Our client, Trading Technologies, is the owner of two patents related to a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for trading contracts on desktop computers that are electronically connected to futures exchanges.

The patents combine previously known and used elements into a new, all-in-one screen that allows for faster and more accurate trading. The screen design has been revolutionary in the industry and has resulted in numerous software vendors overhauling their software offerings to look and feel just like Trading Technologies’ innovative design.

Fourteen of those companies have agreed to consent judgments and are paying royalties to Trading Technologies or have re-designed their products to a non-infringing alternative. eSpeed and several other companies that form the Joint Defense Group in this case have refused to do so, claiming that Trading Technologies’ patents are not new and novel based on prior art references that they have found.

The Focal Point’s Role

The Focal Point worked with the client for a year and a half—beginning with the Markman Hearing, learning from two mock trials, and through closing arguments at trial—to develop and refine themes and visual strategies for the case. A key theme was developed—“eSpeed stole the cookies from our cookie jar and now they say the cookies aren’t very good”—to help jurors understand the nature of the infringement as well as the major points for validity. The Focal Point also helped the client develop a significant number of tools to teach complex technology and patent law to the jury. Working side by side with the client in the war room throughout the trial, The Focal Point created graphics, helped monitor juror response, evolved presentations for witness testimony on a daily basis, and developed the presentations for opening statement and closing argument. Ultimately, over 300 graphics and animations were created and used during this complex trial.


After a four-week trial and three days of deliberations, the jury found in Trading Technologies’ favor on all counts: Willful Infringement by eSpeed; no anticipation by any single piece of prior art; and no invalidity of the patents based on obviousness of the prior art.


US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago, IL)

The Focal Point’s Client

MBHBPaul Berghoff
Leif Sigmond, Jr.