`24:
`
`Claim
`
`25:
`
`Claim
`
`27:
`
`f
`
`/'-
`
`./"
`
`(cid:127)
`
`/"
`
`/'(cid:127)
`
`/"
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Claim
`
`28:
`
`Claim
`
`50:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`40:
`
`Claim
`
`45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`(cid:127)f2:
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`1 ]:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`YES
`
`YI(cid:127)S
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`f
`/
`
`/"
`
`/"
`
`€'(cid:127)
`#'(cid:127)
`
`/"
`
`f
`f
`(cid:127)
`
`f
`f
`f
`f
`f
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`SPECIAL VERDIC T NO.
`
`5: CONTRIBUTORY
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`(Ecco)
`
`5. For each of the claims
`
`below, did TT prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that
`
`Ecco contributorily
`
`infringed7 (A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the
`
`issue; a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for E¢¢o
`
`on
`
`the
`
`issue.)
`
`(cid:127)](cid:127)2
`
`Patent
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim 40:
`
`Claim
`
`45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`/
`
`(cid:127)'-
`(cid:127)
`f
`f
`/""
`f
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VE ,,R(cid:127). ICT_N.0.6: INDUCEMENT TO
`
`INFRINGE
`
`6. For each of the Asserted
`
`Claims, did TT prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that
`
`l(cid:127)cco
`
`induced
`
`infringement by others?
`
`(A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the issue; a
`
`"No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for Ecco
`
`on
`
`the issue.)
`
`'132
`
`Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`2'.
`
`Claim
`
`7:
`
`Claim 20:
`
`Claim
`
`23:
`
`Claim
`
`24:
`
`Claim
`
`25:
`
`f
`
`/
`
`/
`
`(cid:127)
`
`.j(cid:127)
`(cid:127)
`
`//"
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YgS
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Claim 27:
`
`Claim 28:
`
`Claim
`
`50:
`
`Clatm
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`40:
`
`Claim 45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52;
`
`'304
`
`Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1;
`
`Claim
`
`11:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`/
`/"
`f
`/
`f
`/
`
`/
`/
`f
`f
`
`/
`
`/
`/
`F
`f
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`.
`
`,(cid:127),
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDI ,C,T NO. 7: WILLFULNESS
`
`If you
`
`found
`
`direct
`
`infringement, contributory
`
`infringement
`
`or
`
`inducing infringement by
`
`eSpeed, did TT prove by clear
`
`and convincing evidence
`
`that such
`
`infringement was willful?
`
`(A
`
`"Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the issue; a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for eSpeed on
`
`the
`
`issue.)
`
`/
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`For
`
`If you
`
`found
`
`direct
`
`infringement, contributory
`
`infringement
`
`or
`
`inducing infringement by
`
`Eeoc, did TT prove by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that such
`
`infringement was willful?
`
`(A
`
`"Yes"
`
`answer
`
`YES
`
`is a finding for TT on
`f
`
`the
`
`issue;
`
`a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for Ecco
`
`on
`
`the
`
`issue.)
`
`NO
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`'
`
`I#'
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`SPE.,C.,.IA L VERDICT
`
`NO. 8: PRIORITY
`
`DATE
`
`Did eSpeed/F_(cid:127)¢o prove, by clear
`
`and convincing evidence,
`
`that
`
`the Asserted
`
`Claims
`
`of
`
`the
`
`'132
`
`and
`
`'304 patents
`
`are NOT entitled
`
`to the benefit
`
`of the filing date of the Provisional
`
`Application, March 2, 2000, and, therefore, the patents
`
`are
`
`invalid?
`
`(A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding
`
`for eSpeed/Eceo on
`
`the
`
`issue;
`
`a "No"
`
`answer
`
`YES
`
`is a finding for TT on
`f
`
`NO
`
`the issue.)
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`A. Regardless of your
`
`response
`
`to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date
`
`is
`
`,.-
`
`March 2, 2000, which
`
`of the tbllowing references
`
`has eSpcecVEcco proved by clear and
`
`convincing evidence
`
`to qualify as prior art?
`
`(A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for eSpeed/Ecco
`
`on
`
`the issue;
`
`a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the issue.)
`
`Tradepad 4.31
`
`Midas Kapiti
`
`TIFFE
`
`TSE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`__
`
`(cid:127)
`
`YE$(cid:127)
`
`YES
`
`__
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`B. Regardless of your
`
`response
`
`to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date
`
`is
`
`June 9, 2000, which
`
`of the following references
`
`has eSpeed/Ecco proved by clear and convincing
`
`evidence
`
`to qualify as prior art? (A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for eSpeed/Ecco
`
`on
`
`the issue;
`
`a
`
`"No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the issue.)
`
`Tradepad 4.31
`
`YES(cid:127)
`
`Midas Kapiti
`
`YES
`
`__
`
`TIFFE
`
`TSE
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`(cid:127)
`
`/
`
`NO
`
`NO __(cid:127)
`f
`NO _(cid:127)
`
`NO
`
`II
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT
`
`NO.
`
`10: ANTICIPATION
`
`- 1
`
`Regardless of your
`
`response
`
`to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming
`
`the priority date is March
`
`2, 2000, did eSpeed/Ecco prove by clear
`
`and convincing evidence
`
`that any of the following
`
`claims
`
`was
`
`anticipated by a single prior art reference?
`
`(A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for
`
`eSpeed/Ecco on
`
`the
`
`issue;
`
`a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT on
`
`the issue.)
`
`'1(cid:127)2 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`2:
`
`Claim
`
`7:
`
`Claim
`
`20:
`
`Claim
`
`23:
`
`Claim 24:
`
`Claim
`
`25:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`_..
`
`(cid:127)"
`
`Claim
`
`27:
`
`Claim
`
`28:
`
`Claim
`
`50:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`40;
`
`Claim
`
`45;
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52:
`
`':(cid:127)04 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`1 I:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`.....
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`,,..
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`If you
`
`find
`
`that any of the above
`
`claims
`
`is anticipated, for each claim please identify
`
`specifically each reference, which
`
`you
`
`found qualified as prior art
`
`in Question 9 A, that
`
`anticipated the claim.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT
`
`NO. 1 I: ANTICIPATION
`
`-
`
`Regardless of your
`
`response
`
`to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date
`that any of the following
`
`is June
`
`9, 2000, did eSpecd/Ecco prove by clear and convincing evidence
`was anticipated by a single prior art reference?
`
`claims
`
`(A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for
`
`eSpeed/F_,¢co on
`
`the issue; a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a f'mding for TT on
`
`the issue.)
`
`'|(cid:127)2 paten.t
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`2:
`
`Claim
`
`7:
`
`Claim
`
`20:
`
`Claim
`
`23:
`
`Claim
`
`24:
`
`Claim
`
`25:
`
`Claim
`
`27:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`Claim
`
`28:
`
`Claim 50;
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`40:
`
`Claim
`
`45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52:
`
`*(cid:127)O4 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`I:
`
`YES
`
`Claim
`
`1 l:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`If you
`
`find
`
`that
`
`any of the abow
`
`(cid:127)laims
`
`is anticipated, for each claim please identify
`
`specifically each refor¢nce, which
`
`you
`
`found qualified as prior art
`
`in Question 9 A, that
`
`anticipated the claim.
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`,
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT
`
`NO. 12: OBVIOUSNESS
`
`-1
`
`Regardless of your
`
`response
`
`2000, did cSpced/Ecco prove by clear
`
`and convincing evidence
`
`that
`
`to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming
`the subject matter
`
`the priority date
`
`is March
`
`2,
`
`of any of the
`
`following claims would
`
`have been obvious
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`the claimed
`
`invention
`
`was made
`
`to a person
`
`having ordinary skill
`
`in the art of that patent? (A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for cSpced/Ecco on
`
`the
`
`issue; a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT.)
`
`' 132 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`2:
`
`Claim
`
`7:
`
`Claim 20:
`
`Claim 23:
`
`Claim
`
`24:
`
`(cid:127)-5:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Claim
`
`Claim
`
`27:
`
`Claim
`
`28:
`
`Claim
`
`50:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`40:
`
`Claim
`
`45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim
`
`52:
`
`'304
`
`Patent
`
`Claim
`
`1:
`
`Claim
`
`11:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`Y1(cid:127)$
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YI(cid:127)S
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`16
`
`/
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`F
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT,
`
`,N 0. 13: OBVIOUSNESS
`
`-2
`
`response
`
`to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date
`of any of the
`the subject matter
`
`is June 9,
`
`that
`
`Regardless of your
`2000, did eSpeed/Eceo prove by clear and convincing evidence
`to a person having ordinary skill
`is a finding for eSpeed/Ecco on
`
`following claims would have been obvious
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`the claimed
`
`invention
`
`was made?
`
`(A "Yes"
`
`answer
`
`in the art of that patent
`
`the
`
`issue; a "No"
`
`answer
`
`is a finding for TT
`
`on
`
`the issue.)
`
`CLaim 1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim
`
`7;
`
`Claim 20:
`
`Claim 23:
`
`Claim
`
`24:
`
`Claim
`
`25:
`
`Claim
`
`27:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`Claim
`
`28:
`
`Claim
`
`50:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`40:
`
`Claim
`
`45:
`
`Claim
`
`47:
`
`Claim
`
`48:
`
`Claim 52:
`
`'904 Patent
`
`Claim
`
`|:
`
`Claim
`
`11:
`
`Claim
`
`14:
`
`Claim
`
`15:
`
`Claim
`
`26:
`
`YES
`
`YBS
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`/...
`
`/,,,
`
`/
`
`/
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`-
`
`V
`
`Case
`
`1:04-cv-05312
`
`Document
`
`1061
`
`Filed
`
`10/10/2007
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`SPECIAL
`
`VERDICT
`
`NO. 14: DAMAGES
`
`If you
`
`found
`
`that eSpeed infringed any valid claim of the
`
`'304
`
`or
`
`'132 patent, what
`
`amount
`
`do you award
`
`as damages to
`
`€ompensate
`
`TT for the infringement by eSpeed?
`
`If you
`
`found
`
`that Eceo
`
`infringed any valid
`
`claim
`
`of the
`
`'304
`
`or
`
`'132 patent, what
`
`amount
`
`do you award
`
`as damages to compensate
`
`TT for the infringement by Ecco?
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
