PTAB

CBM2015-00182

Ibg LLC v. Trading Technologies Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Electronic Trading
  • Brief Description: The ’132 patent describes a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic trading. The GUI displays market depth information (bids and asks) along a static price axis and allows a trader to place an order via a single action, such as clicking a mouse, on an area of the display corresponding to a desired price.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Patent Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 - Claims 1-56 are directed to an abstract idea

  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Abstract Idea Mapping (Alice Step 1): Petitioner argued that claims 1-56 are directed to the abstract idea of placing an order based on observed (plotted) market information and updating that information. This fundamental economic practice, Petitioner asserted, could be performed mentally or with pen and paper, as traders have long maintained books plotting bids and asks along a price axis. The claims merely computerize this abstract concept.
    • Lack of Inventive Concept (Alice Step 2): Petitioner contended the claims lack an inventive concept, reciting only conventional and generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. The patent admits its system can be implemented on any existing computer. The additional limitations—such as displaying data, presetting parameters, and single-action order entry—were all well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of electronic trading GUIs before the patent’s priority date. Petitioner argued these elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention or solve a technical problem, but rather a business problem of speeding up trade entry.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Silverman, Gutterman, and Belden - Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-16, 18-23, 25-33, 35-43, and 45-56 are obvious over Silverman in view of Gutterman and Belden

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Silverman (Patent 5,077,665), Gutterman (Patent 5,297,031), and Belden (WO 90/11571).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the combination of Silverman and Gutterman teaches the core limitations of the independent claims, except for single-action order entry and presetting parameters. Silverman disclosed a computerized exchange system that displays market depth (bids and asks). Gutterman taught a GUI for trading that displays bid and ask icons arranged vertically along a static price axis. Belden taught the remaining limitations, disclosing an electronic trading system where a user can preset parameters and execute a trade via a "single action" of clicking an icon.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create a more efficient and faster trading interface. All three references are in the same field of electronic trading, use conventional computer technology, and contain explicit statements that their features could be adapted for various trading needs. The motivation was to merge known concepts—observing market data (Silverman), visualizing it on a static price axis (Gutterman), and acting on it quickly (Belden)—to achieve the predictable result of reduced order entry time and fewer operator errors.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved implementing known GUI features from Gutterman and Belden into the conventional computerized trading system of Silverman, using standard programming techniques.

Ground 3: Obviousness over TSE and Belden - Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-16, 20-28, 30-38, 40-48, and 50-56 are obvious over TSE in view of Belden

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: TSE (a Tokyo Stock Exchange publication) and Belden (WO 90/11571).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative combination for the majority of the challenged claims. Petitioner asserted that TSE, a user guide for a futures trading system, taught a GUI that displays market depth with bid and ask quantities aligned with a static price column. In its "Scroll Screen mode," TSE's price display remains static while market data updates dynamically. TSE also disclosed placing orders by double-clicking on an area of the screen. Belden was cited for its teaching of single-action order entry, which improves upon TSE’s double-click method.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Belden's more efficient single-action order entry into the TSE system to achieve the predictable benefits of increased trading speed and reduced operator error. Belden expressly stated its system was applicable to "all markets," which would include the market served by TSE.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination required incorporating a known user input method (single-click trading) into an existing electronic trading GUI, which would have been a straightforward modification for a POSITA with a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Silverman/Gutterman/Belden with May (for trading net positions) and Paal (for re-centering the display), and combinations of TSE/Belden with May and Gutterman for similar functionalities.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "single action": Petitioner argued this term is defined by the specification 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."
  • "working order": Petitioner asserted that, while not explicitly defined, a POSA would understand from the specification that a "working order" indicates the quantity of a trader's ordered lots that are active in the market but have not yet been filled.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the petition should not be denied under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) based on prior examination of the ’132 patent. Although Silverman and Gutterman were previously considered by the USPTO, they were not considered in combination. Furthermore, the current petition presented new and material prior art, specifically Belden, which had not been previously considered by the Office. Petitioner asserted that these new combinations and evidence raise new questions of patentability that warrant institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a CBM review and cancellation of claims 1-56 of the ’132 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 and §103.