HFT Solutions LLC v. Jump Trading LLC

This is an ongoing patent infringement litigation where HFT Solutions LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of patent monetization firm Network-1 Technologies, Inc., has accused Jump Trading LLC, a prominent high-frequency trading (HFT) firm, of infringing its patents. Network-1 Technologies is known for developing, licensing, and protecting intellectual property, indicating HFT Solutions LLC operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). Jump Trading, on the other hand, is an operating company specializing in algorithmic and high-frequency trading strategies across various financial markets, including futures, options, cryptocurrency, and equities.

The dispute centers on technology critical to high-frequency trading, specifically Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) hardware used to achieve ultra-low latency transaction gains. HFT Solutions alleges that Jump Trading's use of certain FPGA systems and platforms, including those incorporating FPGA boards potentially manufactured by AMD (Xilinx), infringes its intellectual property. The asserted patents in this case are U.S. Patent No. 10,931,286, U.S. Patent No. 11,128,305, and U.S. Patent No. 11,575,381. All three patents share the title "Field programmable gate array with external phase-locked loop" and generally relate to clock domain management technology within FPGA systems designed to provide critical latency advantages in trading.

The case, 1:24-cv-13214, was filed on December 24, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and is presided over by Judge John J. Tharp Jr.. The Northern District of Illinois is a significant venue for patent litigation, partly due to its local patent rules which mandate early document production and strict deadlines for exchanging infringement and invalidity contentions. Given that Jump Trading LLC is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, the venue is proper based on the defendant's residence. This litigation is notable as it targets a major player in the high-frequency trading sector, highlighting the increasing focus of patent assertions on the specialized technologies that underpin critical financial market infrastructure. As of the current date, no specific Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) directly linked to this particular case against Jump Trading have been identified, though the same patent portfolio has been asserted in parallel litigation against other HFT firms.

The patent infringement litigation HFT Solutions LLC v. Jump Trading LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-13214, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 11,575,381, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,931,286 and 11,128,305. The patents generally relate to technologies used in high-frequency trading activities that utilize field-programmable gate array (FPGA) hardware, specifically clock domain management technology.

Below is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-12-24: HFT Solutions LLC filed the patent infringement complaint against Jump Trading LLC. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,931,286, 11,128,305, and 11,575,381.
• 2025-03-03: The defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was granted, setting a new deadline of April 7, 2025.
• 2025-12-24: While specific details of Jump Trading's answer and counterclaims are behind a subscription, public docket aggregators indicate Jump Trading LLC is a "Counter Claimant" in the case, suggesting that counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement were likely filed. This aligns with a related case (HFT Solutions LLC v. Citadel Securities LLC, 1:24-cv-13213), also filed on December 24, 2024, where Citadel Securities LLC filed an answer that included defenses and counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment that the same asserted patents (10,931,286, 11,128,305, and 11,575,381) are invalid and not infringed.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance & Discovery Milestones:
Given the relatively recent filing date, the case is still in its early stages.

• 2026-03-11: Plaintiff's deadline to amend pleadings or join parties was set for this date. Discovery requests were also due by this date. (Note: This deadline and other discovery/claim construction deadlines are explicitly stated for the related Citadel Securities case, 1:24-cv-13213. However, given the cases were filed on the same day by the same plaintiff with the same patents and share the same judge (initially, then assigned to different judges in the N.D. Ill. district, with some shared minute entries indicating coordinated schedules), it is highly probable the Jump Trading case follows a very similar schedule for these early procedural aspects. The current accessible docket information directly for 1:24-cv-13214 is limited on some public platforms, thus drawing inferences from the closely related Citadel case is necessary, but explicit confirmation for 1:24-cv-13214 is ideal where available.)
• 2026-09-16: Defendant's deadline to amend pleadings or join parties, and the target for substantial completion of document production.
• 2026-10-28: Fact discovery is scheduled to close. An expert discovery schedule is to be set at a later date if needed.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
The case is currently in the claim construction briefing phase. No Markman order has been issued yet. The schedule for claim construction briefing, as noted in the related Citadel Securities case, is as follows:

• 2026-04-08: Exchange of Claim Terms and Proposed Constructions due.
• 2026-05-13: Opening Claim Construction Brief due.
• 2026-06-17: Responsive Claim Construction Brief due.
• 2026-07-01: Reply Claim Construction Brief due.
• 2026-07-08: Joint Claim Construction Chart due.

Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions, Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
As of the current date (May 29, 2026), the litigation is ongoing and has not reached trial, verdict, or a final disposition.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• 2025-12-03: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00151, was filed by Citadel Securities LLC against HFT Solutions LLC challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,575,381. The status of this IPR (e.g., whether it has been instituted or a final decision rendered) is not yet publicly available in the search results, but its filing indicates a parallel challenge to the validity of one of the asserted patents.

The plaintiff, HFT Solutions LLC, is represented by counsel from Russ August & Kabat. The following attorneys have been identified as representing the plaintiff:

• Paul A. Kroeger (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes.

• Marc A. Fenster (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: A prominent patent litigator known for representing patentees in high-stakes cases.

• Brian D. Ledahl (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent, copyright, and trade secret disputes.

• Joshua Scheufler (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Handles intellectual property litigation, with a focus on patent and trade secret cases.

• Dale Chang (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Practices intellectual property litigation.

While direct PACER docket access for case 1:24-cv-13214 was not available in the search results, the identified attorneys and firm were consistently listed as representing HFT Solutions LLC in a closely related and concurrently filed case, HFT Solutions, LLC v. Citadel Securities LLC (1:24-cv-13213), also in the Northern District of Illinois and involving the same patent portfolio. An AI litigation platform also specifically names Russ August & Kabat and Paul A. Kroeger for the Jump Trading case. Given the nature of patent enforcement campaigns, it is standard practice for the same legal team to represent a plaintiff in parallel cases against different defendants involving the same patents.

In the case of HFT Solutions LLC v. Jump Trading LLC, Jump Trading LLC is represented by counsel from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel of record:

Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• James Hurst
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Trial Lawyer)
  • Office Location: Chicago, Illinois
  • Experience: A seasoned trial lawyer, James Hurst is noted for his experience in patent litigation. Kirkland & Ellis is generally distinguished by its trial readiness and strong track record in patent litigation across various venues, including US district courts and the PTAB. The firm has over 200 attorneys dedicated to IP litigation and is known for handling high-stakes competitor cases.

Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

• Brian Rosenthal
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Trial Lawyer)
  • Office Location: New York, New York
  • Experience: Brian Rosenthal is a trial lawyer who has litigated over 120 patent cases, often as lead counsel, representing clients such as Cisco, AT&T, Google, and Nespresso. Gibson Dunn's patent litigation group is known for its deep bench of lawyers with varied technical backgrounds and a strong track record of success in federal courts and before administrative bodies like the USPTO and ITC. The firm has secured significant defense victories in patent infringement suits.
• Charlotte Jacobsen
  • Role: Counsel
  • Office Location: New York, New York
  • Experience: Charlotte Jacobsen has over two decades of experience representing life sciences industry clients, combining legal expertise with advanced scientific degrees in complex disputes.

It's important to note that the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,575,381, is part of a portfolio related to Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) hardware used in high-frequency trading. Both Kirkland & Ellis and Gibson Dunn have extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation involving complex technologies.