PTAB

CBM2015-00181

Ibg LLC v. Trading Technologies Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Graphical User Interface for Electronic Trading
  • Brief Description: The ’411 patent discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic trading that displays market information, including bid and ask prices, along a static price axis. The interface is designed to facilitate rapid, single-action order entry by allowing a trader to select a price level directly on the display to generate and send a trade order.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Patent Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - Claims 1-28 are ineligible

  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that claims 1-28 are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of placing a trade order based on observed market information and subsequently updating that information. Applying the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, Petitioner contended that the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims allegedly recite nothing more than the routine and conventional activities of receiving data, displaying it on a generic computer, accepting an order, and sending it to an exchange. Petitioner asserted that these steps are well-understood, could be performed mentally or with pen-and-paper, and their implementation on a computer represents a conventional activity that does not confer patent eligibility.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Silverman, Gutterman, Belden, and Togher - Claims 1-10 and 12-28 are obvious

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Silverman (Patent 5,077,665), Gutterman (Patent 5,297,031), Belden (WO 90/11571), and Togher (Patent 5,375,055).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Silverman taught a computerized exchange that receives and displays market data, while Gutterman disclosed a GUI displaying bid and ask order icons arranged along a static price axis, which together taught the core display features of the independent claims. To meet the remaining limitations, Petitioner argued that Belden taught single-action order entry (e.g., clicking an icon to send a trade), and Togher taught the use of a pre-set default trade quantity to further streamline the order entry process.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because they all operate in the same field of electronic financial trading and employ conventional computer technology. The primary motivation articulated was to improve the speed, accuracy, and efficiency of trading—a well-known goal in the art. A POSITA would integrate Belden’s faster single-action order entry and Togher's default quantity features into the dynamic price display taught by Silverman and Gutterman.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known GUI elements to achieve the known goal of faster and more efficient trading would have yielded predictable results and was within the skill of a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over TSE, Belden, and Togher - Claims 1-28 are obvious

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TSE (a 1998 Tokyo Stock Exchange user guide), Belden (WO 90/11571), and Togher (Patent 5,375,055).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to the Silverman/Gutterman combination, Petitioner argued that the TSE user guide taught a detailed GUI for displaying market data along a price axis and for entering orders. Similar to the previous ground, Petitioner contended that Belden supplied the missing limitation of single-action order entry, and Togher taught the use of a default trade quantity.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the single-action trading methods of Belden and the default quantity feature of Togher into the existing TSE trading system to achieve the predictable benefits of faster order placement and reduced operator error. Belden expressly stated its system was applicable to all markets, which would include the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the well-understood need for speed in trading provided a clear motivation for the combination.
    • Expectation of Success: The integration of known features like single-action commands and default values into an existing, well-documented trading GUI like TSE was presented as a straightforward design choice with a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 11 based on Silverman, Gutterman, Belden, Togher, and Paal (Patent 5,263,134), which allegedly taught a re-centering GUI command.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "single action": Petitioner argued the specification defines this term as "any action by a user within a short period of time, whether comprising one or more clicks of a mouse button or other input device." This construction was central to mapping prior art like Belden, which taught order entry via a single mouse click on an icon, to the claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) would be improper. Although the primary references of Silverman and Gutterman were previously before the Patent Office during prosecution or reexamination, Petitioner asserted they were being presented in new combinations with references, like Belden, that had not been previously considered. Therefore, the petition allegedly raised substantial new questions of patentability that warranted institution of review.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review and cancellation of claims 1-28 of the ’411 patent as unpatentable.