ATTACHMENT L
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2018
`TRADESTATION v TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00161
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 617 Filed: 07/24/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:26661
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 10 c 715
`Judge Virginia M. Kendall
`
`Trading Technologies
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`v.
`
`BGC Partners, Inc.
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`ORDER
`
`The Court grants TT’s motion to lift the stay in this case (Dkt. No. 604) and declines to impose a
`new stay at this time. The parties must submit proposed discovery and case management
`schedules by August 31, 2015.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`In 2010, Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) filed multiple cases in this
`District alleging infringement of a number of patents regarding electronic commodity trading
`software against a litany of defendants. On March 25, 2015, the Court stayed the consolidated
`cases because the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) instituted reexamination
`of some of the patents in suit pursuant to the PTO’s transitional program for covered business
`method patent review (“CBM review”) due to Defendant TD Ameritrade’s request. TT
`immediately appealed the Court’s stay under Section 18(b)(2) of the America Invents Act
`(“AIA”). While both the CBM review and appeal were progressing, TT and TD Ameritrade
`settled. Pursuant to the settlement, the PTO terminated its CBM review. Because CBM review of
`the patents in suit is no longer ongoing, TT moves the Court to lift the stay in the consolidated
`cases.1 For the following reasons, the Court lifts the current stay instituted pursuant to the AIA
`because the basis for the stay no longer exists. The Court further declines to institute a new stay
`under its inherent authority to do so.
`
`A.
`
`The Court Lifts the Current Stay
`
`TT has moved the Court to lift the stay originally imposed pursuant to the AIA. The Court grants
`this motion both because the Defendants agree that “the statutory basis under which this Court
`had the authority to grant the March 25, 2015 stay under the AIA . . . no longer exists” and
`because there is no pending CBM review of any patent in the litigation. See Dkt. No. 613 at 3;
`see also Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372, 1375-78 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) (courts of appeal lack jurisdiction under the AIA to consider appeals of a court’s
`denial of a motion to stay pending CBM review when there is no CBM review instituted).
`
`1 Although titled as an “Emergency Motion for Order Confirming that Stay is Lifted,” the motion essentially seeks a
`lift of the current stay and the Court construes it as such. See Dkt. No. 612, 7/16/2015 Transcript at 13.
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 617 Filed: 07/24/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:26662
`
`Because the law requires the institution of CBM review to warrant a stay under the AIA and
`there is no current CBM review of the patents here, the force behind the Court’s original stay is
`gone and the Court correspondingly lifts the stay. This decision is bolstered by the fact that the
`Defendants agree that the Court should terminate the current stay.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Declines to Impose a New Stay
`
`While recognizing that the basis for the stay under the AIA no longer exists, the Defendants
`simultaneously ask the Court to enter a new stay of the proceedings under its inherent power to
`do so. The Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control
`its own docket.” See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. Power
`Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 1995). In deciding whether to stay an action, courts
`tend to consider: “(i) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-
`moving party, (ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial, and
`(iii) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.” See, e.g.,
`Select Retrieval, LLC v. ABT Elecs., No. 11 C 03752, 2013 WL 6576861, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec.
`13, 2013); Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1007 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
`
`The Court declines to exercise its discretion and does not impose a new stay pursuant to its
`power to manage its docket. Although “the federal trial courts have a duty to prevent duplicative
`litigation,” Select Retrieval, 2013 WL 6576861, at *3, the Court is not presented with that
`situation here. There are no other proceedings between the parties at the moment. The PTO is not
`conducting CBM review on any of the patents in suit. In fact, the Defendants have not even
`sought CBM review of a majority of the patents at this point. See Dkt. No. 613 at 7 (the
`Defendants “plan to request that the PTAB decide the validity of TT’s patents . . . in the next
`several weeks.”). Moreover, the PTO denied Defendant CQG’s petition for CBM review of two
`of the challenged patents.2 There is a fundamental difference between seeking reexamination and
`reexamination itself: only the latter presents a concern of duplicative efforts. Because that
`concern is not present currently, the Court is not compelled to stay the consolidated cases.
`
`Considering the totality of factors that weigh on the ultimate judicial goals of promoting
`efficiency and minimizing prejudice, the Court concludes that a stay under its inherent discretion
`is inappropriate at this juncture. All of the Defendants’ arguments regarding simplifying the
`issues and reducing the burden of litigation on both the parties and the Court rely on the PTO
`canceling claims and narrowing issues in the patents in the future. As of now, however, the PTO
`is not reviewing any of the patents in this suit and unless it does, the Defendants’ arguments are
`too speculative to warrant a stay. While initiating a new stay pending further action by the
`Defendants or the PTO would not necessarily unduly prejudice TT or provide the Defendants
`with a tactical advantage outside of further delaying discovery, the Defendants have simply not
`met their burden of showing that a stay is warranted at this point.
`
`
`2 The PTO denied the institution of CBM review for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304 and 6,772,132 on July 10, 2015.
`The fact that CQG may ask the PTO to reconsider its decision does not alter the Court’s analysis.
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`

`
`Case: 1:10-cv-00715 Document #: 617 Filed: 07/24/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:26663
`
`Date: 7/24/2015
`
`Virginia M. Kendall
`United States District Judge
`
`Page 4 of 4