`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`Civil Action No.
`________________________________________________________________________
`
`CQGT, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; CQG, INC., a Colorado corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs CQGT, LLC and CQG, Inc., through their attorneys Faegre & Benson LLP,
`
`submit this Complaint for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, and for
`
`their Complaint against Defendant Trading Technologies International, Inc., state as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff CQGT, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company, with its principal
`
`place of business in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff CQG, Inc. is a Colorado corporation, with its
`
`principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiffs CQGT, LLC and CQG, Inc. shall be
`
`referred to herein collectively as Plaintiffs.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Trading Technologies International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation,
`
`with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. shall be referred to herein as TTI.
`
`CQG EXHIBIT 1003
`
`0001
`
`
`
`Case 1:05-cv-01584-REB-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/17/05 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Federal
`
`Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. The Court also has jurisdiction over
`
`this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, because this case presents a well-pleaded
`
`federal question under the Patent Act of 1952 (as amended), 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
`
`4.
`
`The exercise of in personam jurisdiction over TTI comports with the laws of the
`
`State of Colorado and the constitutional requirements of due process because, upon information
`
`and belief, TTI and/or its agents transact business and/or offer to transact business within the
`
`State of Colorado.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
`
`There are no current related actions in this District.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`This is an action for a Declaratory Judgment that Plaintiffs have not infringed any
`
`claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 or U.S. Patent No. 6,722,132, and that each and every one of
`
`the claims of said Patents are invalid.
`
`8.
`
`On July 20, 2004, the Commissioner for Patents with the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 (“the ’304 Patent”) claiming a method and
`
`system for “Click Based Trading With Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth.” A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’304 Patent is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
`
`9.
`
`On August 3, 2004, the Commissioner for Patents with the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 6,722,132 (“the ’132 Patent”) also claiming a
`
`Civil Action No. COMPLAINT
`
`Page 2
`
`0002
`
`
`
`Case 1:05-cv-01584-REB-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/17/05 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
`
`method and system for “Click Based Trading With Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth.” A
`
`true and correct copy of the ’132 Patent is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, TTI is the assignee of the ’304 Patent and the ’132
`
`Patent.
`
`11.
`
`CQG, Inc. was established in 1980 to supply data and market analysis to futures
`
`traders. CQG, Inc. has, in the past, developed and sold computer programs and user interfaces
`
`which allows traders to view futures trading data and to analyze that data. The computer
`
`programs sold by CQG, Inc. also allow traders to place orders and otherwise trade futures.
`
`12.
`
`CQGT, LLC is a company which owns and develops the intellectual property
`
`which forms the basis for the computer programs and user interfaces sold by CQG, Inc.
`
`13.
`
`TTI has charged Plaintiffs manufacture and offering for sale and selling of
`
`Plaintiffs’ products constitutes infringement and/or contributory infringement of the ’304 Patent
`
`and ’132 Patent and all claims thereof.
`
`14.
`
`By charging Plaintiffs with infringement of the ’304 Patent and ’132 Patent, TTI’s
`
`actions have created in Plaintiffs a reasonable apprehension of suit. Representatives of TTI have
`
`told representatives of Plaintiffs that TTI will file suit against Plaintiffs unless Plaintiffs agree to
`
`the terms of a “Settlement Agreement.” Plaintiffs have determined that they can not agree to the
`
`terms of the any such “Settlement Agreement.”
`
`15.
`
`Therefore, a substantial and continuing justiciable controversy exists between
`
`Plaintiffs and TTI as to the validity and scope of the ’304 Patent and ’132 Patent, and as to
`
`whether any of Plaintiffs’ products infringe any valid claim thereof.
`
`Civil Action No. COMPLAINT
`
`Page 3
`
`0003
`
`
`
`Case 1:05-cv-01584-REB-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/17/05 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
`
`CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the ’304 Patent and ’132 Patent
`28 U.S.C. § 2201
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 14 of this
`
`Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs have not infringed or committed contributory infringement of any
`
`claims of the ’304 Patent or ’132 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, distributing
`
`and/or importing any product, or by practicing any process.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the ’304 Patent and ’132
`
`Patent, and each and every respective claim thereof, are invalid and unenforceable for failure to
`
`comply with one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without
`
`limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`19.
`
`TTI’s charges of infringement of the ’304 Patent and ’132 Patent with full
`
`knowledge of the invalidity of the ’304 Patent and ’132 Patent makes this an exceptional case
`
`warranting an award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
`
`against Defendant as follows:
`
`A.
`
`A Declaratory Judgment be entered declaring that Defendant is without right or
`
`authority to threaten or to maintain suit against Plaintiffs or their customers for alleged
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 or U.S. Patent No. 6,722,132 and that:
`
`1.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,766,304 is invalid, unenforceable, and not
`
`infringed by Plaintiffs; and
`
`Civil Action No. COMPLAINT
`
`Page 4
`
`0004
`
`
`
`Case 1:05-cv-01584-REB-MEH Document 1 Filed 08/17/05 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
`
`2.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,722,132 is invalid, unenforceable, and not
`
`infringed by Plaintiffs.
`
`B.
`
`An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in the
`
`litigation of this matter in compensation for the exceptional circumstances of this case, pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`C.
`
`Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper to award.
`
`Dated: August 17, 2005.
`
`FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
`
`By:
`
` s/ Mark W. Fischer
`Mark W. Fischer
`1900 15th Street
`Boulder, Colorado 80302
`Telephone: (303) 447-7700
`Facsimile: (303) 447-7800
`
`E-mail: mfischer@faegre.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`
`Plaintiff’s Address:
`1050 17th Street, Suite 2000
`Denver, Colorado 80265
`
`Civil Action No. COMPLAINT
`
`Page 5
`
`0005
`
`