PTAB

CBM2016-00038

Interactive Brokers LLC v. Chart Trading Development LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Providing an Interactive Graphical Representation of a Market for an Electronic Trading System
  • Brief Description: The ’190 patent discloses systems and methods for computerized chart-based financial trading. The core invention is a method that includes displaying an interactive graph of a financial instrument, allowing a user to select a portion of the graph, and in response, displaying an interactive trading dialog box configured to receive trading instructions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Ineligibility under §101 - Claims 1-42 are directed to an abstract idea.

  • Core Argument: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 because they are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of chart-based trading, which is a longstanding, fundamental economic practice.
    • Abstract Idea: Petitioner asserted that the claims do nothing more than implement the age-old practice of using a graphical representation of a market to make trades. The petition contended that the claimed methods could be performed manually using a pencil and paper, further demonstrating their abstract nature.
    • No Inventive Concept: Under the Alice/Mayo framework, Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims merely recite generic and conventional computer components—such as a "workstation," "display," and "interactive trading dialog box"—to perform their conventional functions without any inventive improvement to computer technology itself. The recitation of these components was characterized as merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computer environment.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin - Claims 1-42 are obvious over Friesen in view of Jones and Kirwin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Friesen (WO 01/16852), Jones (Application # 2002/0120551), and Kirwin (WO 01/46841).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner alleged that the combination of Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin taught every element of the challenged claims.
      • Friesen taught a graphical user interface for electronic trading that displays bids and offers as icons on a graph. It disclosed placing an order by dragging a bid or offer "token" to a desired price/quantity on the graph, which in response displayed an interactive "pop-up window" to confirm or modify the order.
      • Jones taught a "visual-kinesthetic" trading system where a user could directly touch a point on a displayed stock price chart to generate a buy, sell, or other transaction signal. Petitioner presented Jones as teaching a "click-to-trade" functionality that was a well-known alternative to Friesen's "drag-and-drop" interaction.
      • Kirwin taught an electronic trading interface with a comprehensive "Trading Window" that is nearly identical to the "Trading Dialog Box" depicted in the ’190 patent. Kirwin's window explicitly included buttons to submit bid, offer, buy (lift), and sell (hit) commands.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) at the time would have been motivated to combine these references to create a more efficient and user-friendly trading interface.
      • A POSITA would combine Friesen's interactive graph with Jones's more direct click-to-trade functionality as a simple design choice between two known, suitable alternatives for user interaction, simplifying the trading process.
      • A POSITA would also combine the Friesen/Jones interface with Kirwin's more feature-rich dialog box. This combination would predictably improve the speed, accuracy, and efficiency of trade execution—a primary goal in the field—by giving the user more direct control and a wider range of trading options than available in Friesen's simpler pop-up window.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these elements. All three references are from the same technical field of electronic trading GUIs, and integrating their respective features would have involved nothing more than applying conventional programming and user interface design principles.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "curve": Petitioner argued that the term "curve," as used in claims 1 and 9, should be construed broadly to include any plot formed from a sequence of discrete data points, regardless of whether the points are connected to form a continuous line. This construction is based on the common use of discontinuous charts (e.g., bar charts, candlestick charts) in financial analysis and is critical for applying prior art that depicts market data in these conventional formats.
  • "fair value curve": Petitioner proposed that "fair value curve" should be construed as any curve representing reasonable values for an asset, such as tradeable market prices. This interpretation is necessary to map prior art disclosures, such as Friesen's "action line" that indicates whether a bid or offer is reasonably valued, onto this claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and cancellation of claims 1-42 of the ’190 patent as unpatentable.