921 F.3d 1084
Fed. Cir.2019Background
- Trading Technologies (TT) owns three patents (ʼ056, ʼ999, ʼ374) for GUIs used in electronic trading that display bids/offers and permit order entry.
- Petitioners (IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers) requested CBM review of claims in all three patents; the PTAB instituted review and found the patents CBM-eligible and claims §101-ineligible; PTAB also found obviousness for ʼ056 claims.
- TT appealed the PTAB’s CBM-eligibility and §101 holdings to the Federal Circuit.
- Central factual claim features: receiving market data, displaying bid/offer indicators along a price axis, user selection/dragging of an order icon, and mapping price levels to graphical locations.
- The PTAB concluded the claims are business-related GUIs that do not recite a technological invention or solve a technical problem; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TT) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners/PTAB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBM eligibility: whether patents are "technological inventions" excluded from CBM | Claims improve computer/GUI technology (solve technical GUI problems; improve speed/accuracy/usability); Versata limits §42.301(b) novelty inquiry | Claims are financial trading methods that merely display info; no novel/unobvious technological feature and no technical solution | Affirmed PTAB: patents are CBM-eligible (not technological inventions) |
| §101 Step 1: whether claims are directed to an abstract idea | Claims are specific structured GUIs and improve computer functioning | Claims are abstract ideas (graphing/displaying bids/offers; receiving user input to send orders) | Affirmed PTAB: claims directed to abstract ideas |
| §101 Step 2: whether claims contain an "inventive concept" | GUI specifics and order-icon features render claims inventive and computer-improving | Elements (data gathering, displaying, cursor selection/movement) are routine, conventional, generic computer implementation | Affirmed PTAB: claims lack inventive concept; §101 ineligible |
| Claim construction / reliance on specification | TT: specification discloses embodiments solving price-flipping, other GUI issues; expert testimony should have been considered | PTAB: claims as written do not require those problem-solving features; expert testimony would not change the outcome | Affirmed PTAB: PTAB’s characterization stands; any error excluding expert testimony was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for PTAB CBM reasoning and factual findings)
- Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir.) (discussion of §42.301(b) and technological-invention inquiry)
- Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir.) (review of §101 issues and reliance on PTAB analyses)
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (Sup. Ct.) (two-step §101 framework)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (Sup. Ct.) (§101 step-two transformation inquiry)
- Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) (collecting/organizing information is an abstract idea)
- Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.) (when GUI claims improve computer operation vs. merely present information)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.) (collection, organization, display of two information sets on generic display is abstract)
- Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir.) (eligibility depends on claimed subject matter, not full specification)
- Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir.) (additional generic limitations do not avoid abstract-idea characterization)