IBG LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 6,772,132
• Filed: September 11, 2015
• Petitioner(s): IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., TradeStation Securities, Inc., TradeStation Technologies, Inc., and IBFX, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Trading Technologies International, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-56

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Graphical User Interface for Electronic Trading
• Brief Description: The ’132 patent describes a graphical user interface (GUI) and method for electronic trading of commodities. The system features a static display of prices aligned with dynamic displays of bid and ask information, allowing a trader to place an order via a single action, such as clicking on a displayed price level.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-56 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101

• Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of placing a trade order based on observed (plotted) market information and subsequently updating that information. This concept, according to Petitioner, is a fundamental economic practice that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
  • Prior Art Mapping: Applying the Alice two-step test, Petitioner asserted the claims fail step one because they are directed to this abstract idea. Under step two, Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept, merely reciting the use of generic computer components (e.g., a display, a mouse) to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities like displaying data and sending an order to an exchange. The claims do not improve computer functionality but instead apply known GUI techniques to solve a business problem (i.e., trading faster), which is insufficient to confer patent eligibility.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner noted that the PTAB previously instituted a Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the ’132 patent (CBM2014-00135) based on this same abstract idea, though that proceeding was terminated before a Final Written Decision.

Ground 2: 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 taught nearly all limitations of the independent claims, including a computerized exchange (Silverman) with a GUI that displays market depth (bid/ask quantities) via icons arranged along a static vertical price axis (Gutterman). Belden was introduced to teach the remaining key features: presetting trade parameters and, crucially, sending a trade order via a "single action" of a user input device (e.g., clicking an icon with a mouse) to set parameters and execute the trade.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as they are all in the field of electronic trading, use conventional computer technology, and address the common goal of improving trading speed and efficiency. Belden expressly taught that its single-action order entry benefits a trader "from the speed with which he can take or liquidate positions." Combining Belden's single-action input with the display of Silverman/Gutterman was argued to be a simple substitution of known elements to achieve a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known GUI techniques from Gutterman and Belden to Silverman's electronic trading system, which would predictably result in a faster, more efficient, and less error-prone trading interface.

Ground 3: 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 1998 Tokyo Stock Exchange publication) and Belden (WO 90/11571).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that TSE, a user guide for a trading system, disclosed a GUI that displays market depth along a static price column that remains fixed while bid/ask information updates dynamically. TSE further taught order entry by double-clicking in a bid or ask region, which automatically populates and sends an order. However, TSE required a second action (clicking a "send" button) to finalize the trade. Belden was again relied upon to teach modifying TSE's system to incorporate single-action order entry, where a single click on an icon both sets trade parameters and sends the order to the exchange.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Belden's speed-enhancing single-action trading into TSE's established GUI to achieve the predictable and desirable result of reducing the time and number of actions needed to place an order. This is particularly relevant in electronic trading where speed is critical.
  • Expectation of Success: Integrating Belden's well-understood single-click execution method into the TSE interface was presented as a straightforward modification for a POSITA that would predictably improve the speed and usability of the trading system.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including adding May (CA Publication # 2,305,736) to teach trading a "net position" (Grounds 3 & 6), adding Paal (Patent 5,263,134) to teach re-centering the price display (Ground 4), and adding Gutterman to the TSE/Belden combination (Ground 7).

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." This construction was central to mapping the single-click order entry taught by Belden.
• "working order": Lacking a definition in the specification, Petitioner proposed that a POSITA would understand this term to mean an order that has been sent to the market but has not yet been filled.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• CBM Eligibility: The petition was filed as a CBM review, and Petitioner dedicated substantial argument to establishing eligibility. It argued the ’132 patent is a covered business method patent because its claims are directed to activities financial in nature (i.e., placing a trade order).
• Not a "Technological Invention": Petitioner argued the patent does not fall under the "technological invention" exception to CBM review. It asserted the claims do not solve a technical problem with a technical solution but rather use conventional computer technology to solve a business problem (speed of trading). Petitioner also argued that GUIs are not categorically exempt from CBM review.
• No Denial Under §325(d): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial based on prior examination. While Silverman and Gutterman were previously considered individually, the petition presented new combinations of references (e.g., with Belden, TSE, May, Paal) and new arguments that were never before the Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method review and cancellation of claims 1-56 of the ’132 patent as unpatentable.