PTAB

CBM2016-00039

Interactive Brokers LLC v. Chart Trading Development LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Graphical Order Entry User Interface for Trading System
  • Brief Description: The ’611 patent describes a computerized system for chart-based trading of financial instruments. The system involves displaying an interactive graph of a market, allowing a user to select a portion of the graph to indicate a desired trade, and, in response, displaying a trading dialog box automatically populated with values based on the selection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-22 are Patent-Ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101

  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the claims are invalid under the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
    • Directed to an Abstract Idea: Petitioner contended the claims are directed to the abstract idea of using a graphical representation of a market to make trades. This was argued to be a longstanding, fundamental economic practice, analogous to chart-based trading performed for centuries with pencil and paper. Petitioner asserted that the method claims (1-11) recite nothing that requires a computer, further demonstrating their abstract nature.
    • Lack of an Inventive Concept: Petitioner argued the claims fail to provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims merely recite applying the abstract trading method using generic and conventional computer components, such as a "display terminal" and "workstation," to display a "dialog box." Petitioner asserted these elements do not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology but are merely a generic implementation of the abstract idea.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Financial Trading GUIs - Claims 1-22 are obvious over Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Friesen (International Publication No. WO 01/16852), Jones (Application # 2002/0120551), and Kirwin (International Publication No. WO 01/46841).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the combination of references teaches all limitations of the challenged claims. Independent claim 1 requires (1) displaying a graph of a financial instrument on a display, (2) allowing a user to select a portion of the graph, and (3) displaying a trading dialog box automatically populated with values from the selection.
      • Friesen taught a graphical user interface for electronic trading that displays a graph with bid/offer icons. It allowed a user to select a portion of the graph by "dragging and dropping" a token, which triggered a "pop-up window" populated with order information.
      • Jones supplemented Friesen by teaching a more direct method of selecting a portion of a graph. It disclosed a system where a user can "touch the screen at a given point on the plot to generate a buy, sell or other transaction signal."
      • Kirwin taught an interactive "dialog window" for trading that is automatically populated with values based on the "bid or offer that the trader clicks." Petitioner asserted Kirwin's dialog window is nearly identical in form and function to that shown in the ’611 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to create a more efficient, accurate, and user-friendly electronic trading system. Petitioner argued that combining Friesen's graphical display with Jones's more direct "point-and-click" selection method would be a simple and obvious design choice to streamline user interaction. A POSITA would then incorporate Kirwin’s more functional and feature-rich dialog box as a logical, natural modification to provide the user with greater control and improve the speed of executing trades.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved integrating well-understood graphical user interface elements (interactive charts, selection methods, and dialog boxes) that were common in the art. Petitioner asserted that implementing these features presented no technical difficulties and would predictably result in a more efficient trading interface.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "curve": Petitioner proposed that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "curve," as recited in claims 1 and 12, should not be limited to a continuous line. It should be interpreted to include any plot formed from a sequence of discrete data points, whether connected or not, such as bar charts or candlestick charts, which are commonly used to represent financial data. This construction allows prior art showing such charts to be applied against the claims.
  • "fair value curve": For claims 5 and 16, Petitioner argued that since the specification provides no specific definition, the term should be satisfied by any disclosed curve representing reasonable values for an asset, such as tradable market prices.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’611 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103.