Trading technologies international inc. v. cqg inc
Hem / Ekonomi & Finanser / Trading technologies international inc. v. cqg inc
See EMC Corp., 89 F.3d at 814-15; BP Chemicals Ltd. v. ¶ 4). Additionally, while defendants dispute plaintiff's statement that defendants' customer base in Chicago is greater than its customer base in Colorado, defendants do not dispute that they maintain an office in Chicago, generate 30 per cent of their revenue from the Chicago market, and manage some of those accounts from the Chicago office.
28 U.S.C. The claims contain specific structure and related functionality of the GUI, which shifts the claims beyond patent-ineligible abstract ideas. The Declaratory Judgment Act was not intended to affix competitor with a right to feign negotiation in order to delay patentee's filing of an infringement suit in an effort to secure a preferable forum.
See also EMC Corp., 89 F.3d at 813 ("Simply because there is an actual controversy between the parties does not mean that the district court is required to exercise that jurisdiction").
Additionally, as plaintiff noted, seven additional related patent infringement actions are currently pending in the Northern District of Illinois, two of which are before this court.
CLS Bank, a two-part analysis was used to determine whether the claims embody patent-eligible subject matter.[2] The first part looks at whether the claims are directed to patent-ineligible concepts: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. Because defendant CQG did not make a motion to stay, we feel compelled to decide this motion on the facts before us.
CQG, Inc. relates to abstract ideas under § 101. 2003). ¶ 18). See Santa's Best Craft, LLC v. 1997). Ill. 1999). Should the claims have been drawn to the idea itself without implementing programmatic structure, the court would have deemed them ineligible for patenting.[6]
Takeaway: In order to increase the chances of software claims obtaining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.
Georgouses v. at 3). Xontal, Ltd.,1999 WL 652030, *8 (N.D. Safe Specialists, Inc.,2005 WL 2124483 at *2. Plaintiff was taken by surprise at the commencement of defendants' suit, stating that "[a]t the time that CQG filed its Colorado declaratory judgment action against TT on August 17, 2005, I was under the impression that the negotiation schedule the parties had agreed to was still in place and that negotiations would continue until at least August 19, 2005" (Gennopulos aff.
Thus, it appears to us that defendants were engaging in tactical strategies similar to the maneuvering the Declaratory Judgment Act was designed to end. In patent infringement actions the Federal Circuit has strongly endorsed the first-to-file doctrine.See Genetech, 998 F.2d 931; Electronics forImaging, Inc.
v.