The claims construction finding in many of the present cases appears to have really gone against TT. Namely, in the motion for reconsideration, the claims are constructed such that *ANY* non-manual recentering movement of the price ladder brings the implementation outside of the scope of the patent. (because such movement is no longer static as required in the claims.)
So you can imagine that a price ladder that is for the most part static can under rare circumstances, say when the bid or ask moves outside the displayed range, recenters automatically... then it will be outside the scope of the patent.
Honestly, it looks like TT was not careful enough in drafting the original claims.
c.f.: CQG, a defendant, posted a scan of the decison at:
http://www.cqg.com/GetFile.aspx?aliaspath=/Downloads/NewsReleases/Patent0207_pdf
Not being a lawyer, one obvious question that comes up is -- should others using a DOM price ladder UI now seek to join themselves to this action though they were not originally named as defendants? Is this even allowed?
The reason for this thought, of course, is because this ruling has no primary precedent value in other jurisdictions, so, a separate suit against another party in a different court may end up constructing the claims differently. Though likely the other court will greatly raise the bar before adopting a distinct construction.
