PTAB

IPR2017-01615

CLoud9 Technologies LLC v. IPC Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Software Based Trading Turret
  • Brief Description: The ’566 patent discloses a communications system, method, and computer-readable medium for a software-based trading turret. The system allows a remote client device (e.g., a PC) to control a turret switching system over an IP network, simulating the functionality of a physical "hard turret" through a software interface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Greene and SIP - Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, and 17-18 are obvious over Greene in view of SIP.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Greene (Patent 6,212,177) and SIP (RFC-3261).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Greene, which was previously applied by the USPTO as an anticipatory reference during prosecution, discloses nearly all elements of the challenged claims. Greene teaches a remote access system for a trading turret, comprising an office switching network (turret switching system) that communicates with a web server, trader turrets, and a remote client PC over separate voice and data channels (e.g., PSTN and the Internet). The client PC displays a remote line status display with a "button sheet" that a user can "click" to control lines. The primary element Petitioner alleged Greene does not explicitly disclose is the "predetermined message" sent from the client device to the turret switching system to seize a line.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that since Greene discloses using the Internet for both data and voice channels, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to implement a known, standard VoIP protocol to manage call control. SIP was a mature and widespread protocol for establishing, modifying, and terminating voice calls over IP networks. Petitioner asserted it would have been an obvious and logical step to use SIP to provide the necessary signaling between Greene’s remote client device and its turret switching system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining the systems was presented as an "obvious to try" scenario. There was a recognized need (enabling remote VoIP control for a soft turret), a finite number of predictable solutions (VoIP protocols like H.323 and SIP), and SIP was a well-established standard designed for the exact purpose of call signaling over the Internet.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Greene, Kammerer, and SIP - Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, and 17-18 are obvious over Greene in view of Kammerer and SIP.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Greene (Patent 6,212,177), Kammerer (Application # 2004/0205175), and SIP (RFC-3261).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground provides an alternative combination for teaching the "predetermined message" limitation. Petitioner re-asserted that Greene teaches the foundational system. Kammerer was introduced to explicitly teach using SIP as a preferred messaging format for initiating communications in a system analogous to a trading network. Kammerer discloses an instant messaging system where a user on a client terminal can initiate a voice or data session with another user by sending a SIP INVITE message, which serves as the "predetermined message."
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Kammerer provides an explicit motivation to combine its teachings with Greene. Kammerer cites Greene in its background section, identifying a deficiency in Greene (only showing active traders, not interactivity between them) that Kammerer’s invention addresses. Petitioner asserted this created a clear reason for a POSITA to combine the references to create an improved remote trading system. Kammerer’s incorporation of SIP by reference would lead a POSITA to use SIP to implement the messaging functionality in Greene’s system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination because all components were designed to work in an IP network environment to achieve predictable results. Combining Greene’s remote turret framework with Kammerer’s SIP-based messaging and presence features would predictably result in a system that allows a user to seize lines and communicate via predetermined messages, as claimed.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "predetermined message": This term was central to Petitioner's arguments. Petitioner stated it would accept the Patent Owner's construction from co-pending litigation: "a message containing information identifying particular turret resources and functionality available on the turret to be performed (e.g., seize one or more specific lines) that is delivered in a communication protocol understood by the turret switching system." Petitioner then argued that a standard SIP INVITE message, containing "To" and "From" fields, inherently meets this construction when used to establish a call in a turret system.
  • "trading turret": Petitioner accepted the Patent Owner's definition of a "trading turret" as "an advanced telephony system that can be used in the financial industry by traders" to establish that the prior art, including Greene and Kammerer, is within the same field of endeavor.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, and 17-18 of the ’566 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.