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. Kendall
`
`Case No. 10 C 721
`
`Judge Virginia M. Kendall
`Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BGC PARTNERS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBG LLC AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY
`DEMAND AGAINST IBG LLC AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Trading Technologies”), for its Second
`
`
`
`
`Amended Complaint against Defendants IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC, (collectively
`
`“IBG”), states as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0001
`
`IBG 1003
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`

`

`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of
`
`business at 222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant IBG LLC is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business at
`
`One Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 USA.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Interactive Brokers LLC is a Connecticut Corporation with a principal
`
`place of business at One Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 USA.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants IBG have a corporate headquarters at One Pickwick Plaza, Greenwich,
`
`Connecticut 06830 USA.
`
`5.
`
`IBG Holdings LLC has a ninety percent voting interest in Interactive Brokers Group,
`
`Inc. See Exhibit A. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. has a ten percent economic interest in IBG
`
`LLC. See id. In turn, IBG LLC is a direct holding company for Interactive Brokers LLC. Id.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the acts of Congress relating
`
`to patents, namely the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court thereby
`
`has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`Defendants IBG regularly conduct business in this district. Defendants’ trading
`
`software, including at a minimum the Trader Workstation product, including specifically the
`
`BookTrader module (“the IB software”), that provides access to exchanges in this district, including
`
`the Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”), the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”), the Chicago
`
`Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”), and OneChicago The Single Stock Futures Exchange.
`
`Therefore, this Court has general jurisdiction over Defendants IBG.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`0002
`
`

`

`8.
`
`Defendants IBG have committed and continue to commit acts of patent infringement
`
`in this district through the manufacturing, sale, offer for sale, and/or use of the IB software, see,
`
`e.g., Exhibit B (excerpts from Trader WorkStation manual). Therefore, this Court has specific
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants IBG.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants IBG maintain an office in this district at 209 South LaSalle Street, 10th
`
`Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and, as such, they are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
`
` Therefore, this District is a proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
`
`COUNT I:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,766,304
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-9 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 (“the '304
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`patent”), titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth,” which was duly
`
`and legally issued on July 20, 2004. A true and correct copy of the '304 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking and notice
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, with respect to the '304 patent.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the '304 patent nor
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the '304 patent.
`
`14. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum the Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the
`
`BookTrader module. The system, according to instructions and tutorials on the Defendants’ websites,
`
`allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading software upon installation of the software.
`
`15. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the '304
`
`patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products, including at a minimum the Trader
`
`
`
` 3
`
`0003
`
`

`

`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module, covered by claims of the '304
`
`patent without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Infringement is direct, as well as contributory, and by actively inducing infringement by others.
`
`16. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about the IB software and uses of the product, including
`
`infringing uses of Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module. See,
`
`e.g., Exs. A, B. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum,
`
`maintenance of the websites www.interactivebrokers.com and distribution of manuals, release notes
`
`and video tutorials. See, e. g., Exs. A, B. Defendants engaged in these acts with the intent to cause
`
`the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringements.
`
`17. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the '304 patent.
`
`18. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the '304 patent as of August, 2004,
`
`when TT added the '304 patent to the list of markings that appear on the opening screen of TT’s
`
`X_Trader product. Ex. D.
`
`19. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`'304 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 3, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`the IB software and its BookTrader module with knowledge of the '304 patent. In addition,
`
`Defendants have continued to promote, advertise and instruct customers and potential customers
`
`about its IB software and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the BookTrader module
`
`with knowledge of the '304 patent. See, e.g. Exs. A, B.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`0004
`
`

`

`20.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '304 patent since at least about August
`
`2010 when TT provided them with a licensing term sheet that specifically disclosed and offered for
`
`license the '304 patent.
`
`21.
`
`In addition, Defendants had or should have had knowledge of the '304 patent based
`
`on settlements and consent judgments entered in related cases, specifically Trading Technologies
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Cunningham Trading Systems, LLC, Civil Case No. 10-C-726 and Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. TradeHelm, Inc., Civil Case No. 10-C- 931. These cases were the subject
`
`of consolidation with this case, and many of the defendants fought consolidation or reassignment
`
`based on the different patents asserted in the different cases.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '304 patent based on meetings
`
`regarding settlement held between representatives of TT and Defendants shortly after the suits were
`
`originally filed in February 2010 at which TT discussed licenses of its portfolio.
`
`23.
`
`In addition, Defendants have had actual notice of the ‘304 patent since 2004 due to
`
`the substantial press attention in the industry given to the cases TT filed against eSpeed and Ecco,
`
`and subsequent cases filed in 2005 against GL/SunGard, CQG, RCG and FuturePath, as well as
`
`settlements in approximately 17 additional cases, including cases against industry giants REFCO
`
`and Man Financial.
`
`24. Defendants knew or should have known that Trader Workstation Product, including
`
`specifically the BookTrader module is especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the '304 patent and that there is no substantially noninfringing use of the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module.
`
`25. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`
` 5
`
`0005
`
`

`

`26. Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active inducement of and
`
`contributory infringement of the '304 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c).
`
`27. Defendants’ infringement of the '304 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`COUNT II:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,772,132
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-27 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the '132
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`patent”), titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth,” which was duly
`
`and legally issued on August 3, 2004. A true and correct copy of the '132 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`E.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking and notice
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, with respect to the '132 patent.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the '132 patent nor
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the '132 patent.
`
`32. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum the Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the
`
`BookTrader module. The system, according to instructions and tutorials on the Defendants’ websites,
`
`allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading software upon installation of the software.
`
`33. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the '132
`
`patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products, including at a minimum the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module, covered by claims of the '132
`
`patent without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`
`
` 6
`
`0006
`
`

`

`Infringement is direct, as well as contributory, and by actively inducing infringement by others.
`
`34. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about the IB software and uses of the product, including
`
`infringing uses of Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module. See,
`
`e.g., Exs. A, B. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum,
`
`maintenance of the websites www.interactivebrokers.com and distribution of manuals, release notes
`
`and video tutorials. See, e. g., Exs. A, B. Defendants engaged in these acts with the intent to cause
`
`the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringements.
`
`35. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the '132 patent.
`
`36. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the '132 patent as of August, 2004,
`
`when TT added the '132 patent to the list of markings that appear on the opening screen of TT’s
`
`X_Trader product. Ex. F.
`
`37. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`'132 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 3, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`the IB software and its BookTrader module with knowledge of the '132 patent. In addition,
`
`Defendants have continued to promote, advertise and instruct customers and potential customers
`
`about its IB software and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the BookTrader module
`
`with knowledge of the '132 patent. See, e.g. Exs. A, B.
`
`38.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '132 patent since at least about August
`
`2010 when TT provided them with a licensing term sheet that specifically disclosed and offered for
`
`license the '132 patent.
`
`
` 7
`
`0007
`
`

`

`39.
`
`In addition, Defendants had or should have had knowledge of the '132 patent based
`
`on settlements and consent judgments entered in related cases, specifically Trading Technologies
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Cunningham Trading Systems, LLC, Civil Case No. 10-C-726 and Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. TradeHelm, Inc., Civil Case No. 10-C- 931. These cases were the subject
`
`of consolidation with this case, and many of the defendants fought consolidation or reassignment
`
`based on the different patents asserted in the different cases.
`
`40.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '132 patent based on meetings
`
`regarding settlement held between representatives of TT and Defendants shortly after the suits were
`
`originally filed in February 2010 at which TT discussed licenses of its portfolio.
`
`41.
`
`In addition, Defendants have had actual notice of the ‘132 patent since 2004 due to
`
`the substantial press attention in the industry given to the cases TT filed against eSpeed and Ecco,
`
`and subsequent cases filed in 2005 against GL/SunGard, CQG, RCG and FuturePath, as well as
`
`settlements in approximately 17 additional cases, including cases against industry giants REFCO
`
`and Man Financial.
`
`42. Defendants knew or should have known that Trader Workstation Product, including
`
`specifically the BookTrader module is especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the '132 patent and that there is no substantially noninfringing use of the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module.
`
`43. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`44. Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active inducement of and
`
`contributory infringement of the '132 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c).
`
`45. Defendants’ infringement of the '132 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
` 8
`
`
`
`0008
`
`

`

`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`COUNT III:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,212,999
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-45 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 (“the '999
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`patent”), titled “User Interface for an Electronic Trading System,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`May 1, 2007. A true and correct copy of the '999 patent is attached as Exhibit G.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking and notice
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, with respect to the '999 patent.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the '999 patent nor
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the '999 patent.
`
`50. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum the Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the
`
`BookTrader module. The system, according to instructions and tutorials on the Defendants’ websites,
`
`allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading software upon installation of the software.
`
`51. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the '999
`
`patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products, including at a minimum the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module, covered by claims of the '999
`
`patent without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Infringement is direct, as well as contributory, and by actively inducing infringement by others.
`
`52. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about the IB software and uses of the product, including
`
`infringing uses of Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module. See,
`
`
`
` 9
`
`0009
`
`

`

`e.g., Exs. A, B. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum,
`
`maintenance of the websites www.interactivebrokers.com and distribution of manuals, release notes
`
`and video tutorials. See, e. g., Exs. A, B. Defendants engaged in these acts with the intent to cause
`
`the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringements.
`
`53. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the '999 patent.
`
`54. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the '999 patent as of November 15,
`
`2007, when TT added the '999 patent to the list of markings that appear on the opening screen of
`
`TT’s X_Trader product. Ex. H.
`
`55. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`'999 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 3, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`the IB software and its BookTrader module with knowledge of the '999 patent. In addition,
`
`Defendants have continued to promote, advertise and instruct customers and potential customers
`
`about its IB software and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the BookTrader module
`
`with knowledge of the '999 patent. See, e.g. Exs. A, B.
`
`56.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '999 patent since at least about August
`
`2010 when TT provided them with a licensing term sheet that specifically disclosed and offered for
`
`license the '999 patent.
`
`57.
`
`In addition, Defendants had or should have had knowledge of the '999 patent based
`
`on settlements and consent judgments entered in related cases, specifically Trading Technologies
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Cunningham Trading Systems, LLC, Civil Case No. 10-C-726 and Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. TradeHelm, Inc., Civil Case No. 10-C- 931. These cases were the subject
`
` 10
`
`0010
`
`

`

`of consolidation with this case, and many of the defendants fought consolidation or reassignment
`
`based on the different patents asserted in the different cases.
`
`58.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '999 patent based on meetings
`
`regarding settlement held between representatives of TT and Defendants shortly after the suits were
`
`originally filed in February 2010 at which TT discussed licenses of its portfolio.
`
`59. Defendants knew or should have known that Trader Workstation Product, including
`
`specifically the BookTrader module is especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the '999 patent and that there is no substantially noninfringing use of the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module .
`
`60. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`61. Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active inducement of and
`
`contributory infringement of the '999 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c).
`
`62. Defendants’ infringement of the '999 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`COUNT IV:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,412,416
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-62 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,416 (“the '416
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`patent”), titled “User Interface for an Electronic Trading System,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`August 12, 2008. A true and correct copy of the '416 patent is attached as Exhibit I.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking and notice
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, with respect to the '416 patent.
`
`
`
` 11
`
`0011
`
`

`

`66.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the '416 patent nor
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the '416 patent.
`
`67. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum the Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the
`
`BookTrader module. The system, according to instructions and tutorials on the Defendants’ websites,
`
`allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading software upon installation of the software.
`
`68. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the '416
`
`patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products, including at a minimum the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module, covered by claims of the '416
`
`patent without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Infringement is direct, as well as contributory, and by actively inducing infringement by others.
`
`69. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about the IB software and uses of the product, including
`
`infringing uses of Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module. See,
`
`e.g., Exs. A, B. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum,
`
`maintenance of the websites www.interactivebrokers.com and distribution of manuals, release notes
`
`and video tutorials. See, e. g., Exs. A, B. Defendants engaged in these acts with the intent to cause
`
`the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringements.
`
`70. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the '416 patent.
`
`71. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`'416 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 3, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
` 12
`
`0012
`
`

`

`the IB software and its BookTrader module with knowledge of the '416 patent. In addition,
`
`Defendants have continued to promote, advertise and instruct customers and potential customers
`
`about its IB software and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the BookTrader module
`
`with knowledge of the '416 patent. See, e.g. Exs. A, B.
`
`72.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '416 patent since at least about August
`
`2010 when TT provided them with a licensing term sheet that specifically disclosed and offered for
`
`license the '416 patent.
`
`73.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '416 patent based on meetings
`
`regarding settlement held between representatives of TT and Defendants shortly after the suits were
`
`originally filed in February 2010 at which TT discussed licenses of its portfolio.
`
`74.
`
`In addition, Defendants had or should have had knowledge of the ‘416 patent based
`
`on settlements and consent judgments entered in related cases, specifically Trading Technologies
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Cunningham Trading Systems, LLC, Civil Case No. 10-C-726 and/or Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. TradeHelm, Inc., Civil Case No. 10-C- 931. These cases were the subject
`
`of consolidation with this case, and many of the defendants fought consolidation or reassignment
`
`based on the different patents asserted in the different cases.
`
`75. Defendants knew or should have known that Trader Workstation Product, including
`
`specifically the BookTrader module is especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the '416 patent and that there is no substantially noninfringing use of the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module.
`
`76. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`77. Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active inducement of and
` 13
`
`
`
`0013
`
`

`

`contributory infringement of the '416 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c).
`
`78. Defendants’ infringement of the '416 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`COUNT V:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,533,056
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-78 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 (“the '056
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`patent”), titled “User Interface for an Electronic Trading System,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`May 12, 2009. A true and correct copy of the '056 patent is attached as Exhibit J.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking and notice
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, with respect to the '056 patent.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the '056 patent nor
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the '056 patent.
`
`83. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum the Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the
`
`BookTrader module. The system, according to instructions and tutorials on the Defendants’ websites,
`
`allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading software upon installation of the software.
`
`84. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the '056
`
`patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products, including at a minimum the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module, covered by claims of the '056
`
`patent without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Infringement is direct, as well as contributory, and by actively inducing infringement by others.
`
`85. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`
`
` 14
`
`0014
`
`

`

`customers and potential customers about the IB software and uses of the product, including
`
`infringing uses of Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module. See,
`
`e.g., Exs. A, B. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum,
`
`maintenance of the websites www.interactivebrokers.com and distribution of manuals, release notes
`
`and video tutorials. See, e. g., Exs. A, B. Defendants engaged in these acts with the intent to cause
`
`the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringements.
`
`86. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the '056 patent.
`
`87. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the '056 patent as of June 2, 2009,
`
`when TT added the '056 patent to the list of markings that appear on the opening screen of TT’s
`
`X_Trader product. Ex. K.
`
`88. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`'056 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 3, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`the IB software and its BookTrader module with knowledge of the '056 patent. In addition,
`
`Defendants have continued to promote, advertise and instruct customers and potential customers
`
`about its IB software and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the BookTrader module
`
`with knowledge of the '056 patent. See, e.g. Exs. A, B.
`
`89.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '056 patent since at least about August
`
`2010 when TT provided them with a licensing term sheet that specifically disclosed and offered for
`
`license the '056 patent.
`
`90.
`
`In addition, Defendants had or should have had knowledge of the '056 patent based
`
`on settlements and consent judgments entered in related cases, specifically Trading Technologies
`
` 15
`
`0015
`
`

`

`Int’l, Inc. v. Cunningham Trading Systems, LLC, Civil Case No. 10-C-726 and Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. TradeHelm, Inc., Civil Case No. 10-C- 931. These cases were the subject
`
`of consolidation with this case, and many of the defendants fought consolidation or reassignment
`
`based on the different patents asserted in the different cases.
`
`91.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the '056 patent based on meetings
`
`regarding settlement held between representatives of TT and Defendants shortly after the suits were
`
`originally filed in February 2010 at which TT discussed licenses of its portfolio.
`
`92. Defendants knew or should have known that Trader Workstation Product, including
`
`specifically the BookTrader module is especially made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the '056 patent and that there is no substantially noninfringing use of the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module.
`
`93. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`94. Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active inducement of and
`
`contributory infringement of the '056 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c).
`
`95. Defendants’ infringement of the '056 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`COUNT VI:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,676,411
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-95 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 (“the '411
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`patent”), titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth,” which was duly
`
`and legally issued on March 9, 2010. A true and correct copy of the '411 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`
`
` 16
`
`0016
`
`

`

`L.
`
`98.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking and notice
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, with respect to the '411 patent.
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the '411 patent nor
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the '411 patent.
`
`100. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum the Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the
`
`BookTrader module. The system, according to instructions and tutorials on the Defendants’ websites,
`
`allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading software upon installation of the software.
`
`101. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the '411
`
`patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products, including at a minimum the Trader
`
`Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module, covered by claims of the '411
`
`patent without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Infringement is direct, as well as contributory, and by actively inducing infringement by others.
`
`102. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about the IB software and uses of the product, including
`
`infringing uses of Trader Workstation Product, including specifically the BookTrader module. See,
`
`e.g., Exs. A, B. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum,
`
`maintenance of the websites www.interactivebrokers.com and distribution of manuals, release notes
`
`and video tutorials. See, e. g., Exs. A, B. Defendants engaged in these acts with the intent to cause
`
`the acts which they knew or should have known would induce actual infringements.
`
`103. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the '411 patent.
`
`
` 17
`
`0017
`
`

`

`104. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the '411 patent as of March 24, 201