DCT
2:24-cv-02535
Trading Central Canada Inc v. Tradingview Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Trading Central Canada Inc. (Ontario, Canada)
- Defendant: TradingView, Inc. (Delaware, with a principal place of business in Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Frost Brown Todd LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-02535, S.D. Ohio, 08/14/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in the judicial district, has committed acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial charting platform infringes five patents related to the automated recognition and analysis of patterns in time-series data.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves software for financial technical analysis, a field focused on using historical price and volume data to forecast future market movements.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant regarding the ’201 Patent on October 12, 2022, and regarding all Asserted Patents on August 4, 2023, and November 17, 2023. Plaintiff filed its initial complaint on May 17, 2024, which was served on June 12, 2024, establishing a date of alleged knowledge for four of the five asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-09-17 | Priority Date for ’966 and '506 Patents |
| 2001-11-09 | Priority Date for ’966 Patent |
| 2001-12-11 | Priority Date for ’226 and '238 Patents |
| 2001-12-17 | Priority Date for ’201 Patent |
| 2004-10-05 | ’201 Patent Issued |
| 2008-12-23 | ’226 and ’238 Patents Issued |
| 2009-12-01 | Plaintiff begins use of "STRATEGY BUILDER" mark (approx.) |
| 2010-11-16 | ’966 Patent Issued |
| 2010-12-14 | ’506 Patent Issued |
| 2014-07-17 | Plaintiff begins use of "FEATURED IDEAS" mark |
| 2022-10-12 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant concerning the ’201 Patent |
| 2023-08-04 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant concerning all Asserted Patents |
| 2023-11-17 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendant concerning all Asserted Patents |
| 2024-05-17 | Initial Complaint Filed |
| 2024-06-12 | Initial Complaint Served on Defendant |
| 2024-08-14 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,801,201 - "Method for Chart Markup and Annotation in Technical Analysis," Issued October 5, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty and subjectivity in manually recognizing predictive patterns in financial charts and the lack of automated tools to map such recognitions onto a conventional time-series chart for annotation ('201 Patent, col. 2:51-58; col. 3:9-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to automatically generate markup information for annotating a time-series chart. This is achieved by first identifying and categorizing "pivot points" (turning points) in the data, using these points to recognize chart patterns, storing this analysis in a database as a "rich feature set," and then generating a markup block (e.g., in XML) to draw lines and labels on a chart based on a client request ('201 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-39). The system is designed to automatically draw pattern lines, trend lines, and boundary lines based on the identified pivot points ('201 Patent, col. 10:59-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to automate and standardize a process that was traditionally manual, subjective, and time-consuming for technical analysts ('201 Patent, col. 2:51-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶47).
- Claim 10 (Method for generating markup):
- Storing a "rich feature set" of technical event data in a database, where the set includes identified pivot points and pattern recognition data derived from those points.
- Selecting features associated with an event from the rich feature set.
- Determining markup tags in accordance with the selected features.
- Assembling the markup tags in accordance with a markup format to generate a markup block for the event.
U.S. Patent No. 7,469,226 - "Method of Providing a Financial Event Identification Service," Issued December 23, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge that different financial market participants (e.g., professional vs. retail traders) have different needs and levels of sophistication, making a one-size-fits-all approach to automated event identification ineffective. It also notes the difficulty of combining different types of technical events (e.g., pattern-based, indicator-based) to produce high-quality trading signals ('226 Patent, col. 4:4-10; col. 8:6-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a service that provides tailored financial event data. It uses a "segmentation engine" that draws on a "client profiles database" to modify queries to a main technical event database. This allows the system to provide a customized subset of data to different client applications, dynamically identifying relevant supporting events or eliminating irrelevant ones based on the user's profile or specific request ('226 Patent, col. 8:35-43, 55-64).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows for the mass customization of sophisticated financial analysis, delivering tailored and potentially higher-quality alerts to a large, diverse user base over a network ('226 Patent, col. 4:45-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
- Claim 1 (Method of providing modified financial event data):
- Identifying complex patterns within stock market data and generating a database of financial events (including technical and fundamental events).
- Making available to a client a subset of the financial event data based on a "client profile" and client-specific selection criteria.
- Receiving from the client an identification of a "pattern of interest" and a request for related data.
- Querying the subset to identify financial event data related to the pattern of interest.
- "Dynamically modifying" the identified financial event data "in accordance with other financial event data substantially coincident with the identified financial event data."
- Superposing the modified data on the pattern of interest and displaying it.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,469,238
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,469,238, "Method of Rule Constrained Statistical Price Formation Recognition," Issued December 23, 2008.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a hybrid approach to recognizing chart patterns. It uses a "minimalist rule-based model" to find a broad set of candidate patterns and then applies a "residual statistical model" (like a neural net) to assess the validity of those candidates, aiming to combine the objectivity of rules with the nuanced judgment of statistical analysis ('238 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:20-32).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 17 (Compl. ¶64). Claim 17 is an independent system claim.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TradingView's "Auto Chart Patterns" feature embodies this rule-constrained statistical recognition system (Compl. ¶33-34).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,835,966
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,835,966, "Technical Analysis Formation Recognition Using Pivot Points," Issued November 16, 2010.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent details a specific method for recognizing chart formations by matching a sequence of defined extreme points (e.g., for a triangle or diamond pattern) with a sequence of pivot points identified in the time-series data. The method works backward from the most recent data and uses a system of defined intervals and polarities (high/low) to find corresponding points ('966 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:26-49).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶73). Claim 1 is an independent method claim.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TradingView's "Auto Chart Patterns" feature uses this pivot-point-based formation recognition method (Compl. ¶33-34).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,853,506
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,853,506, "Method for Categorizing Pivot Points in Technical Analysis," Issued December 14, 2010.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the underlying process of identifying and categorizing the "pivot points" used for pattern recognition. It describes a method of working backward through time-series data and using progressively decreasing "box sizes" (a measure of price movement) to determine the spatial and temporal importance of each turning point ('506 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-15).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 7 (Compl. ¶82). Claim 7 is an independent computer-readable medium claim.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TradingView's "Auto Chart Patterns" feature relies on this method of categorizing pivot points to perform its analysis (Compl. ¶33-34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s TradingView platform, specifically its "SuperCharts" product and the "Auto Chart Patterns" feature (Compl. ¶32, 34, 46).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes SuperCharts as a technical analysis platform that allows users to apply various "scripts" to analyze financial markets (Compl. ¶32). A key feature is "Auto Chart Patterns," which is alleged to "automatically identify chart patterns such as head and shoulders, double tops/bottoms, Elliott wave, and more" to help users identify price movements (Compl. ¶34). A screenshot in the complaint shows a user interface for selecting from a list of technical chart patterns to apply to a chart, such as "Bullish Flag Chart Pattern" and "Head And Shoulders Chart Pattern" (Compl. p. 9). The complaint alleges the platform is highly successful, being trusted by "60 million traders" (Compl. ¶32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not include, exemplary claim charts. The following summary is based on the narrative allegations.
’201 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 10)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for generating markup for annotating a chart of time series data, wherein a rich feature set of technical event data...is stored in a database, the rich feature set including identification of pivot points...[and] pattern recognition data derived from the identified pivot points... | The TradingView platform allegedly identifies and analyzes patterns, which the patent teaches are derived from pivot points, and stores this information. | ¶33-34 | col. 4:26-34 |
| selecting features associated with an event from the rich feature set; | The SuperCharts platform allows a user to select a specific chart pattern (an "event"), such as "Head and Shoulders," from a menu. A screenshot shows this selection interface. | ¶33; p. 9 | col. 4:35-36 |
| determining markup tags in accordance with the selected features; | Upon user selection, the platform determines the necessary data to draw the pattern on the chart. | ¶33-34 | col. 4:37-39 |
| assembling the markup tags, in accordance with a markup format, to generate a markup block for the event. | The platform allegedly generates the necessary information to annotate the chart with the selected pattern, as shown in the complaint's example visual of an identified "Falling Wedge" pattern. | ¶34; p. 9 | col. 4:37-39 |
’226 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifying complex patterns within stock market data; generating a database of financial event data... | The TradingView platform is alleged to recognize and analyze complex patterns and financial events, which constitutes a database of financial event data. | ¶33-34 | col. 11:40-44 |
| making available to a client a subset of the financial event data based on a client profile and client application specific selection criteria; | The platform allegedly presents different features and patterns to different users based on their selections (e.g., selecting "Technicals" or "Financials") or subscription level. | ¶33; p. 9 | col. 11:45-49 |
| receiving from the client an identification of a pattern of interest...and a request for financial event data related to the pattern of interest; | A user selects a specific pattern, such as "Head and Shoulders Chart Pattern," from the SuperCharts menu, which constitutes a request for data related to that pattern. | ¶33-34; p. 9 | col. 11:50-53 |
| dynamically modifying ... the identified financial event data in accordance with other financial event data substantially coincident with the identified financial event data; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 11:54-58 | |
| superposing the modified financial event data on the pattern of interest; and displaying the pattern of interest with the superposed financial event data... | The platform allegedly displays the identified pattern overlaid on the financial chart, as shown in the "Auto Chart Patterns" example. | ¶34; p. 9 | col. 11:59-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’201, ’966, and ’506 patents will be whether TradingView's method for identifying chart formations uses "pivot points" as defined and categorized by the patents. The complaint alleges infringement of these methods but provides no direct evidence of how the accused platform internally identifies or categorizes chart features.
- Technical Questions: For the ’226 patent, a key question is what constitutes a "client profile" and "dynamically modifying" the data. The analysis will question whether a user's manual selection of a script from a menu meets the "client profile" limitation, and whether simply filtering for that pattern constitutes the "dynamically modifying ... in accordance with other ... coincident" data as required by the claim.
- Evidentiary Questions: The infringement case may depend on evidence obtained during discovery regarding the internal workings of the SuperCharts and Auto Chart Patterns features, as the complaint relies on observations of the product's outputs rather than its underlying processes. The complaint's visual of the "Strategy Builder" feature (Compl. p. 19) shows a tool for options strategies, raising the question of how this functionality maps to the asserted patents, which focus on time-series pattern recognition.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’201 Patent, Claim 10
- The Term: "pivot points"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundational element for the entire inventive method. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused "Auto Chart Patterns" are "derived from... identified pivot points" as that term is understood in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent dedicates significant specification text to a specific, backward-looking method for identifying and categorizing these points based on "box sizes."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is common in technical analysis, which might support a construction aligned with its plain and ordinary meaning in the field, not limited to the specific algorithm disclosed.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed, multi-step process for determining pivot points by applying point-and-figure charting "backwards (i.e. start from the end of a time series and work backwards)" using "progressively decreasing box sizes" ('201 Patent, col. 4:55-60). A defendant may argue this detailed description limits the term to points identified by this specific method.
’226 Patent, Claim 1
- The Term: "client profile"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for the "segmentation" aspect of the invention. The infringement theory depends on construing this term to cover a user's real-time selections or subscription tier. The court's construction will determine whether simply offering user-selectable tools meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "it is desirable to provide different users with suitable information" and gives examples like a professional trader versus a retail trader, suggesting the profile could be based on broad user categories ('226 Patent, col. 8:10-21). This could support a reading that includes subscription levels or other persistent user attributes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "client profiles database" that is consulted by a "segmentation engine" ('226 Patent, col. 8:35-43; Fig. 5). A defendant may argue this implies a stored set of pre-defined preferences and characteristics, rather than just a transient user selection from a menu.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents, stating that Defendant provides instructions to end users online, encouraging them to use the Accused Product in a manner that allegedly constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶49, 57, 66, 75, 84).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. For the ’201 Patent, the basis is alleged pre-suit knowledge from correspondence dated October 12, 2022 (Compl. ¶48). For the ’226, ’238, ’966, and ’506 patents, the basis is alleged knowledge established upon service of the initial complaint in the case on June 12, 2024 (Compl. ¶56, 65, 74, 83).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused "Auto Chart Patterns" feature operate by identifying and categorizing "pivot points" according to the specific backward-looking, multi-box-size methodology disclosed and claimed across the ’201, ’966, and ’506 patents, or does it use a different, proprietary method for pattern recognition? The case may turn on evidence of the internal architecture of the accused platform.
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope, particularly for the ’226 patent: Can the term "client profile" be construed to cover a user's subscription tier or on-the-fly menu selections, and does simply filtering results based on that selection meet the claim requirement of "dynamically modifying" the data based on "other... coincident" financial data?
- A final evidentiary question will be one of causation and damages: Given the breadth of features offered by the TradingView platform, the litigation will need to address what portion of the defendant’s alleged success and revenue is attributable to the specific automated pattern-recognition technologies covered by the patents-in-suit.