Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01768/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01768-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FuturePath Trading LLC
Appellee
GL Trade Americas, Inc.
Not party
GL Trade SA
Appellee
Gl Consultants, Inc.
Appellee
SunGard Financial Systems (France) SAS
Not party
Trading Technologies International, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,

INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS, INC., SUNGARD 

INVESTMENT VENTURES LLC, GL TRADE 

AMERICAS, INC., SUNGARD FINANCIAL 

SYSTEMS (FRANCE) SAS, fka GL TRADE SA, 

FUTUREPATH TRADING LLC,

Defendants-Appellees 

______________________ 

2015-1767, 2015-1768

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in Nos. 1:05-cv-04120, 1:05-

cv-05164, Judge Sara L. Ellis. 

______________________ 

Decided: April 4, 2016

______________________ 

STEVEN BORSAND, Trading Technologies International, 

Inc., Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR., MICHAEL DAVID 

GANNON, JENNIFER KURCZ, COLE BRADLEY RICHTER,

Case: 15-1768 Document: 4-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2016
2 TRADING TECHS. INT’L V. SUNGARD DATA SYS.

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP, Chicago, 

IL. 

MARK LESLIE LEVINE, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar 

& Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendantsappellees. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER LIND, BRIAN 

SWANSON, ASHA L.I. SPENCER. Defendants-appellees 

SunGard Data Systems, Inc., SunGard Investment Ventures LLC, SunGard Financial Systems (France) SAS, GL 

Trade Americas, Inc. also represented by ANDREW 

BOURKE DONNELLAN, JR., SunGard Data Systems Inc., 

New York, NY; KATHERINE PAULEY BARECCHIA, Wayne, 

PA.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment

that software applications developed and sold by SunGard 

Data Systems, Inc., SunGard Investment Ventures LLC,

GL Trade Americas, Inc., and SunGard Financial Systems 

(France) SAS (collectively, “SunGard”), and FuturePath 

Trading LLC (“FuturePath”) do not infringe the claims of 

TT’s U.S. Patent 6,772,132 (the “’132 patent”). See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. GL Consultants, Inc., No. 1:05-cv04120, 2014 WL 6461578 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2014) (“Opinion”). Because the district court did not err in granting 

summary judgment of noninfringement, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The patent and prior art are exhaustively described in 

our prior opinion involving the ’132 patent, see Trading 

Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1345–49 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“eSpeed”); accordingly, we need only 

address them briefly here. TT is the owner of the ’132 

patent, which is directed to a computer program that 

Case: 15-1768 Document: 4-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2016
TRADING TECHS. INT’L V. SUNGARD DATA SYS. 3

ensures traders are able to buy commodities at an intended price. Id. at 1346. Prior-art programs displayed 

commodity prices to traders, and allowed traders to 

execute trades by clicking on the prices. Id. at 1345. The 

prior-art displays recentered automatically and unpredictably, however, and if recentering occurred as the 

trader was clicking, the trade could register at an unintended price. Id. To address this issue, the ’132 patent 

claims a graphical user interface with a “static display of 

prices.” ’132 patent col. 12 ll. 2–27. Because the display 

does not recenter automatically, a trader can be confident 

that when the price is clicked, the commodity will not be 

purchased at an unintended price. eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 

1347. 

In eSpeed, we affirmed the district court’s construction of “static” as “a display of prices comprising price 

levels that do not change positions unless a manual recentering command is received.” Id. at 1352–55. TT

agrees that the construction in eSpeed is controlling here. 

Appellant’s Br. 1. Because the accused products in eSpeed

automatically recentered their displays, we also affirmed 

the district court’s finding of no literal infringement, on 

the basis that products with “mandatory recentering 

features” did not infringe. eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1355. We 

also affirmed the district court’s finding that TT was 

estopped from arguing infringement under the doctrine of 

equivalents because the “construction of . . . ‘static’ specifically excludes any automatic re-centering.” Id. at 1356. 

The “occasional automatic re-centering” practiced by the 

accused products at issue in eSpeed could not be equivalent “because the claim forbids all automatic recentering.” Id. 

In this case, SunGard and FuturePath both sell software that allows traders to buy commodities. Opinion at 

*6–7. In both companies’ products, the price display

automatically recenters after a certain time period. Id. 

Although automatic recentering cannot be disabled by the 

Case: 15-1768 Document: 4-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2016
4 TRADING TECHS. INT’L V. SUNGARD DATA SYS.

user, the user can set the amount of time between recentering. Id. SunGard’s products default to recentering

every 10 seconds or 15 minutes, depending on the product 

version. Id. at *6. The default period between recentering for FuturePath’s products is two minutes or 20 seconds, also depending on the version. Id. at *7.

TT sued SunGard and FuturePath, alleging that several of their products infringed the claims of the ’132 

patent. Relying on our opinion in eSpeed, the district 

court granted summary judgment that the products at 

issue in this appeal do not infringe.1 Specifically, the 

district court found that the accused products did not 

contain a “static” display because they automatically 

recentered. Id. at *8–10. The district court also found 

that TT could not rely on the doctrine of equivalents 

because, although the accused products could “be set to 

re-center only occasionally . . . [,] the frequency of the 

automatic re-centering is not the relevant comparison.” 

Id. at *11. Instead, and just like the accused products at 

issue in eSpeed, “users are always at risk of missing their 

intended price at the time that automatic re-centering 

occurs.” Id. 

TT timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

TT argues that the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment that the accused products do not 

literally infringe because the automatic recentering of the 

accused products is in fact two modes of operation: a 

 

1 The district court also denied summary judgment 

that later versions of the SunGard product and another of 

FuturePath’s products did not infringe under the doctrine 

of equivalents. Id. at *12. Those products are not at issue 

in this appeal. 

Case: 15-1768 Document: 4-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/04/2016
TRADING TECHS. INT’L V. SUNGARD DATA SYS. 5

“static” mode where the display does not recenter (i.e., the 

period between automatic recentering events), and a 

second mode where automatic recentering occurs (i.e., the 

automatic recentering event itself). Appellant’s Br. 24–

30, 40–48. Because the accused products have at least 

one mode where the display is static, TT argues, it has 

generated a genuine dispute of material fact that the 

accused products infringe.

Sungard and FuturePath respond that the accused 

products in fact have a single mode of operation where 

automatic recentering occurs. Appellees’ Br. 30–34. They 

argue that TT is attempting to relitigate the claim construction issue that it lost in eSpeed, and that the eSpeed

decision controls.

We agree with SunGard and FuturePath that there is 

no genuine dispute that the accused products operate in a 

single mode that does not infringe under the construction 

of “static” affirmed in eSpeed. The instant that recentering occurs is not a separate “mode” of operation; it is part 

of a single mode of operation practiced by the accused 

products. Because the construction of “static” in eSpeed

requires recentering to only occur manually, eSpeed, 595 

F.3d at 1352, and recentering occurs in the accused products automatically in the single mode in which they

operate, the district court correctly determined that the 

accused products do not literally infringe. 

TT next argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment that the accused products do not 

infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because the 

accused products still provide the “price guarantee” 

provided in the claims of the ’132 patent; that is, the user 

can be confident that clicking a price will not result in 

purchasing a commodity at an unintended price. Appellant’s Br. 62–68. As the user can set the time period 

between recentering to be so long that it will likely never 

Case: 15-1768 Document: 4-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/04/2016
6 TRADING TECHS. INT’L V. SUNGARD DATA SYS.

occur, TT argues, the user can still receive the benefit of 

the invention claimed in the ’132 patent. Id. at 64–67. 

SunGard and FuturePath respond that eSpeed controls because we explained in that case that the “static” 

limitation “specifically excludes automatic re-centering.” 

Appellees’ Br. 46 (quoting eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1356). 

Moreover, Sungard and FuturePath argue that the accused products do not provide the benefit of the claimed 

invention because users could still click to buy a commodity at the exact instant that prices change. Id. at 49–51. 

We agree with SunGard and FuturePath that the 

holding in eSpeed controls this case, and that the accused 

products do not utilize the benefit of the claimed invention. In eSpeed, we rejected the argument that a product 

which only occasionally recentered automatically could 

still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents where the 

product continued to present the problem of the prior art. 

eSpeed, 595 F.3d at 1356. The accused products here 

recenter automatically, and the products provide no way 

for the user to know whether recentering will occur. 

Accordingly, the accused products fall squarely within the 

eSpeed holding, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. No material facts are in dispute, 

and the district court made no error of law.

CONCLUSION

We have considered TT’s remaining arguments, but 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the 

decision of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1768 Document: 4-2 Page: 6 Filed: 04/04/2016