throbber
Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 709 Filed: 03/17/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:17975
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Civil Action No. 05-CV-4811
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`CQG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT THE ’304 AND ’132 PATENTS
`ARE INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`CQG moves for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for invalidity of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 6,766,304 ((cid:147)the (cid:146)304 patent(cid:148)) and 6,772,132 ((cid:147)the (cid:146)132 patent(cid:148)) for lack of written
`
`description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
`
`The undisputed facts recited in CQG(cid:146)s Statement of Material Facts under Local Rule 56.1
`
`establish that the inventors were only in possession of a price column where all displayed prices
`
`are static. Because the specification fails to support TT(cid:146)s assertion that the Static Limitation
`
`covers price column where only some of the displayed prices are static. The claims of the (cid:146)304
`
`patent and the (cid:146)132 patent are invalid for failing to meeting the written description requirement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
`
`WHEREFORE, CQG moves for summary judgment in its favor of invalidity of the (cid:146)304
`
`and (cid:146)132 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. The attached memorandum, statement of material
`
`facts, and exhibits, which are incorporated by reference and filed contemporaneously, provide a
`
`more detailed description of invalidity due to a lack of written description.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2010
`CQG & CQGT v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2015-00057
`
`

`

`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 709 Filed: 03/17/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:17976
`
`
`Dated: March 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ William J. Voller III
`
`Adam G. Kelly
`
`William Voller III
`
`J. Simone Jones
`LOEB & LOEB LLP
`321 North Clark, Suite 2300
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 464-3100 Telephone
`(312) 464-3111 Facsimile
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`CQG, INC. and CQGT, LLC
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 709 Filed: 03/17/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:17977
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, William J. Voller III, certify that a copy of CQG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`
`JUDGMENT THAT THE ’304 AND ’132 PATENTS ARE INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`112, ¶ 1 FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION was served via the ECF filing system upon
`the following on the 17th day of March, 2014:
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`(Steve.Borsand@tradingtechnologies.com)
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`222 South Riverside
`Suite 1100
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William J. Voller III
`
`LOEB & LOEB LLP
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 464-3100
`
`Attorneys for CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC
`
`
`Matthew J. Sampson
`(sampson@mbhb.com)
`S. Richard Carden
`(carden@mbhb.com)
`Jennifer M. Kurcz
`(kurcz@mbhb.com)
`Andrea K. Orth
`(orth@mbhb.com)
`Brandon J. Kennedy
`(kennedy@mbhb.com)
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`
`
`March 17, 2014
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket