PTAB

CBM2016-00086

TradeStation Technologies Inc 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 ’247 patent describes a method and system for displaying market information on a graphical user interface (GUI) for electronic trading. The interface uses color-coding to visually distinguish between price levels with pending orders and price levels with no pending orders to help traders quickly digest market data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-21 are Patent-Ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Petitioner cited several references to demonstrate that the claimed elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional, including Arms (a 1971 treatise on "Profits in Volume-Equivolume Charting"), Buist (Patent 6,408,282), and Gutterman (Patent 5,297,031).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that claims 1-21 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
    • Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea): Petitioner asserted the claims are directed to the abstract idea of displaying financial information in a manner that makes it easier to understand and thereby facilitate trades. This concept was argued to be a longstanding, fundamental economic practice. Petitioner further contended it is an "idea of itself" because the core concept of using color to convey information about market conditions could be performed manually using pen and paper, a process practiced for centuries. The patent’s stated purpose is to solve a business problem (reducing the time to digest data), not a technological one.
    • Alice Step 2 (Lack of Inventive Concept): Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claims merely instruct implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer device, which is insufficient under Alice. The additional limitations—such as color-coding graphical areas, arranging them in an axial direction, and updating the display based on new market data—were asserted to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, as shown by prior art like Buist and Gutterman. Petitioner contended that the claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself or network technology. Instead, they use conventional computer functions to automate a longstanding human and business activity. The dependent claims were argued to add only other conventional features, such as single-click order entry or displaying standard market data, which fail to add an inventive concept.

4. Arguments Regarding CBM Eligibility

  • Petitioner presented substantial arguments that the ’247 patent qualifies for Covered Business Method (CBM) review and is not exempt as a "technological invention."
  • Covered Business Method: Petitioner argued the patent is directed to a CBM because its claims expressly require performing financial activities, such as receiving market data for a traded commodity and displaying information to facilitate trades. The patent’s specification explicitly states it is “directed to tools for trading products,” an undeniably financial activity.
  • Not a Technological Invention: Petitioner asserted the patent does not fall under the technological invention exception. It was argued that the claims do not recite a novel or unobvious technological feature, instead relying on generic components like a "computer device" performing standard functions. Furthermore, the problem solved by the patent—reducing the time for a trader to digest market data and avoiding missed trades due to price fluctuations—was framed as a fundamental financial problem that predates the computer age, not a technical problem rooted in computer science. The solution offered, color-coding a GUI, was described as a conventional technique, not a technical solution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method Patent Review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’247 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.