Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. Ibg LLC
921 F.3d 1378
Fed. Cir.2019Background
- Trading Technologies International (TT) owns U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556, which claims displaying market-derived values (notably profit & loss, P&L) along a value axis on a trading GUI and moving an indicator as prices update.
- The specification ties the invention to existing electronic trading screens (Fig. 2 prior art) and admits multiple known methods to compute P&L.
- Petitioners (IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers) filed a CBM (Covered Business Method) review challenging claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the PTAB instituted CBM review and found the patent CBM-eligible and the claims patent-ineligible under § 101.
- The Board also held claims 12–22 implicated transitory signals (non-statutory), but the court affirmed on CBM and § 101 grounds and therefore did not need to resolve that separate ground.
- On CBM eligibility, the Board concluded the patent was a covered business method (not a technological invention) because it addressed a business problem (providing traders additional information) and used known/general technology.
- On § 101, the Federal Circuit applied Alice step one and two, concluding the claims are directed to an abstract idea (displaying financial information/P&L) and lack an inventive concept beyond generic computer implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TT) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners / Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CBM eligibility — is the patent a "technological invention" exempt from CBM? | The claims solve a technical problem with a technological solution (improve GUI usability/visualization), so not a CBM patent. | The claims address a business problem (giving traders more info) and rely on known/generic technology, so they are CBM-eligible. | Held: Patent is a CBM patent; Board's finding that it is not a technological invention was not arbitrary or capricious. |
| § 101 Alice Step 1 — are the claims directed to a patent-ineligible concept? | The claims recite a particular GUI and presentation tool that improves visualization and therefore are not abstract. | The claims are directed to providing traders with financial information (P&L) — an abstract idea. | Held: Claims are directed to an abstract idea (gathering/processing/displaying financial info). |
| § 101 Alice Step 2 — do claim elements add an inventive concept? | The combination of a value axis with P&L, indicator movement, and GUI elements is a specific inventive GUI implementation. | The elements are generic computer functions and mere automation of manual processes; no unconventional computing or technical improvement. | Held: No inventive concept; claims fail step two and are ineligible. |
| Constitutional challenge to CBM review (seventh amendment, Article III, due process, takings) | CBM review violates jury right / Article III / due process / takings. | Challenges are inadequately developed and waived. | Held: Arguments waived for inadequate briefing; court declined to address constitutionality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (two-step framework for patent-eligibility analysis)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (inventive concept requirement in step two)
- Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that merely gather, analyze, and display information are abstract)
- Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (focus on the claimed advance over prior art for Alice step one)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (when software claims can be directed to a technical improvement)
- Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (automation of manual processes via generic computer is not a patentable improvement)
- BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (use of an ineligible concept cannot supply the inventive concept)
- Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (running an invention on a generic computer does not alone confer eligibility)
- SightSound Techs. v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (standard of review for PTAB CBM technological-invention determinations)