`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 884
`
`Judge Virginia M. Kendall
`Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`
`)
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`BGC PARTNERS, INC.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`)
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`)
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., AND
`)
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`___________________________________________)
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY DEMAND AGAINST
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., AND TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Trading Technologies”), for its second
`
`amended complaint against Defendants TradeStation Securities, Inc. and TradeStation Group, Inc.
`
`(collectively “TradeStation”), states as follows:
`
`0001
`
`IBG 1004
`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 TradeStation Securities, Inc. is a Florida Corporation with its corporate
`
`headquarters at 8050 Southwest 10th Street, Suite 2000, Plantation, Florida 33324.
`
`3.
`
` Defendant TradeStation Group, Inc. is a Florida Corporation with its corporate
`
`headquarters at 8050 Southwest 10th Street, Suite 4000, Plantation, Florida 33324.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`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).
`
`5.
`
`Defendants TradeStation regularly conduct business in this district. Defendants’
`
`trading software provides access to exchanges in this district, including the Chicago Board of Trade
`
`(“CBOT”). Defendants TradeStation have formed and continue to be a part of business partnerships
`
`with entities in this district, including licensing its software and intellectual property to the CBOT
`
`and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Defendants TradeStation actively market, demonstrate,
`
`license and sell their trading software in this district. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction
`
`generally over Defendants TradeStation.
`
`6.
`
` Defendants TradeStation have committed and continue to commit acts of patent
`
`infringement in this district. Therefore, this Court has specific jurisdiction over Defendants
`
`TradeStation.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`0002
`
`
`
`7.
`
` Defendants TradeStation maintain several offices in this district at (1) 111 North
`
`Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606-7218, (2) 350 West Cermak Road, Chicago, IL 60616, and (3)
`
`233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606-6306, 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).
`
`
`
` 3
`
`0003
`
`
`
`COUNT I:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,766,304
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-7 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 (“the ‘304
`
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`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
`
`B.
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the ‘304 patent or
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the ‘304 patent.
`
`12. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum TradeStation’s MATRIX window. The system, according
`
`to instructions on the Defendants’ websites, allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading
`
`software upon installation of the software.
`
`13. 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
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window, 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.
`
`14. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product,
`
`including infringing uses of the MATRIX window. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants’ promotion,
`
`
`
` 4
`
`0004
`
`
`
`advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the websites
`
`www.tradestation.com and distribution of manuals, and release notes. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants
`
`engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known
`
`would induce actual infringements.
`
`15. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the ‘304 patent.
`
`16. 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. C.
`
`17. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`‘304 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 9, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘304 patent. In addition, Defendants have
`
`continued
`
`to promote, advertise and
`
`instruct customers and potential customers about
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the
`
`MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘304 patent. See, e.g. Ex. A.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`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/or Trading
`
`
`
` 5
`
`0005
`
`
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`22. Defendants knew or should have known that the MATRIX window 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 MATRIX window.
`
`23. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`24. 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).
`
`25. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘304 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`
`
` 6
`
`0006
`
`
`
`COUNT II:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,772,132
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-25 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the ‘132
`
`
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`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
`
`D.
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the ‘132 patent or
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the ‘132 patent.
`
`30. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum TradeStation’s MATRIX window. The system, according
`
`to instructions on the Defendants’ websites, allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading
`
`software upon installation of the software.
`
`31. 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
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window, covered by claims of the ‘132 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.
`
`32. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product,
`
`including infringing uses of the MATRIX window. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants’ promotion,
`
`
`
` 7
`
`0007
`
`
`
`advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the websites
`
`www.tradestation.com and distribution of manuals, and release notes. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants
`
`engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known
`
`would induce actual infringements.
`
`33. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the ‘132 patent.
`
`34. 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. C.
`
`35. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`‘132 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 9, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘132 patent. In addition, Defendants have
`
`continued
`
`to promote, advertise and
`
`instruct customers and potential customers about
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the
`
`MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘132 patent. See, e.g. Ex. A.
`
`36.
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
`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/or Trading
`
`
`
` 8
`
`0008
`
`
`
`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.
`
`38.
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40. Defendants knew or should have known that the MATRIX window 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 MATRIX window.
`
`41. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`42. 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).
`
`43. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘132 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`
`
` 9
`
`0009
`
`
`
`COUNT III:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,212,999
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-43 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999 (“the ‘999
`
`
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`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 E.
`
`46.
`
`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.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the ‘999 patent or
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the ‘999 patent.
`
`48. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum TradeStation’s MATRIX window. The system, according
`
`to instructions on the Defendants’ websites, allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading
`
`software upon installation of the software.
`
`49. 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
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window, 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.
`
`50. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product,
`
`including infringing uses of the MATRIX window. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants’ promotion,
`
`advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the websites
`
`
`
` 10
`
`0010
`
`
`
`www.tradestation.com and distribution of manuals, and release notes. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants
`
`engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known
`
`would induce actual infringements.
`
`51. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the ‘999 patent.
`
`52. 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. F.
`
`53. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`‘999 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 9, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘999 patent. In addition, Defendants have
`
`continued
`
`to promote, advertise and
`
`instruct customers and potential customers about
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the
`
`MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘999 patent. See, e.g. Ex. A.
`
`54.
`
`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.
`
`55.
`
`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/or Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. TradeHelm, Inc., Civil Case No. 10-C- 931. These cases were the subject
`
`
`
` 11
`
`0011
`
`
`
`of consolidation with this case, and many of the defendants fought consolidation or reassignment
`
`based on the different patents asserted in the different cases.
`
`56.
`
`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.
`
`57. Defendants knew or should have known that the MATRIX window 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 MATRIX window.
`
`58. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`59. 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).
`
`60. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘999 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`
`
` 12
`
`0012
`
`
`
`COUNT IV:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,533,056
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-60 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056 (“the ‘056
`
`
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`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 G.
`
`63.
`
`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.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the ‘056 patent or
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the ‘056 patent.
`
`65. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum TradeStation’s MATRIX window. The system, according
`
`to instructions on the Defendants’ websites, allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading
`
`software upon installation of the software.
`
`66. 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
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window, 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.
`
`67. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product,
`
`including infringing uses of the MATRIX window. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants’ promotion,
`
`advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the websites
`
`
`
` 13
`
`0013
`
`
`
`www.tradestation.com and distribution of manuals, and release notes. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants
`
`engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known
`
`would induce actual infringements.
`
`68. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the ‘056 patent.
`
`69. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the ‘056 patent as of June 2, 1999,
`
`when TT added the ‘056 patent to the list of markings that appear on the opening screen of TT’s
`
`X_Trader product. Ex. H.
`
`70. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`‘056 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 9, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘056 patent. In addition, Defendants have
`
`continued
`
`to promote, advertise and
`
`instruct customers and potential customers about
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the
`
`MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘056 patent. See, e.g. Ex. A.
`
`71.
`
`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.
`
`72.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
` 14
`
`0014
`
`
`
`of consolidation with this case, and many of the defendants fought consolidation or reassignment
`
`based on the different patents asserted in the different cases.
`
`73.
`
`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.
`
`74. Defendants knew or should have known that the MATRIX window 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 MATRIX window.
`
`75. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`76. 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).
`
`77. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘056 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`
`
` 15
`
`0015
`
`
`
`COUNT V:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,676,411
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-77 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 (“the ‘411
`
`
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`80.
`
`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.
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the ‘411 patent or
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the ‘411 patent.
`
`82. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum TradeStation’s MATRIX window. The system, according
`
`to instructions on the Defendants’ websites, allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading
`
`software upon installation of the software.
`
`83. 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
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window, 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.
`
`84. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product,
`
`including infringing uses of the MATRIX window. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants’ promotion,
`
`
`
` 16
`
`0016
`
`
`
`advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the websites
`
`www.tradestation.com and distribution of manuals, and release notes. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants
`
`engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known
`
`would induce actual infringements.
`
`85. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the ‘411 patent.
`
`86. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the ‘411 patent as of March 24, 2010,
`
`when TT added the ‘411 patent to the list of markings that appear on the opening screen of TT’s
`
`X_Trader product. Ex. J.
`
`87. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`‘411 patent through the filing of the current lawsuit on February 9, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘411 patent. In addition, Defendants have
`
`continued
`
`to promote, advertise and
`
`instruct customers and potential customers about
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the
`
`MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘411 patent. See, e.g. Ex. A.
`
`88.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the ‘411 patent since at least about August
`
`2010 when TT provided them with a licensing term sheet that specifically disclosed and offered for
`
`license the ‘411 patent.
`
`89.
`
`In addition, Defendants had or should have had knowledge of the ‘411 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
`
`
`
` 17
`
`0017
`
`
`
`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.
`
`90.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the ‘411 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.
`
`91. Defendants knew or should have known that the MATRIX window is especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘411 patent and that there is no
`
`substantially noninfringing use of the MATRIX window.
`
`92. Defendants’ products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`93. Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active inducement of and
`
`contributory infringement of the ‘411 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c).
`
`94. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘411 patent has caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff
`
`Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`
`
` 18
`
`0018
`
`
`
`COUNT VI:
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,693,768
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-94 as if set forth in full.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 (“the ‘768
`
`
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`patent”), titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth,” which was duly
`
`and legally issued on April 6, 2010. A true and correct copy of the ‘768 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`K.
`
`97.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking and notice
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, with respect to the ‘768 patent.
`
`98.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies has never licensed Defendants under the ‘768 patent or
`
`otherwise authorized Defendants to practice the ‘768 patent.
`
`99. Defendants have created and have used, or actively induced others to use, a system for
`
`electronic trading, including at a minimum TradeStation’s MATRIX window. The system, according
`
`to instructions on the Defendants’ websites, allows users to electronically trade using front-end trading
`
`software upon installation of the software.
`
`100. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe one or more claims of the ‘768
`
`patent by making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window, covered by claims of the ‘768 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.
`
`101. Defendants have in the past and continue to promote, advertise and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product,
`
`including infringing uses of the MATRIX window. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants’ promotion,
`
`
`
` 19
`
`0019
`
`
`
`advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum, maintenance of the websites
`
`www.tradestation.com and distribution of manuals, and release notes. See, e.g., Ex. A. Defendants
`
`engaged in these acts with the actual intent to cause the acts which they knew or should have known
`
`would induce actual infringements.
`
`102. On information and belief, Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the
`
`existence of the ‘768 patent.
`
`103. Defendants had at least constructive notice of the ‘768 patent as of February 9, 2011,
`
`when TT added the ‘768 patent to the list of markings that appear on the opening screen of TT’s
`
`X_Trader product. Ex. L.
`
`104. At a minimum, regardless of the foregoing, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
`
`‘768 patent through the filing of the amended complaint on June 1, 2010. Since that time,
`
`Defendants have continued to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale products, including at a minimum
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘768 patent. In addition, Defendants have
`
`continued
`
`to promote, advertise and
`
`instruct customers and potential customers about
`
`TradeStation’s MATRIX window and uses of the product, including infringing uses of the
`
`MATRIX window with knowledge of the ‘768 patent. See, e.g. Ex. A.
`
`105.
`
`In addition, Defendants had knowledge of the ‘768 patent since at least about August
`
`2010 when TT provided them with a licensing term sheet that specifically disclosed and offered for
`
`license the ‘768 patent.
`
`106.
`
`In addition, Defendants had or should have had knowledge of the ‘768 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
`
`
`
` 20
`
`0020
`
`
`
`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
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
