Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.
675 F. App'x 1001
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Trading Technologies International (TTI) sued CQG for infringing U.S. Patents No. 6,772,132 and No. 6,766,304, which claim a software-implemented trading GUI that reduces trader input time and prevents order-entry at unintended prices.
- Representative claim (Claim 1, ’304) describes a GUI with a static price axis, dynamic bid/ask indicators that move relative to that axis when the inside market changes, and an order-entry region that sets and sends orders with a single user action.
- CQG moved for judgment that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the district court denied the motion, finding the claims patent-eligible under Alice step 1 and, alternatively, step 2.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed eligibility de novo and affirmed the district court, concluding the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer technology (a particular GUI structure and functionality) rather than an abstract idea.
- The court also upheld the district court’s finding that the claims recite an inventive concept (not merely conventional computer implementation), and noted the § 101 analysis does not decide novelty or obviousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TTI) | Defendant's Argument (CQG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice Step 1 | Claims recite a specific GUI-driven technological solution to a trading problem, not an abstract idea | Claims merely present/display/select market data — an abstract idea or business practice | Held not directed to an abstract idea; claims are a specific improvement to GUI/computer operation |
| Whether claim elements transform an ineligible concept into patent-eligible subject matter (Alice Step 2) | Claim limitations (static price axis, dynamic indicators, single-action order entry) supply an inventive concept beyond routine computer use | Limitations are conventional uses of computers/UI and do not add inventive concept | Held the claim elements, individually and in combination, supply an inventive concept (specific structure/functionality) |
| Burden/standard of proof for § 101 determination | (Implied) § 101 invalidity need not be shown by clear and convincing evidence in de novo review | District court required clear and convincing evidence (disputed) | Court declined to resolve burden dispute because de novo review yields same outcome regardless of standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (U.S. 2014) (two-step framework for § 101: directed to abstract idea then inventive concept)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (U.S. 2012) (threshold for ineligible concepts and requirement of ‘‘significantly more’’)
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (U.S. 1981) (patent claims must be considered as a whole)
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims rooted in computer technology that solve a computer-network-specific problem can be eligible)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to specific improvements in computer operation are patent-eligible)
- McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims using a combined order of specific rules to improve technological processes can be eligible)
- BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (context-specific ordered combination of elements can supply an inventive concept)
- Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that merely gather, analyze, and display information without inventive technology are ineligible)