From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit
Jun 6, 2012
469 F. App'x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Opinion

2011-1424

06-06-2012

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESPEED, INC., ESPEED INTERNATIONAL LTD., ECCO LLC, and ECCOWARE LTD., Defendants-Appellants.

LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR., McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were MICHAEL D. GANNON, and PAUL A. KAFADAR. Of counsel on the brief was STEVEN F. BORSAND, Trading Technologies International, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois. GARY A. ROSEN, Law Offices of Gary A. Rosen, P.C., of Ardmore, Pennsylvania, argued for defendants-appellants.


NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in case no. 04-CV-5312, Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

JUDGMENT

LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR., McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were MICHAEL D. GANNON, and PAUL A. KAFADAR. Of counsel on the brief was STEVEN F. BORSAND, Trading Technologies International, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois.

GARY A. ROSEN, Law Offices of Gary A. Rosen, P.C., of Ardmore, Pennsylvania, argued for defendants-appellants.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

_________________

Jan horbaly

Clerk


Summaries of

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit
Jun 6, 2012
469 F. App'x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ESPEED…

Court:United States Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit

Date published: Jun 6, 2012

Citations

469 F. App'x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2012)