PTAB

CBM2016-00035

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 ’304 patent describes a method and system for displaying market information on a graphical user interface to facilitate electronic trading of a commodity. The interface displays bid and ask prices along a static price axis and allows a trader to place an order with a single action, such as a mouse click.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-40 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea.

  • Supporting References: Petitioner cited references to demonstrate the conventionality of the claimed elements, including Gutterman (Patent 5,297,031) and a "Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide" from the Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE).
  • Core Argument: Petitioner’s argument followed the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
    • Step 1 (Directed to an Abstract Idea): Petitioner asserted that claims 1-40 are directed to the abstract idea of placing a trade order based on observed market data. This was characterized as a fundamental economic practice, analogous to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement found ineligible in Alice. Petitioner argued that the claimed graphical user interface (GUI) is merely a conventional tool for implementing this abstract idea, not a technological improvement. The specification itself was cited as evidence that mapping trading data to a screen can be done by any technique known in the art, underscoring the conventional nature of the claimed subject matter.
    • Step 2 (Lacks an Inventive Concept): Petitioner argued that the claim elements, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, fail to provide "something more" to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The functions performed by a generic computer—such as dynamically displaying indicators, displaying bid/ask regions along a fixed price axis, and setting order parameters—were argued to be purely conventional activities in the field of electronic trading. Petitioner contended that the claims simply instruct a practitioner to implement the abstract idea of electronic trading using routine, well-understood components like a generic computer, a display, and a mouse, which does not amount to an inventive concept.
    • Failure of Machine-or-Transformation Test: Petitioner further argued that the claims fail the machine-or-transformation test. The claims were not tied to any particular machine, instead reciting a general-purpose computer. Moreover, the claimed method steps, such as displaying data and sending orders, were described as mere data manipulation that does not transform any physical article into a different state or thing.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the Board had previously instituted Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews against several related patents owned by Trading Technologies, finding their claims were likely directed to abstract ideas. In particular, Petitioner highlighted the claims of the ’132 patent, which share a priority application with the ’304 patent and were found by the Board to be likely directed to the abstract idea of placing an order based on observed market information.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "common static price axis": Petitioner argued for the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term, defining it 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 supports the argument that the claimed display is a conventional, static element rather than a novel technical solution.

5. Arguments Regarding Estoppel and Standing

  • Petitioner presented extensive arguments that it is not estopped from filing this CBM petition, despite a similar, earlier-filed CBM petition by a non-party (CQG) that was denied institution.
  • No Real-Party-in-Interest Relationship: Petitioner argued that it was not a real-party-in-interest to CQG's petition. It asserted that the two companies are separate, unrelated corporate entities with no common control, funding, or influence over each other's legal strategies.
  • Prior Denial Was Not on the Merits: Petitioner stressed that the Board's denial of CQG's petition was based on a procedural statutory bar (CQG had previously filed a declaratory judgment action) and not on the substantive merits of the invalidity arguments. Therefore, Petitioner contended that the merits of the §101 challenge have not been previously considered by the Board.
  • Joinder Request: The petition was filed with a motion for joinder with a separate, instituted CBM review (CBM2015-00161) filed by TradeStation, which relied on the same analysis and evidence. Petitioner requested that if joinder were denied, its petition should be instituted as a standalone proceeding.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a CBM review and cancellation of claims 1-40 of the ’304 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.