PTAB

CBM2016-00039

Interactive Brokers LLC v. Chart Trading Development, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Graphical Order Entry User Interface for Trading System
  • Brief Description: The ’611 patent describes a computerized financial trading system featuring a graphical user interface. The system displays a graph of a financial instrument (e.g., price over time), allows a user to select a portion of the graph, and, in response, automatically displays a trading dialog box populated with trade values based on the user's selection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Core Argument: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of chart-based trading, a fundamental and longstanding economic practice. The petition asserted that this concept predates computers and that the claimed method steps can be performed manually with a pencil and paper. Applying the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, Petitioner contended the claims fail both steps.
    • At step one, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of using a graphical representation of a market to make trades.
    • At step two, the claims allegedly lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Petitioner argued that adding generic computer components (e.g., "display terminal," "workstation," "processor") to perform conventional functions does not constitute an inventive step. It asserted that the system claims (12-22) merely mimic the method claims (1-11) by adding generic hardware and are patent-ineligible for the same reasons.
    • As this was a Covered Business Method (CBM) review petition, Petitioner also argued that the claims are not directed to a "technological invention," asserting that they merely recite known technologies to provide an interactive graphical representation of a market, which is a business, not technical, problem.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin - Claims 1-22 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • 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 argued that the combination of Friesen, Jones, and Kirwin teaches every element of the challenged claims.
      • Friesen was asserted to teach a graphical user interface for electronic trading that displays a graph with bid and offer icons. A user can place an order by selecting and dragging a bid or offer "token" to a desired value on the graph, which causes a "pop-up window" to appear with order information (value, quantity) automatically populated based on the selection.
      • Jones was asserted to teach an interactive trading system where a user can directly "touch the screen at a given point on the plot to generate a buy, sell or other transaction signal." This provides a more direct click-to-trade mechanism than Friesen's drag-and-drop method.
      • Kirwin was asserted to teach an interactive "dialog window" for trading that is nearly identical to that shown in the ’611 patent. Kirwin's dialog window can be automatically populated with values like price and size based on the specific bid or offer that the trader clicks.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings to create a more efficient and user-friendly trading interface. A POSITA would combine Friesen’s graphical display with Jones’s more direct click-to-select functionality as a simple design choice between two known methods for interacting with a graph. Further, a POSITA would logically incorporate Kirwin’s detailed, automatically populated dialog box into the Friesen/Jones system to provide the user with more trading options and control in a streamlined manner, achieving the predictable result of a faster and more accurate trading process.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this combination. The integration of known GUI elements like clickable charts and pop-up dialog boxes for the known purpose of facilitating electronic trading involved applying conventional techniques in their intended environment and presented no technical difficulties.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for the broadest reasonable interpretation of key terms.
    • "curve": Petitioner proposed that "curve" should be construed to include any plot formed from a sequence of discrete data points, which may be connected or disconnected. This construction would encompass common financial charts like bar charts and candlestick charts, not just continuous line graphs.
    • "fair value curve": As the specification provides no specific definition, Petitioner argued this term should be satisfied by any disclosed curve representing reasonable values, such as tradeable market prices, according to any standard or metric appropriate to the underlying asset.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’611 patent as unpatentable.