Page 1 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2030
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00032
`
`
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2030
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00032
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`E
`
`NATIO
`
`INDEP
`
`NT
`
`D DEPE
`
`NT CL
`
`on this Verdict Sheet you will find that independent claims are listed in boldface, and
`
`dependent 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 are infringed. Similarly, if you find than an independent claim is valid, you need
`
`not consider whether the dependent claims listed underneath it are valid.
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
` -- --..
`
`’'
`
`a"
`
`Case'1:04-cv-05312 Document1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page3of18
`
`I
`
`1:
`
`ING
`
`NT eS end
`
`I. For each ofthe Asserted Claims, did ‘I"I‘ prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that espeed directly infringed? (A “Yes” answer is a finding for TI‘ on the issue; a “No” answer
`
`is a finding for eSpeed on the issue.)
`
`«Axum
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes ___/__
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 20:
`Ciaim 23:
`Claim 24:
`Claim 25:
`Claim 27:
`
`Claim 28:
`
`Claim 50:
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`YES
`Yes
`Yes
`YES
`YES
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`g
`
`1/
`
`t/
`-/
`0/
`v/
`/‘
`
`/
`
`/
`
`cmm 14:
`
`Yes /
`
`Claim 15:
`Claim 40:
`Claim 45:
`Claim 47:
`Claim 43:
`
`claim 52:
`
`‘_3.Q4_h.t:n_t
`Claim 1:
`Claim 11:
`Claim 14:
`
`Claim I5:
`Claim26:
`
`YES /
`Yes
`,1-_
`Yes
`___I/_
`Yes /
`Yes
`I/
`
`Yes ___L
`
`Yrs ___/_
`YES
`0/
`Yes
`-/
`
`YES /
`YES T;
`
`N0
`
`No
`
`N0
`
`______
`
`No
`_ N0
`N0 __
`NO __
`NO
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`N0 __
`N0 ___,
`No ___,
`N0
`No
`
`NO #_
`
`_______
`_____
`
`NO
`N0
`NO
`
`NO
`NO
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`SPE
`
`L
`
`RDI T N0.
`
`' CO
`
`UT RY INFRINGEMENT eS e
`
`2. For each of the claims below, did TT pmve by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`espeed oontributorily infringed? (A “Yes” answer is a finding for T1‘ on the issue; a "No"
`
`answer is a finding for eSpeed on the issue.)
`
`’
`
`‘I32 hgt
`Claim 14:
`
`Claim 15;
`
`Claim 40:
`
`Claim 45:
`
`Claim 47:
`Claim 48:
`Claim 52:
`
`YES /
`
`was
`
`YES
`
`/'
`
`5/.
`
`YES /
`
`/__
`YES
`YES /
`YES /
`
`_____
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NO
`NO
`NO
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/1 0/2007
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`PE
`
`VERDI T N0. 3: INDU
`
`T0 INFRINGE (:5 ea
`
`3. For each ofthe 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; 8.
`
`“No” answer is a finding for espeed on the issue.)
`
`‘
`
`In
`
`Claim I:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 20:
`
`Claim 23:
`
`Claim 24:
`
`Claim 25:
`
`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
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`
`
`N\N\l\l\|\l\I\l\N\l\l\l\N\\\|\|\l\|\
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`
`
`HM!HIHIHIHHIHJ
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`§£EClAL VERDICT NO. 4: DIBEQT MERINGEMENT jgccog
`
`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.)
`
`'13; Pnteng
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`Claim 20:
`
`Claim 23:
`Claim 24:
`
`Claim 25:
`
`Claim 27:
`Claim 28:
`
`Claim 50:
`
`Claim 14:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`Claim 40:
`
`Claim 45:
`
`Claim 47:
`
`Claim 48:
`
`Claim 52:
`
`‘304 P5333
`Claim 1:
`Claim 1 1:
`
`Claim I4:
`Claim 15:
`Claim 26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`was
`YES
`
`K
`
`/'
`
`/'
`‘Z
`
`YES
`'/
`YES /
`
`YES
`
`0/
`
`YES /
`YES /
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`was
`
`-/
`
`'/‘
`
`/'
`
`YES /
`
`YES
`
`0/
`
`YES /
`
`YES /
`
`YES /
`
`YES /
`YES
`IX
`
`YES /
`YES /
`YES /
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`NO
`
`No
`
`N0"
`NO
`
`N0
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`NO
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NO _j__
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`NO
`N0
`
`NO
`NO
`NO
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
` --
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`[CT N . 5: CONT
`
`UTORY
`
`GE
`
`T
`
`co
`
`5. For each of the claims below, did TT prove by a preponderance ofthe evidence that
`
`Eeco contributorily infringed? (A “Yes" answer is a finding for TT on the issue; a “No" answer
`
`is a finding for Ecco on the issue.)
`
`:J.3Lm=91
`
`cm... 14:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`Claim 40:
`
`Claim 45:
`C1alIn4'7:
`
`Claim 43:
`Claim 52:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`____«C
`
`1
`
`4
`
`YES L
`YES 1/
`
`YES L
`YES _o(_
`
`no
`
`N0
`
`NO __
`
`_____
`
`No
`N0
`
`No
`‘N0 __
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`.6: IND
`
`E
`
`T0 INF
`
`E
`
`6. For each of the Asserted Claims, did "IT prove by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that Ecco induced infi-ingement by others? (A “Yes” answer is a finding for IT on the issue; a
`
`“No” answer is a finding for Eoco on the issue.)
`
`‘I32 Patent
`
`Clllm I:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 20:
`
`Claim 23:
`
`Claim 24:
`
`Claim 25:
`
`Claim 27:
`
`Claim 28:
`
`Claim 50:
`
`Chlm 14:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`Claim 40:
`
`Claim 45:
`
`Claim 47:
`
`Claim 48:
`
`Claim 52:
`
`‘304 Patent
`
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 11:
`
`Claim I4:
`
`Claim 15:
`
`Claim 26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`NC
`
`
`
`HillHHHIIIIHIIHI
`
`L l
`
`
`
`
`
`\N\l\l\l\l\l\N\l\l\l\l\l\1\l\l\l\I\|\ix
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 9 of 18 -
`
`SP
`
`VERD T NO :
`
`LLFUL
`
`[or eSng_e_d:
`
`If you found direct infringement, contributory infringement or inducing infringement by
`
`espeed, did TT prove by clear and convincing evidence that such infiingement was willful? (A
`
`“Yes” answer is a finding for T1‘ on the issue; a “No” answer is a finding for especd on the
`
`issue.)
`
`YES /
`
`NO
`
`or Ecco:
`
`If you foimd direct infringement, contributory infringement or inducing infringement by
`
`Ecco, 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 Bcco on the issue.)
`was /'
`NO
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`i
`
`Did espeed/Eeco prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Asserted Claims of
`
`S E
`
`RDICI‘ 0.
`
`' PR]
`
`TY DATE
`
`the ‘I32 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/Eoco on the issue; a “No” answer is a finding for TT on the issue.)
`YES
`NO
`5/
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`SPE
`
`VERDICT N0. 9: RIOR A T
`
`A. Regardless of your response to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date is
`
`March 2, 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 cspeed/Ecco on
`
`the issue; a ‘ 0" answer is a finding for TT on the issue.)
`
`Tradepad 4.31
`
`YES __ NO _/
`
`Midas Kapiti
`TIFFE
`
`was __ N0 __/
`YES __ N0 _/
`
`"rs:-:
`
`YES _ N0 _[
`
`B. Regardless ofyour 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 __ NO I
`
`Midas Kapiti
`TIFFE
`TSE
`
`YES
`NO :1
`YES __ NOI
`YES__ NO _[
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`..-
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`EC] L VERDI TNO. 10: AN
`
`ATION - 1
`
`L
`
`Regardless ofyour mesponse to Special VerdictNo. 8, assuming the priority date is Much
`
`2, 2000, did espeed/Bcco 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/E660 on the issue; a “No” answer is a finding for TT on the issue.)
`
`‘I
`Pate
`Claim 1:
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 20:
`Claim 23:
`
`Claim 24:
`
`Claim 25:
`Claim 27:
`Claim 28:
`Claim 50:
`
`YES
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`
`Claim 14:
`
`YES _....__
`
`Claim 15:
`
`Claim 40:
`Claim 45:
`Cluim 47:
`Claim 48:
`Claim 52:
`
`395$!!!
`
`Claim 1:
`Claim1I:
`
`Claim I4:
`Claim 15:
`Claim 26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`
`YES
`YES
`
`YES
`YES
`was
`
`_____'
`
`l2
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`N0 /
`NO /
`
`N0
`
`NO
`NO
`
`NO
`
`4
`
`i
`/.
`
`/‘
`
`E
`NO
`/‘
`NO
`NO /
`No /
`
`N0
`
`NO
`
`g
`
`1/’
`
`NO
`if
`NO /
`N0
`;
`NO /
`NO
`/'
`
`NO
`NO
`
`1/
`E
`
`NO
`;
`NO
`No _L
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1 :04‘-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`ECIAL VERDI
`
`NO.
`
`l:A
`
`N-
`
`Regardless of your response to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date is June
`
`9, 2000, did eSpced/Bcco 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
`
`espced/Bcco on the issue; a “No” answer is a finding for TI‘ on the issue.)
`
`3.11291!!!
`Claim 1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 20:
`Claim 23:
`
`Claim 24:
`
`Claim 25:
`Claim 27:
`Claim 28:
`
`Claim 50:
`Cum: I4:
`Claim 15:
`Claim 40:
`Claim 45:
`Claim 47:
`
`Claim 48:
`Claim 52:
`
`zmhmn
`
`Claim 1 1:
`
`Claim I:
`Claim I4:
`ctaim 15:
`Claim 26:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`YES
`
`YES
`
`was __
`YES
`YES
`
`________
`
`YES
`YES
`YES
`____________
`YES
`YES _j__
`YES
`
`YES __
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES _?
`YES
`was __
`YES j_
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`NO /
`
`NO
`
`No
`
`/'
`
`___A_
`
`/
`NO
`NO /
`
`NO
`
`NO
`(5
`NO _14
`NO
`/'
`
`NO 44
`NO
`___4{_
`NO
`/1
`NO 7
`NO /
`NO /
`
`1/
`
`NO
`NO
`
`NO
`
`fi
`N0
`NO /
`N0
`;
`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 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.
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`'
`
`Case 1:04-cv-D5312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`§EEClAL VERDICT N0. 12', OBVIOUSNESS -1
`
`Regardless of your response to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date is March 2,
`
`2000, did cSpeed/Ecco prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subject matter 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 an of that patent? (A “Yes” answer is a finding for espeed/Ecco on the
`
`issue; a "No" answer is a finding for TT.)
`
`‘I31 Paten_t_
`
`Chill 1:
`
`Claim 2:
`
`Claim 7:
`
`Claim 20:
`
`Claim 23:
`
`Claim 24:
`
`Claim 25:
`Claim 27:
`Claim 28:
`Claim 50:
`Clnlm l4:
`
`Claim I5:
`Claim 40:
`claim 45:
`Claim 47:
`
`Claim 48:
`Claim 52:
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`YES
`
`_
`
`YES
`YES j_
`YES
`YES
`YES
`
`YES ____
`YES _j__
`YES
`______
`YES
`
`YES j_.
`YES ____
`
`i3.M.El.kM
`Claim 1:
`
`YES
`
`Claim 11:
`Claim 14:
`Clalm 15:
`Claim 26:
`
`YES
`YES __
`YES
`YES _j
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`NO
`
`No
`
`NO
`
`1/
`
`Z
`
`g
`
`4
`
`L
`
`zf
`
`NO
`Z
`N0 /
`NO /
`N0 4-
`NO
`/1
`
`NO
`Z
`‘N0 /
`NO
`-/
`NO /
`
`No
`NO
`
`Z
`’/
`
`NO /
`
`,
`
`:
`NO
`NO
`;
`NO
`NO /
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`SPECIAL VERDI NO. 1 :0BVI USNESS -2
`
`Regardless of your response to Special Verdict No. 8, assuming the priority date is June 9,
`
`2000, did eSpeed/Ecco prove by clear and oonvinoing evidence that the subject matter of any of the
`
`following claims would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of that patent
`
`at the time the claimed invention was made? (A “Yes” answer is a finding for espeed/Eoco on the
`
`issue; a “No” answer is a finding for TI‘ on the issue.)
`
`.‘J§Z..EI3£Il!
`
`Claim 1:
`Claim 2:
`Claim 7:
`Claim 20:
`Claim 23:
`Claim 24:
`Claim 25:
`Claim 27:
`Claim 28:
`Claim 50:
`Claim 14:
`Claim15:
`
`Claim 40:
`Claim 45:
`Claim 47:
`Claim 48:
`Claim 52:
`
`YES
`YES j_
`YES T
`YES
`YES :_
`YES
`_____i
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`YES
`
`_______
`
`YES T
`YES
`YES __
`YES
`YES j_
`
`‘:04 Patent
`
`Claim I:
`Claim ll:
`Claim l4:
`Claim 15:
`Claim 26:
`
`YES __j
`YES j__
`YES
`________
`YES __
`YES
`____________
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`NO /
`N0
`;
`NO
`_______0{__
`NO 1
`N0 /
`NO
`;
`NO A
`NO L
`NO L
`N0 4
`NO L
`N0 _§
`
`N0 T
`NO /
`N0 7
`NO 7
`NO Z
`
`N0 /
`NO Z
`NO
`1/
`NO 7
`NO Z
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:04-cv-05312 Document 1061
`
`Filed 10/10/2007
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`L
`
`4° MAGE
`
`If you found that eSpeed infringed any valid claim of the ‘304 or ‘I32 patent, what
`
`amount do you award as damages to compensate TT for the infringement by espeed?
`
`s
`
`/. .5’-mg/dz
`
`If you found that Ecco 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?
`
`$ 2. 0 /Iafrgzsrz
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 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
