ATTACHMENT F
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2007
`TRADESTATION v TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00161
`
`PAGE 1 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:5234
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 10 C 715
`(Consolidated with:
`10 C 716, 10 C 718,
`10 C 720, 10 C 721,
`10 C 726, 10 C 882,
`10 C 883, 10 C 884
`10 C 885, 10 C 929,
`10 C 931)
`
`Judge Virginia M. Kendal
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BCG PARTNERS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`TRADESTATION DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN
`SUPPORT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Defendants TradeStation Securities, Inc. and TradeStation Group, Inc. (collectively
`
`“TradeStation” or the “TradeStation Defendants”), move for partial summary judgment under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,676,411, 7,693,768, and 7,725,382
`
`(the “2010 Brumfield Patents”) (Kessel Decl., Exs. A through C1), are not entitled to the 2000
`
`priority date of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,772,132 and 6,766,304 (the “Original Brumfield Patents”)
`
`(Kessel Decl., Exs. D and E), but only to the actual filing dates of the applications from which
`
`each of the 2010 Brumfield Patents issued.
`
`The dispute between TradeStation and Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`(“TT”) turns in large part on the legal interpretation and collateral estoppel effect of the Federal
`
`Circuit holding in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010): One key issue, among others, is the Federal Circuit’s holding on the scope of the
`
`disclosure of the Original Brumfield Patents. TradeStation moves for partial summary judgment
`
`that the scope of the Original Brumfield Patents’ disclosure as established by the Federal Circuit
`
`
`1 All exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Adam J. Kessel filed herewith.
`
`A 5632
`
`PAGE 2 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:5235
`
`
`
`
`
`is limited to the single method disclosed in those patents, which requires a graphical user
`
`interface for trading where the price axis only permits re-centering by a manual command under
`
`the user’s control, never automatically.2
`
`While TT alleges the Original Brumfield Patents have a broader scope than established
`
`by the Federal Circuit, the question on priority is not to compare what TT says the Original
`
`Brumfield Patents disclose, but rather to compare what the Federal Circuit held was disclosed
`
`as measured against the allegations TT makes now about the scope of the 2010 Brumfield
`
`Patents. Since TT has alleged that the 2010 Brumfield patents are broader in scope than the
`
`single invention held by the Federal Circuit to have been disclosed by the Original Brumfield
`
`Patents, the 2010 Brumfield Patents are not entitled to the priority date of the Original Brumfield
`
`Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 120.
`
`TT alleges in its responses to TradeStation’s interrogatories that the claims of the 2010
`
`Brumfield Patents cover or are infringed by TradeStation’s current “TradeStation 9.0” product
`
`TT Responses to 2nd Set of Interrogatories (Kessel Decl., Ex. F).3 There is no dispute that the
`
`
`clearly litigated by TT, and squarely decided by the Federal Circuit.
`
`2 TradeStation recognizes this disputed legal issue could be brought before the Court in different
`ways, but has elected the vehicle of a motion for partial summary judgment on priority of the
`2010 Brumfield Patents because it isolates the legal issue of the scope of the disclosure, an issue
`
`3 TT has alleged that TradeStation 9.0 infringes all of the Brumfield patents, both the Original
`and 2010 Patents, by, among other things, a function in the product that “disables” auto-
`centering for a “period of time:"
`
`
`TT further states that TradeStation 9.0 meets the “static” limitation for at least the reason
`that “auto-centering” is disabled for a period of time while the mouse cursor is within
`certain boundaries of the Matrix window (e.g., when the cursor is over the price ladder).
`TT presently believes that the infringement analysis of TradeStation 9.0 for the remaining
`claim limitations of the Original Patents is substantially the same analysis presented in
`Exhibit A (infringement contentions incorporated by reference).” TT then relies on this
`same analysis for the other patents in suit. (While infringement is not in issue,
`
`2
`
`
`
`A 5633
`
`PAGE 3 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:5236
`
`
`
`
`
`accused graphical user interface in this product (one of several) displays a price axis for the
`
`inside market that moves automatically (unless “disabled,” or paused, for a “period of time” by a
`
`manual command by the user). The actual operation of the TradeStation 9.0 product is not in
`
`issue: This is not a motion for non-infringement of the Brumfield patents.4 The only issue is that
`
`TT has asserted its 2010 Brumfield Patents against a product that TT has acknowledged in its
`
`interrogatory answers auto-centers a price axis.
`
`Moreover, the claims of two of the three 2010 Brumfield Patents purport to remove the
`
`word “static” present in the claims of the Original Brumfield patents from their new claims.
`
`Specifically, the word “static” is omitted from all claims of the ’411 Patent (Claims 1-28) and all
`
`claims of the ‘768 Patent (Claims 1-23). At a minimum, these claims cannot trace priority to the
`
`Original Brumfield Patents under the Federal Circuit’s description of the invention. The ’382
`
`Patent, the third of the 2010 Brumfield Patents at issue here, does include the word “static” in all
`
`of its claims, but TT takes the position in its interrogatory answers that the claims of the ’382
`
`Patent cover a system where the price axis auto-recenters. Although TT’s interrogatory answer
`
`is obscured by numerous objections and reference to other documents, by stating that
`
`infringement includes a movement of the cursor that “disables” “auto centering” for “a period of
`
`
`
`TradeStation 9.0 delays auto-centering for up to 60 seconds, but auto-centering then
`resumes.)
`
` 4
`
` TT has asserted both the Original and 2010 Brumfield, as well as the Friesen patents, against
`TradeStation 9.0 in its interrogatory answer. Because TradeStation 9.0 auto-centers it cannot
`infringe any of the Brumfield patents, and there are other issues regarding validity as to all or
`many claims, under Sections 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 for each Brumfield patent asserted by
`TT. These other issues and issues on the Friesen patents need not be resolved in the decision on
`
`this motion.
`
`
`
`3
`
`A 5634
`
`PAGE 4 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:5237
`
`
`
`
`
`time,” TT is acknowledging in its allegations there is “auto centering” in the first instance –
`
`otherwise, there would be nothing to be “disabled . . . for a period of time.”.
`
`Accordingly, the TradeStation Defendants5 move for partial summary judgment under
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) for a finding that the “effective filing date” (“priority”) for the three 2010
`
`Brumfield Patents is not any earlier than the filing date of each of the actual applications from
`
`which they issued (2006): This is especially true for the claims in the two 2010 Brumfield
`
`Patents (‘411 and ‘768) that omit the word “static” from their claims.
`
`Alternatively, the TradeStation Defendants move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g) for an order
`
`determining “material facts” that cannot be disputed by TT in these consolidated cases on the
`
`scope of the disclosure in the written description in the Original Brumfield Patents as established
`
`by the Federal Circuit’s opinion and holding: That is, the disclosure is limited to a product that
`
`includes a graphical user interface for trading when the price axis (for example, the inside
`
`market) only permits re-centering by a manual command under the user’s control, and never
`
`automatically re-centers.6
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Original Brumfield Patents, filed in 2000 and 2001 respectively, share a common
`
`
`
`specification with each other, and also with the 2010 Brumfield Patents; which are “continuation
`
`5 By way of background only, and to foreshadow one type of further relief that a decision on this
`motion might permit, the following description of TradeStation is offered: “TradeStation is the
`premier brokerage trading platform for rule-based trading. And we have the awards to prove it.
`Whether you trade stocks, options, futures or forex, TradeStation offers uniquely powerful
`strategy creation and testing tools, customizable analytics and fully automated trading
`technology in a single trading platform.” http://www.tradestation.com/platform/overview.shtm
`(Kessel Decl., Ex. I).
`
`6 The disclosure of the Original Brumfield patents is also limited to commodities, but this issue is
`4
`
`not raised in this motion.
`
`
`
`A 5635
`
`PAGE 5 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5238
`
`
`
`
`
`patents” (no changes were made to the specification from the Original Brumfield Patents). The
`
`three 2010 Brumfield Patents asserted here were all filed in October of 2006.
`
`Whether the 2010 Brumfield Patents are entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the
`
`Original Brumfield Patent is a question of law. This question of law turns on the written
`
`description in the Original Brumfield Patents as defined by the Federal Circuit (not as alleged
`
`by TT). The Federal Circuit found that a single invention was disclosed in the common
`
`specification of the Original Brumfield Patents. The “present invention” described in the
`
`Original Brumfield Patents, requires, among other features, a graphical user interface that
`
`dynamically displays a plurality of bids (offers to buy) and a plurality of asks (offers to sell) on a
`
`static price axis. '132 Patent (Kessel Decl., Ex. D), col. 3 lines 11-20). The patent specification
`
`says that the static price axis does “not normally change positions unless a re-centering command
`
`is received.” Id., col. 7, lines 46-50. After review of the written description and file history, the
`
`Federal Circuit held that the disclosure only was for a method where the price axis does not ever
`
`move without a manual command – according to the Federal Circuit, the disclosure means
`
`“always” or “without exception.”
`
`Because a price axis never moves by itself, the trader operating the mouse to use the
`
`software does not risk placing a trade at an unintended price as the result of an automatic axis
`
`movement during the trade. There are, of course, in any field of art, typically multiple
`
`approaches to any problem, but this one approach is the single invention found by the Federal
`
`Circuit to be disclosed in the Original Brumfield Patents.
`
`Based on this holding as to the disclosure of the Original Brumfield Patents, the Federal
`
`Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of the claims of both patents, limiting them to
`
`5
`
`
`
`A 5636
`
`PAGE 6 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:5239
`
`
`
`
`
`cover products that only perform manual re-center by user command of the price axis and that
`
`never reset the price axis automatically.
`
`Since the disclosure in the Original Brumfield Patents was actually litigated by TT and
`
`essential to the holding of the Federal Circuit, TT is collaterally estopped from challenging that
`
`finding now. See Furnace Brook LLC v Aeropostale, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104000 at *16
`
`(N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2010) (Kendall, J.) (applying collateral estoppel against patent owner where
`
`decision on claim construction issue was essential to the judgment in a prior case).
`
`Those claims in the 2010 Brumfield Patents (the claims of the ‘411 and ‘768) that omit
`
`the word “static” from the claims are not within the priority disclosure, and are clearly only
`
`entitled to their actual applications’ filing date of 2006. Although one of the 2010 Brumfield
`
`Patents, the ’382 Patent recites the word “static” as a limitation, these claims too are only entitled
`
`to the 2006 actual filing date for priority since TT is asserting them against a product it
`
`acknowledges has the automatic re-centering of the price axis for the inside market (that is, the
`
`product automatically centers absent a manual action by the user to “disable” “auto-centering”
`
`“for a period of time”). TT’s infringement contention interrogatory answer on TradeStation 9.0
`
`does not specify which claims in the patents are allegedly infringed, but does allege that when
`
`pausing “auto-centering” for a “period of time,” infringement occurs of both the claims including
`
`the word “static” and other claims.
`
`The 2010 Brumfield patents have failed to maintain the “continuity of disclosure of the
`
`claimed invention” as required to establish an earlier filing date in that they are written and/or
`
`asserted in a manner contrary to the bounds of the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 120. A comparison of
`
`the Federal Circuit’s holding of the scope of the disclosure, with the allegation of infringement
`
`6
`
`
`
`A 5637
`
`PAGE 7 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:5240
`
`
`
`
`
`now, shows that the inventions as alleged in the 2010 Brumfield Patents are not “such invention”
`
`as was found disclosed in the Original Brumfield Patents.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRIORITY DATE
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 allows a patent applicant to assert that its application should be
`
`examined by the Patent Office based on an earlier effective filing date7 of a priority document
`
`traced through a chain of patents and applications that all previously disclosed the same, or “such
`
`invention,” instead of the date the patent applicant actually filed the later application. To qualify
`
`for use of an earlier effective filing date in the examination process, the invention in the new
`
`application must be “such invention” as was in the earlier application. 35 U.S.C.§ 120. This
`
`Court explained the requirements for a continuation patent to be entitled to claim priority to a
`
`parent application as follows:
`
`Section 120 of the Patent Act allows for such a claim [of priority] if certain
`requirements are met, namely: (1) the invention claimed must have been
`claimed in a prior-filed application; (2) the prior-filed application must have
`been filed by the same inventor; (3) the patent application is filed before the
`termination of proceedings of an application entitled to the filing date of the first
`application; and (4) it must contain a specific reference to the earlier filed
`application.
`
`Ledergerber v. Gore, 736 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1178 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (Kendall, J.).
`
`The United States Patent Office does not investigate claims of priority but instead relies
`
`on the applicant’s assertion that the invention in the new application is the same as the invention
`
`disclosed in the older application (and has been consistently carried forward through all patents
`
`and applications in the chain). See, e.g., Ex. J, MPEP § 201.14(b) (“The U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office does not normally examine the papers to determine whether the applicant is in
`
`
`papers, patents, products, publications, for novelty, obviousness, and other issues.
`7
`
`7For example, the date used to compare what is disclosed in the application to prior inventions,
`
`
`
`A 5638
`
`PAGE 8 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:5241
`
`
`
`
`
`fact entitled to the right of priority and does not grant or refuse the right of priority.”). See also
`
`Power Oasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile U.S.A. 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The essential requirement for asserting an earlier effective filing date is that the invention
`
`claimed in the later patent must be the same as the one disclosed in the earlier application.
`
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied (Nov.
`
`2010); see also Ledergerber v. Gore, 736 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1178 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (Kendall, J.).
`
`Moreover, it is the patent owner’s burden to establish entitlement to an earlier priority date when
`
`challenged to do so. Research Corporation Technology v. Microsoft, 627 F.3d 859, 871 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010)(“The district court therefore correctly placed the burden on [the patent owner] to
`
`come forward with evidence to show entitlement to an earlier filing date.”).
`
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S DECISION IN ESPEED
`
`In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., the Federal Circuit held the
`
`Original Brumfield Patents disclose only a single invention that comprises a certain type of
`
`graphical user interface that will never automatically reset or re-center the price axis for, among
`
`other things, the inside market, but will only reset or re-center a price axis by a manual command
`
`under the user’s control. eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1354. The “present invention,” as stated in the
`
`disclosure and interpreted by the Federal Circuit, was that the price axis does not move absent a
`
`manual command by the user. Id. This narrow description of the invention was based on what
`
`was 1) explicitly described in the specification; 2) repeatedly described as “the present
`
`invention” in the specification; and 3) how the inventors characterized their invention in the
`
`application process (the “file histories”). Id. at 1355 (Graphical user interface that displayed
`
`market prices and trading prices on an axis, the “inside market,” never move automatically, but
`
`rather only re-center by a manual command by the user.). The specification never disclosed a
`
`8
`
`
`
`A 5639
`
`PAGE 9 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:5242
`
`
`
`
`
`price axis that automatically re-centered. Id. at 1353 (“This reference to ‘the present invention’
`
`strongly suggests that the claimed re-centering command requires a manual input…”).
`
`It is established law that statements in the specification describing the “present invention”
`
`act to limit the scope of the claims of a patent, AstraZeneca AB v. Mutual Pharm. Co., 384 F.3d
`
`1333, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and are “strong evidence that the claims should not be read to
`
`encompass the opposite structure,” SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`
`242 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See also Data Encryption v. Microsoft, 248 Fed.
`
`Appx.166, 2007 WL 2574743 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (“present invention” limited claim scope). The
`
`Federal Circuit recently cited the eSpeed case for this very proposition in a precedential opinion.
`
`Research Corporation Technology v. Microsoft, 627 F.3d 859, 872 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`THE 2010 BRUMFIELD PATENTS ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO
`THE FILING DATES OF THEIR ACTUAL APPLICATIONS
`
`The later patents were all filed in 2006 (after the Markman hearing in the eSpeed case),
`
`and did not issue until 2010 (after the Federal Circuit opinion in the eSpeed case). However,
`
`remarkably, and directly contrary to the Federal Circuit’s opinion, TT alleges that these patents
`
`are infringed by a product that re-centers automatically unless automatic re-centering is
`
`“disabled”, or paused, “for a period of time,” ”manually by the user”: In other words that the
`
`2010 Brumfield Patents “encompass the opposite structure” of the invention disclosed in the
`
`Original Brumfield Patents as held by the Federal Circuit.
`
`Regardless of whether TT has purported to expand some of the claims of the later patents
`
`by avoiding the word “static” (as in the ‘411 and ‘782 patents), or now argues “static” can apply
`
`to a product that has auto-recentering in the claims of the 2010 Brumfield Patents (the ‘382
`
`patent), the later patents are not entitled to claim priority to the chain that includes the Original
`
`9
`
`
`
`A 5640
`
`PAGE 10 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:5243
`
`
`
`
`
`Brumfield Patents because the Federal Circuit held “such invention” disclosed in the Original
`
`Brumfield Patents always requires the user to manually re-center the price axis and re-centering
`
`never occurs automatically.
`
`Further, because the Federal Circuit opinion and judgment have been rendered and are
`
`final, and the scope of the disclosure was actually litigated and essential to that judgment, TT has
`
`no right now to try to introduce expert or inventor testimony or other facts or documents on the
`
`issue of interpretation of the disclosure of the Original Brumfield Patents. Rather, TT is barred
`
`from re-litigating the issue of the scope of the disclosure of the Original Brumfield Patents by the
`
`Federal Circuit opinion. Furnace Brook, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104000 at *16.
`
`Moreover, priority in this situation is based on what was expressly, specifically disclosed
`
`in the Original Brumfield Patents, not what might be assumed or obvious in view of that
`
`disclosure: “Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed; not to
`
`that which is obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Whether an expert can read more into the specification than the Federal Circuit did is immaterial
`
`as “that which is obvious” is not the same as what “is disclosed.”
`
`In Anascape, 601 F.3d at 1335, the Federal Circuit found that a later-filed patent was not
`
`entitled to assert priority to an earlier application. The specification in the originally-filed patent
`
`application stated that the invention was directed to a device that was “operable in six degrees of
`
`freedom.” Id. at 1336. The claims at issue in that lawsuit, however, appeared for the first time in
`
`a later-filed application which purported to cover devices that had fewer than six degrees of
`
`freedom (thereby making the newer claims broader than the original claims). The Federal
`
`Circuit found that these later-filed claims were not supported by the originally-filed application.
`
`Since this broke the patentee’s priority claim of the earlier filing date, the asserted patent was
`
`10
`
`
`
`A 5641
`
`PAGE 11 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:5244
`
`
`
`
`
`invalid in light of intervening prior art that had come about between the filing date of the original
`
`application for the first patent and the actual filing date of the later application. In a concurring
`
`opinion, Judge Gajarsa wrote separately to “highlight the majority’s best use of the written
`
`description requirement as a priority-policing mechanism…” Id. at 1341. This motion seeks to
`
`use the patent disclosure as a mechanism for policing priority as described by Judge Gajarsa.
`
`Anascape is an example of a well-established rule that a patentee may not expand the
`
`scope of its claim coverage, its patent rights, by deleting or changing an essential element which
`
`limits the scope of the invention, from a continuation patent. Gentry Gallery v. Berkline Corp.,
`
`134 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding written description did not support later-filed
`
`claims, noting “it is clear that [the inventor] considered the location of the recliner controls on
`
`the console to be an essential element of his invention. Accordingly, his original disclosure
`
`serves to limit the permissible breadth of his later-drafted claims”). In Gentry Gallery, the
`
`continuation patent claims did not require, as the original claims did, placement of the controls of
`
`a couch in a specific configuration and place. By removing the restrictions imposed by this
`
`specific configuration in the continuation patent application (on where the controls were placed
`
`on the couch), the patent owner sought to expand its patent coverage beyond the invention
`
`disclosed in the original application. Two of the 2010 Brumfield Patents explicitly employ this
`
`same improper tactic by omitting the word “static” from their claims (the ‘411 and ‘782 patents).
`
`In Ledergerber v. Gore, 736 F.Supp.2d 1172 (N.D. Ill. 2010), this Court held that a
`
`patent could not claim priority to an earlier application where there was no explicit written
`
`description in the earlier patent to support the later claims. “[A] patent cannot be presumed to
`
`support variants that are not described.” Ledergerber, 736 F.Supp.2d at 1180. In Ledergerber,
`
`the prosecution history showed that the plaintiffs had amended their specification to support their
`
`11
`
`
`
`A 5642
`
`PAGE 12 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:5245
`
`
`
`
`
`broadened claims. The “continuity of disclosure of the claimed invention” was broken, and the
`
`patentee was not entitled to any earlier priority date than the actual filing date of the application
`
`that led to the asserted patent. Here, the Federal Circuit has held that the original written
`
`description of the invention in the Original Brumfield Patents discloses only the narrower,
`
`“manual” invention. As the Federal Circuit stated, “allowing the price axis to automatically
`
`change positions would defy the invention’s goal to ‘ensure fast and accurate execution of
`
`trades.’” eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1354 (quoting the ’132 Patent).
`
`Regardless of whether TT is attempting to broaden its patent coverage by removing the
`
`manual re-centering and static price display wording from some of the claims of the 2010
`
`Brumfield Patents (as in the ’411 and ‘782), or claiming different inventions from those
`
`disclosed in the Original Brumfield Patents in all three 2010 Brumfield Patents, the law does not
`
`permit TT to have its later applications and their new claims measured against any date other
`
`than the actual filing dates of the applications from which these patents issued. Partial summary
`
`judgment that the 2010 Brumfield Patents are only entitled to their 2006 application dates for
`
`priority should be granted.
`
`ALTERNATIVE RELIEF UNDER RULE 56
`
`Rule 56(g) as amended effective December 1, 2010 provides:
`
`(g) FAILING TO GRANT ALL THE REQUESTED RELIEF. If
`the court does not grant all the relief requested by the motion, it may enter
`an order stating any material fact—including an item of damages or other
`relief—that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established
`in the case.
`
`Alternatively, if the Court does not grant partial summary judgment on the “effective
`
`filing date” (priority date) of the 2010 Brumfield Patents, then the TradeStation Defendants
`
`request that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g), the court enter an order stating those material matters of
`
`12
`
`
`
`A 5643
`
`PAGE 13 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:5246
`
`
`
`
`
`fact “not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established in the case”: Specifically, the
`
`fact that the Original Brumfield Patents only disclose a single invention that always requires
`
`manual action by the user to reset or re-center the price axis, such as the price axis for the inside
`
`market, and never permits automatic re-centering of such a price axis.
`
`The “elephant in the room” in this case is the Federal Circuit’s prior opinion, which is
`
`binding on TT, and which TT refuses to apply in this case as written by the Federal Circuit.
`
`Even a holding under Rule 56(g) to clarify the holding, scope, and collateral estoppel impact of
`
`the prior opinion would be of enormous help in dealing with this lawsuit.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the above-stated reasons, the Court should GRANT the TradeStation Defendants’
`
`motion and memorandum in support of partial summary judgment, or alternatively under Rule
`
`56(g) establish facts that cannot be contested, as set forth above.
`
`13
`
`
`
`A 5644
`
`PAGE 14 OF 15
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 181 Filed: 05/05/11 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:5247
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 5, 2011
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ George C. Summerfield
`David J. Healey
`healey@fr.com
`Anita E. Kadala
`kadala@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1221 McKinney, Suite 2800
`Houston, Texas 77010
`713-654-5300 – Telephone
`713-652-0109 – Facsimile
`
`Adam J. Kessel
`kessel@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`617-542-5070 – Telephone
`617-542-8906 – Facsimile
`
`George C. Summerfield
`(N.D. Ill. Bar No. 90784655)
`summerfield@stadheimgrear.com
`Steven R. Pedersen
`(N.D. Ill. Bar No. 478693)
`pedersen@stadheimgrear.com
`STADHEIM & GREAR LTD.
`Wrigley Tower
`400 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60611
`312-755-4400 – Telephone
`312-755-4408 – Facsimile
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`TradeStation Securities, Inc. and
`TradeStation Group, Inc.
`
`Certificate of Service
`
` I hereby certify that on May 5, 2011, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the
`Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via
`electronic mail to all counsel of record.
`
`
`/s/ George C. Summerfield
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`A 5645
`
`PAGE 15 OF 15