PTAB

CBM2020-00012

QuanTile Technologies Ltd v. TriopTima Ab

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method of Implementing Massive Early Terminations of Long Term Financial Contracts
  • Brief Description: The ’441 patent relates to systems and methods for managing and reducing risk in over-the-counter (OTC) derivative portfolios. The invention provides a centralized, computer-implemented service to facilitate the premature termination of multiple contracts among various parties, aiming to lower operational costs and reduce credit exposure.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-46 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Petitioner relied primarily on legal precedent, including Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Bilski v. Kappos, and admissions within the ’441 patent’s specification regarding long-standing financial practices and the use of generic computer technology.
  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims fail the two-step framework for patent eligibility established in Alice.
    • Alice Step One - Directed to an Abstract Idea: The claims were asserted to be directed to the abstract idea of simplifying a trade portfolio through the premature termination of certain transactions. Petitioner contended this is a fundamental economic practice that has been used for decades through methods like netting, novation, and bilateral restructuring. The petition argued the claims merely codify the three foundational steps of this practice: (1) identifying transactions between parties, (2) selecting matching trades, and (3) choosing specific trades for termination to reduce risk. Furthermore, Petitioner argued these steps constitute a mental process, as the analysis can be performed by a human with pen and paper, and implementing it on a computer does not change its abstract nature.
    • Alice Step Two - No Inventive Concept: Petitioner argued the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
      • The claims were said to do nothing more than implement the abstract idea using generic and conventional computer components. The recited "data input/output and processing stations," "central processing station," and "processor" are merely generic computers and servers performing their well-understood functions of receiving, processing, and transmitting data over a network like the Internet.
      • The claims were described as result-oriented, reciting functionalities (e.g., "determine a premature termination proposal," "selecting for execution a group") without providing any specific technical solution for how to achieve those results. The specification allegedly confirms this by describing the use of "conventional software" and "standard procedures for secure data transmission."
      • Viewed as an ordered combination, the claim elements allegedly add nothing inventive. The sequence of steps—collecting data, analyzing it, and proposing a result—was argued to be a routine and conventional sequence of activities in the financial industry.
      • Petitioner contended the claims are unduly preemptive because they attempt to monopolize the fundamental economic concept of optimizing derivative portfolios, limited only to the environment of OTC derivatives.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • CBM Eligibility: A central contention was that the ’441 patent qualifies as a "covered business method patent" under the America Invents Act (AIA). Petitioner argued the claims are directed to managing a financial product (OTC derivatives) for the purpose of reducing risk and costs, and the patent was classified in Class 705, a class associated with business method patents.
  • Not a "Technological Invention": Petitioner argued the patent does not fall under the "technological invention" exception to CBM review. This was based on the assertion that the claims do not recite a novel or unobvious technological feature, nor do they solve a technical problem with a technical solution. Instead, the petition contended the patent addresses a purely economic problem (managing portfolio risk) using conventional computer technology (generic processors, networks, and standard software) in a routine way, as admitted by the patent's own specification.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of a Covered Business Method (CBM) review and cancellation of claims 1-46 of the ’441 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.