Newsletter
| February 25, 2010
Trading Techs. International, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.
Because an inventor must evince a “clear intention” to limit the claim terms to a specification embodiment, this court examines other claims to detect any contrary intentions.
On February 25, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that one of eSpeed’s products infringed (but not willfully) U.S. Patents No. 6,772,132 and No. 6,766,304, which related to software for displaying the market for a commodity traded in an electronic exchange, two other products did not literally infringe (but TT was barred from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents), the patents were entitled to the earlier filing date of a provisional application, the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) did not apply, the patent claims were not indefinite, and the patents were not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
For more information, please contact your Dewey & LeBoeuf relationship partner, or one of the following:
This memorandum is intended only as a general discussion of these issues. It is not considered to be legal advice. We would be pleased to provide additional details or advice about specific situations. For additional information on this important topic, please feel free to call upon your Dewey & LeBoeuf relationship partner. No part of this publication may be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form, without our prior written consent.
For further information on Dewey & LeBoeuf, please visit www.dl.com. +1 888 532 6383