PTAB

CBM2016-00035

IBG LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and system for displaying market information and placing trade orders on an electronic exchange
  • Brief Description: The ’304 patent relates to a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic trading of commodities. The system displays market information, including bid and ask quantities, along a static price axis and allows a trader to place trade orders with a single action (e.g., a mouse click) on an order entry region corresponding to a desired price level.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Patent Ineligibility under §101 - Claims 1-40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: To demonstrate the conventionality of the claimed subject matter, Petitioner relied on references including the Tokyo Stock Exchange ("TSE") Guide (a pre-filing guide for a trading terminal), Gutterman (Patent 5,297,031), and the ’304 patent’s own admissions regarding prior art systems.
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued the claims are patent-ineligible under the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The petition also contended that the patent is a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent not directed to a "technological invention."
    • Prior Art Mapping (Step 1 - Abstract Idea): Petitioner asserted that all challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of placing a trade order based on observed market data. This concept was framed as a fundamental, longstanding economic practice, merely automated using generic computer technology. Petitioner argued that the core features of the claimed GUI—such as displaying bid/ask quantities along a static price axis and enabling single-action order entry—were conventional elements in electronic trading systems prior to the invention. The TSE Guide and Gutterman were cited to show that interactive GUIs for facilitating trade orders based on displayed market data were well-known.
    • Lack of Inventive Concept (Step 2): The petition contended that the claim elements, either individually or as an ordered combination, fail to provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The functions performed by the computer at each step—such as dynamically displaying indicators, displaying bid and ask regions relative to a price axis, and setting order parameters—were described as purely conventional data-gathering and display functions. Petitioner argued that the claims simply instruct the use of a generic computer to perform the abstract practice of trading, failing to add "something more" that is unconventional. The petition distinguished the claims from those in DDR Holdings, arguing the ’304 patent does not solve a problem unique to computer networks but rather automates a pre-existing business method.
    • Key Aspects: A central contention was that the ’304 patent is not a "technological invention" exempt from CBM review because its claims do not recite a novel and unobvious technical feature, nor do they solve a technical problem with a technical solution. The petition also argued that the claims fail the machine-or-transformation test. They are not tied to a particular, specialized machine (only a generic computer and input device) and do not transform a physical article into a different state or thing, as they only involve the manipulation and display of financial data.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. A key term identified for construction was:
    • "common static price axis": Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed as "a reference line or column of price levels that is common to the bid and ask display regions where the price levels do not change positions unless a re-centering command is received." This construction was argued to be critical to demonstrating that the claimed display is merely a conventional arrangement of data, not a novel technological feature that imparts patentability.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner presented substantial arguments that it should not be estopped from filing this petition, nor should the petition be discretionarily denied, based on a prior CBM petition filed by an unrelated third party (CQG).
  • Petitioner asserted it was not a real-party-in-interest to the earlier CQG petition, which was denied on procedural grounds. The arguments included that IBG and CQG are separate corporate entities with no common ownership or control; that IBG had no involvement in the prior litigation that formed the basis for the denial of CQG's petition; and that IBG was independently funding and controlling the instant petition. Petitioner cited the precedential PTAB decision in JP Morgan Chase to support its position that resubmitting arguments from a dismissed petition does not automatically create an estoppel issue for a new, unrelated petitioner.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method review and cancellation of claims 1-40 of the ’304 patent as unpatentable for being directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.