PTAB

CBM2015-00172

TradeStation Group, Inc. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.

Title: Displaying Profit/Loss Information on a Financial Trading GUI
Brief Description: The ’556 patent describes a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic financial trading. The system is designed to display market information, such as bid and ask prices, along a static price axis while also displaying corresponding potential profit or loss (P/L) values along a separate, dynamic "value axis" to aid trader decision-making.

Prior Art Relied Upon: The patent’s own admission of prior art trading screens (e.g., Fig. 2) and Kane (Patent 6,317,728).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the challenged claims fail the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. Under step one, Petitioner asserted the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice: calculating and displaying P/L information to facilitate market trades. Petitioner contended this is analogous to a mental process long performed by traders. Under step two, Petitioner argued the claim limitations merely map the abstract idea onto generic and conventional computer components (a "computing device" and "GUI") without adding an inventive concept. The core claimed function—displaying P/L data on a trading screen—was argued to be a known concept, as evidenced by prior art like Kane, which disclosed displaying P/L-related "Delta" values.
- Key Aspects: The petition emphasized that the claimed invention does not solve a technological problem or improve the functioning of the computer itself. Instead, it addresses a business problem (the inconvenience of consulting multiple information sources) by using a general-purpose computer for its conventional functions of calculation and display. Petitioner argued that simply instructing the implementation of an abstract idea on a conventional computer does not confer patent eligibility.

Prior Art Relied Upon: This ground relied on legal interpretation and case law, primarily In re Nuijten, rather than technical prior art.
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that independent claim 12 and its dependent claims (13-22) are invalid because they are directed to a "computer readable medium" that is not limited to being "non-transitory." Based on the proposed claim construction, Petitioner asserted the claim scope is broad enough to encompass transitory, propagating signals (e.g., signals transmitted over a wire or through the air). Citing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Nuijten, Petitioner contended that such transient signals are not patentable subject matter because they do not fall within any of the four statutory classes (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) enumerated in §101.

The petition advanced a specific construction for the term "computer readable medium" (recited in claims 12-22) as "an intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on." This construction was argued to be consistent with dictionary definitions and broad language in the patent's specification. The proposed construction was critical to the invalidity argument in Ground 2, as it supported the contention that the claims impermissibly cover non-statutory transitory signals.

Petitioner argued that the ’556 patent was eligible for Covered Business Method (CBM) review, a specific post-grant proceeding available at the time, and that review should therefore be instituted.
Covered Business Method: Petitioner asserted the patent qualified for CBM review because its claims are directed to data processing operations used in the practice of a financial product or service. The claims’ focus on facilitating financial trades, receiving market prices, and calculating monetary profit or loss were cited as direct evidence of the patent’s financial nature.
Not a Technological Invention: Petitioner further contended that the patent did not fall under the "technological invention" exception to CBM review. The argument was that the claims fail to solve a technical problem with a technical solution. Instead, the patent allegedly uses conventional technologies (computers, GUIs, networks) to address a business challenge. The purported novelty was argued to lie in the non-technical arrangement of information, not in any novel or unobvious technological feature required by the CBM statute.

Petitioner requested the institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review for claims 1-22 of the ’556 patent and the cancellation of all challenged claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.