Litigation

Chart Trading Development, LLC v. CQG, Inc. et al.

closed (stayed pending CBM; consolidated into 6:15-cv-01136)

6:15-cv-01133

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
Filed: 2015-12-03

Patents at issue (5)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Chart Trading Development, LLC

Defendants (15)

Summary

Chart Trading Development, LLC filed this action in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, on December 3, 2015, against CQG, Inc. and others. The case was consolidated for pretrial purposes into lead case 6:15-cv-01136 and stayed pending CBM review; it effectively terminated without a merits trial after the PTAB invalidated the asserted claims.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7890416-6-15-cv-01133 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Declaratory judgment actions: when to flip the table on a patent troll
The patent holder is the one with the patent. They're not always the one who gets to pick the courtroom.
The Patent Scam (2017): a documentary on the patent troll industry
Most people learn about patent trolls only when they get sued by one. The Patent Scam does the work of making the problem concrete before that happens.
Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
Claim construction is exclusively the court's job. The Markman hearing is the most consequential single ruling in nearly every patent case — and a defendant's best chance to end the litigation before trial.

All resources →