IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No.: PGR-2012-111
`
`
`
`Case No: CBM2013-00005
`Patent Owner: Market-Alerts Pty Ltd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`Inventor: Jeffery Bruce McGeorge
`United States Patent No.: 7,941,357
`Formerly Application No.: 10/451022
`Issue Date: January 25, 2011
`PCT Filing Date: October 26, 2001
`Former Examiner: Ella Colbert
`
`For: Trading System
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark
`Office Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PATENT-OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF A COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND § 18
`
`
`
`On June 20, 2012, Patent-Owner Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. (“Markets-Alert”)
`
`filed complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`(“Lawsuits”) against various defendants for infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,941,357, entitled “Trading System” (“‘357 Patent”). The Lawsuits are: Markets-
`
`Alert Pty. Ltd. v. Bloomberg Finance L.P. et al., No. 12-CV-00780-GMS (D. Del.
`
`filed June 20, 2012) (“Bloomberg Case”); Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. v. The Charles
`
`Schwab Corporation, et al., No. 12-781-GMS (D. Del. filed Jun. 20,
`
`2012)(“Schwab Case”) ; Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. v. E*TRADE CLEARING LLC et
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`al., No. 12-CV-00782-GMS (D. Del. Filed June 20, 2012) (“ETrade Case”);
`
`Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al., No. 12-CV-00783-
`
`GMS (D. Del. filed June 20, 2012) (“TDA Case”); Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. v. OM
`
`Securities, LLC, et al., No. 12-784-GMS (D. Del. filed Jun. 20, 2012)
`
`(“TradeMonster Case”); and Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. v. eSignal.com, Inc., et al.,
`
`No. 12-785-GMS (D. Del. Filed Jun. 20, 2012) (“Esignal Case”).
`
`On October 15, 2012, Petitioners filed a Petition for Post-Grant Review of a
`
`Covered Business Method (“CBM”) (“CBM Review”) under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and
`
`§ 18 (“Petition”) with respect to the ‘357 Patent. The Petitioners are: Bloomberg
`
`Inc., Bloomberg L.P., and Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Bloomberg”), The Charles
`
`Schwab Corporation and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (“Schwab”), E*TRADE
`
`Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, and E*TRADE Clearing LLC
`
`(“ETrade”), optionsXpress Holdings Inc. and optionsXpress, Inc. (“OXH”), and
`
`TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., TD Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade IP Company,
`
`Inc., and thinkorswim Group Inc. (“TDA”).
`
`Markets-Alert hereby submits its Preliminary Response to the Petition
`
`(“Response”).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`BACKGROUND ON THE ‘357 PATENT INVENTION.............................. 4 
`II. 
`III.  REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM REVIEW ....................................................... 7 
`IV.  THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED FOR FAILING TO MEET
`THRESHOLD OR STANDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 9 
`THE PETITION SHOULD ALSO BE DENIED FOR FAILING TO
`SET FORTH THE REQUIRED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................... 16 
`A. 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................. 17 
`B. 
`PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS .............................................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`“Receiving on the network of computers instructions
`from a user to specify watch data defining an event, the
`watch data including a stock market technical analysis
`request specifying technical analysis formulae...” .................... 20 
`“Using the network of computers to periodically apply
`the user-specified watch data...” ............................................... 22 
`“Causing a real-time notification by the network of
`computers to be provided to the user… the real-time
`notification directed to a remote communications device
`of the user...” ............................................................................. 23 
`“Causing a real-time notification by the network of
`computers to be provided to the user… so that the user
`can then provide instructions for share market
`transactions on an instantaneous basis” .................................... 23 
`“Receiving instructions from the user to provide
`technical analysis criteria of overall stock market trends” ....... 25 
`VI.  THE PETITION SHOULD FURTHER BE DENIED FOR FAILING
`TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIMS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT
`TO BE INVALIDATED ............................................................................... 25 
`A. 
`CLAIMS 1-4 ARE DEFINITE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2ND
`¶ ........................................................................................................... 25 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`THE SUBMITTED PRIOR ART FAILS TO MEET THE
`HIGH STANDARDS OF CBM REVIEW ......................................... 30 
`THE SUBMITTED PRIOR ART REFERENCES FAIL TO
`ANTICIPATE ANY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §102 ..................................................................... 35 
`1. 
`PCT Publication WO 00/11587 to Satow et al. (“Satow”)
`does not anticipate the ‘357 Patent claims ................................ 37 
`TradeStation does not anticipate the ‘357 Patent claims .......... 42 
`a. 
`S&C Review ................................................................... 42 
`b. 
`TradeStation Web Archive ............................................. 45 
`3.  WOWS does not anticipate the ‘357 Patent claims .................. 47 
`a.  WOWS Guide ................................................................. 47 
`b.  WOWS Web Archive ..................................................... 52 
`Trading Expert Pro does not anticipate the ‘357 Patent
`Claims ....................................................................................... 53 
`Investor/RT does not anticipate the ‘357 Patent claims ........... 56 
`eSignal Press Release does not anticipate the ‘357 Patent
`claims ........................................................................................ 57 
`THE SUBMITTED PRIOR ART REFERENCES FAIL TO
`RENDER OBVIOUS ANY OF THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................... 59 
`1. 
`Some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning is
`required for motivation to combine .......................................... 60 
`None of the asserted combinations teach the entire
`invention .................................................................................... 62 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 63 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`6. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Acromed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.,
`253 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 36
`
`Audi AG v. Shokan Coachworks, Inc.,
`592 F. Supp. 2d 246 (N.D.N.Y 2008) ................................................................... 33
`
`Chamilia, LLC v. Pandora Jewelry, LLC,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71246 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2007) ................................... 33
`
`Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................. 20
`
`Ex Parte Joseph J. Krivulka and Leonard L. Mazur,
`Appeal 2010-003098, 2010 Pat. App. LEXIS 13234 at (Bd. Pat. App. &
`Interf. September 30, 2010) .................................................................................. 34
`
`Ex Parte William Philip Shaouy and Matthew Bunkley Trevathan,
`2007 Pat. App. LEXIS 3263, at (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. May 24, 2007) ........... 34
`
`Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. International Trade Com’n,
`386 F.3d 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`607 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 26
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 26
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 61
`
`In re Miller,
`441 F.2d 689,169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971) ......................................................... 28
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................ 26
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 27
`
`Page
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................................... 12, 61
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 23
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 61
`
`Mortg. Mkt. Guide, LLC v. Freedman Report,
`LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56871 (D.N.J. July 28, 2008) ................................ 33
`
`Novak v. Tucows, Inc.,
`No. 06-CV-1909, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21269, 2007 WL 922306
`(E.D.N.Y. March 26, 2007) .................................................................................. 33
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Paris Glove of Can. v. SBC/Sporto Corp.,
`2007 TTAB LEXIS 84 at 6-7 (Trademark Trial & App. Bd. Aug. 22,
`2007) ..................................................................................................................... 32
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 19
`
`St. Luke’s Cataract and Laser Inst. v. Sanderson,
`2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28873 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2006) .................................... 33
`
`SAP America, Inc., v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`Case CBM2012-00001 (MPT) ............................................. 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20, 27
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Focosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 28
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 20
`
`
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`Page
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18 ........................................................................................................2, 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ......................................................................................................2, 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................................2, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204 .................................................................................................2, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 .......................................................................................... 8, 9, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ............................................................................................ 1, 2, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1)(C) .................................................................................................... 59
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`157 Cong. Rec. H4420 (daily ed. June 22, 2011) .................................................... 31
`
`157 Cong. rec. S1053 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011).......................................................... 7
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5370, S5376 (daily ed. September 7, 2011) ................................ 30
`
`157 Cong. rec. S5402 (daily ed. Sep. 8, 2011) ............................. 2, 7, 10, 13, 16, 30
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5428 (daily ed. Sep. 8, 2011) ....................................................... 30
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (August 14, 2012) ......................................................... 9, 19, 35
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48734 (August 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 9
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (August 14, 2012) ......................................................... 9, 13, 22
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2173.04 ................................................. 28
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2216 ...................................................... 38
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2217 ...................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit 1 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,357 (issued May 10, 2011)
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Senate debate on Senate Bill 23, 157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (daily ed. Sep.
`8, 2011), available at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/20110908-
`debate_s23_s5402-s5443.pdf
`
`
`Exhibit 3 Declaration of Jeffrey Bruce McGeorge in Support of Responsive
`Brief of Plaintiff Markets Pty. Ltd. in Opposition to Defendants’
`Motion to Stay
`
`
`Exhibit 4 Congressional Record containing Senator Schumer’s remarks, 157
`Cong. Rec. S1053 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011), available at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/20110301-schumer_rmrks
`_s1053.pdf.
`
`
`Exhibit 5 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,357, Notice of Allowability (Dec. 8, 2010)
`
`Exhibit 6 Bloomberg’s Foreign Exchange Professional Service, available at
`http://www.bloomberg.com/professional/markets/foreign-exchange/
`
`
`Exhibit 7 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,357, Office Action Response (Jun. 10, 2010)
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`Senate debate on Senate Bill 23, 157 Cong. Rec. S5370 (daily ed.
`September 7, 2011), available at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/20110907-
`debate_s23_s5370-s5378.pdf
`
`
`Exhibit 9 House debate on House Rule 1249, 157 Cong. Rec. H4420 (daily ed.
`June 22, 2011), available at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/20110622-
`debate_on_the_rule_h4420-h4452.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 10 Wayback Machine FAQs, available at:
`
`
`http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#The_Wayback_Machine
`
`Exhibit 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Internet Archive’s Policy for Responding to Information Requests,
`available at: http://archive.org/legal/
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit 12 Internet Archive’s Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Copyright
`
`
`Policy, available at: http://archive.org/about/terms.php
`
`Exhibit 13
`
`
`
`Exhibit 14 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,357, Office Action (Sept. 3, 2008)
`
`Exhibit 15 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,357, Office Action Response (July 17, 2007)
`
`Exhibit 16 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,357, Office Action Response (Feb. 27, 2008)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Internet Archive’s Standard Affidavit, available at:
`http://archive.org/legal/affidavit.php
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition should be denied. This may be the easiest decision made by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). It may also be the wisest
`
`decision, since proceeding with a review of the grounds presented in the Petition
`
`would be a literal waste of time and set the wrong precedent. Not only does the
`
`Petition fail to meet both the formal and substantive requirements under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 321 and § 18, and as set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guides issued by
`
`the U.S. Patent Office (“PTO”), it is nothing more than a ploy to avoid the
`
`Lawsuits, an unabashed repudiation of the careful efforts of the original examiner,
`
`and a perversion of the legislative purpose of CBM Review. Granting CBM
`
`Review on this Petition would effectively eviscerate any measure of technological
`
`distinction in what should or should not be subject to CBM Review. Here is why.
`
`(1) Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the ‘357 Patent falls outside of the
`
`technological invention exemption. “A petitioner in a CBM proceeding must
`
`demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business
`
`method patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a). “Covered business method patents by
`
`definition do not include patents for technological inventions.” Id. Thus, CBM
`
`Review may only be granted for a covered business method patent that is not
`
`directed to a technological invention. As discussed herein, the ‘357 Patent covers a
`
`technological invention. Unlike the “paper and pencil” inventions for which CBM
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Review have been granted, the ‘357 Patent invention comprises a series of
`
`intricate, interwoven steps that cannot be simply divorced from their technological
`
`underpinnings. See ‘357 Patent at 3:21-4:67, Figs. 1-3, and Claims 1-4, Response
`
`Ex. 1. It is therefore exempt from CBM Review as intended by Congress.
`
`(2) Petitioners failed to meet the formal, statutory requirements for CBM
`
`Review. “[A] petitioner must identify each claim that is challenged and the
`
`specific statutory grounds on which each challenge to the claim is based, provide a
`
`claim construction for the challenged claims, and state the relevance of the
`
`evidence to the issues raised.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b), 42.204(b), and 42.304(b).
`
`Specifically, “a petitioner must also identify how the construed claim is
`
`unpatentable over the relevant evidence.” Id. However, Petitioners failed to set
`
`forth a claim construction for each of the challenged claims, without which
`
`Petitioners have no basis to compare the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`Instead, Petitioners only provided “comments” to suit their waffling arguments
`
`based on already dubious prior art. Moreover, Petitioners failed to specifically
`
`articulate any of their obviousness grounds for invalidation.
`
`(3) Petitioners failed to meet their high burden to establish that “it is more
`
`likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable.” 157 Cong. rec. S5402 (daily ed. Sep. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
`
`Leahy) at S5428 (emphasis added), Response Ex. 2. Out of 33 exhibits, Petitioners
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`submitted only two patent publications, either due to a paucity of truly invalidating
`
`prior art or with the intention of submitting less than the best prior art. One of the
`
`patent publications was already cited during the prosecution of the ‘357 Patent,
`
`essentially leaving only one new prior art patent publication. If the Petitioners are
`
`aware of additional patents or printed publications, then they have apparently made
`
`the tactical decision not to submit them in their Petition. The remaining prior art
`
`references are nothing but poorly documented and unauthenticated images of
`
`archived webpages. Not only is this so-called “evidence” inadmissible, even if
`
`considered, it fails to teach all of the material elements and limitations of the ‘357
`
`Patent. Thus, Petitioners’ submitted prior art is not at all likely to invalidate any of
`
`the claims.
`
`Allowing CBM Review of the ‘357 Patent would be an unnecessary waste of
`
`time and resources for both the parties and the PTO. The PTO and patent offices
`
`throughout the world have already conducted a thorough examination of the
`
`invention in the ‘357 Patent. Petitioners have filed this Petition for no other
`
`purpose than to delay their inevitable day of judgment in the Lawsuits. As set
`
`forth in greater detail below, Claims 1-4 of the ‘357 Patent are valid and
`
`patentable. Since Petitioners fail to show that the claims of the ‘357 Patent are
`
`“more likely than not” to be invalidated, Markets-Alert respectfully requests that
`
`the Board deny this Petition.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`II. BACKGROUND ON THE ‘357 PATENT INVENTION
`
`Despite Petitioners’ myopic characterization of the claimed invention, the
`
`‘357 Patent covers a novel and technologically innovative trading platform.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ‘357 Patent recites: A method of informing users of
`
`stock market events comprising the steps of: (a) receiving real-time stock market
`
`data on a network of computers;(b) receiving on the network of computers
`
`instructions from a user to specify watch data defining an event, the watch data
`
`including a stock market technical analysis request specifying technical analysis
`
`formulae to be applied to the real-time stock market data; (c) using the network of
`
`computers to periodically apply the user-specified watch data including the stock
`
`market technical analysis formulae to the real-time stock market data in real-time
`
`to ascertain whether a valid response to the watch data has occurred based on the
`
`real-time stock market data, thereby determining an occurrence of the event
`
`defined by the user-specific watch data; and (d) causing a real-time notification by
`
`the network of computers to be provided to the user via a remote communications
`
`device upon the occurrence of the event defined by the user-specified watch data,
`
`the real-time notification directed to a re mote communications device of the user
`
`so that the user can then provide instructions for share market transaction on an
`
`instantaneous basis.
`
`Jeffrey Bruce McGeorge is the named inventor of the ‘357 Patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Bruce McGeorge in Support of Responsive Brief of Plaintiff
`
`Markets Pty. Ltd. in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay (“Opposition to
`
`Stay”) (“McGeorge Decl.”), at ¶3, Response Ex. 3. In 1993, dissatisfied with the
`
`then commercially available trading software, Mr. McGeorge sought to develop
`
`better ways to analyze and access market data to improve trading performance. Id.
`
`at ¶5. As trading volumes skyrocketed, so did the need for speed, processing
`
`massive amounts of data, and reliable accessibility. Id. at ¶9. Speed meant real-
`
`time. Not simply live data feeds, but rather reliable, real-time technical analysis
`
`and alerting, at a level that would allow traders to react instantly to market
`
`opportunities. Id. Consequently, Mr. McGeorge formed his own company, Share-
`
`Tech Software Pty. Ltd., to develop and market proprietary technical formulas that
`
`analyzed stock market data. Id. By 1998, his trading software was actively used
`
`by traders in Australia and generated over AUD 100 Million in sales. Id. at ¶6.
`
`At least by October 2000, Mr. McGeorge developed a working prototype for
`
`a novel and innovative trading platform and applied for a patent.1 Id. at ¶11. His
`
`patented invention provides a remote, centralized computer server system that
`
`would cache the historical market data and update new market data as it became
`
`available. Id. This server system was scalable and redundant – an important
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Markets-Alert reserves the right to assert an earlier conception date based on the results of its
`ongoing investigation.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`implementation – and housed an extensive array of technical analysis parameters
`
`and indicators, along with various permutations. Id. Unlike the prior art, his
`
`patented invention covered a system that could “more quickly apply thousands of
`
`formulas and indicators to stock market data” and is “more accurate and
`
`mathematical in its interpretation of results,” due to increased accuracy, reliability,
`
`availability and speed. ‘357 Patent at 4:56-60.
`
`Patent-Owner Markets-Alert was established in or around 2004 to fully
`
`commercialize Mr. McGeorge’s invention and quickly gathered a loyal following
`
`of traders. McGeorge Decl. at ¶13, Response Ex. 3. Hoping to scale up
`
`operations, the company invested significant sums of money and spent the next
`
`several years looking for partners in the industry. Id. For example, Markets-Alert
`
`spent four years in discussions with Petitioner Bloomberg L.P., during which
`
`Bloomberg L.P. assessed the patented technology. Id. at ¶14. By 2008, Markets-
`
`Alert was preparing a pilot project for Petitioner Bloomberg L.P. in conjunction
`
`with Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Id. at ¶15. Later that year,
`
`Petitioner Bloomberg L.P. abruptly ended the project. Id. In early 2010,
`
`Bloomberg rolled out a “new” version of its own “Launchpad” product, which was
`
`advertised with the features of Mr. McGeorge’s patented invention. Id.
`
`Markets-Alert contacted or was contacted by other financial companies or
`
`entities. Id. at ¶16. However, Markets-Alert was eventually forced out of business
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`in or around 2010 by rampant infringement (the ‘357 Patent did not issue until
`
`2011). Id. at ¶17. Having no other recourse, Markets-Alert set out to enforce the
`
`‘357 Patent. Now, after having exploited Mr. McGeorge’s invention and enjoyed
`
`substantial financial benefit for years, the Petitioners ask the PTO to repudiate the
`
`very technology they have been so happy to use.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM REVIEW
`CBM Review was intended as a temporary and narrowly tailored measure
`
`against a limited subset of business method patents covering “practices that have
`
`been in widespread use in the financial industry for years, such as check imaging
`
`or one-click checkout.” 157 Cong. rec. S1053 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) (statement
`
`of Sen. Schumer) at S1053 (emphasis added), Response Ex. 4. “[S]ection 18 will
`
`not make all business method patents subject to review by the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office. Rather, section 18 is designed to address the problem of low
`
`quality business method patents that are commonly associated with the Federal
`
`Circuit’s 1998 State Street decision.” 157 Cong. rec. S5402 (daily ed. Sep. 8,
`
`2011) (statement of Sen. Coburn) at S5428, Response Ex. 2; see also 157 Cong.
`
`rec. S1053 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer) at S1053 (“In
`
`response to concerns that earlier versions of the amendment were too broad, we
`
`have modified it so it is narrowly targeted. We want to make sure to capture the
`
`business method patents which are at the heart of the problem and avoid any
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`collateral circumstances.”) (emphasis added), Response Ex. 4.
`
`To reflect this high threshold standard, “[t]he Director may not authorize a
`
`post-grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`
`information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is
`
`not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” SAP America, Inc., v. Versata
`
`Development Group, Inc., Case CBM2012-00001 (MPT) (emphasis added). Thus,
`
`the Petition must meet the following requirements: (1) Petitioners must establish
`
`standing or eligibility for CBM Review. Standing requires both that the Petitioners
`
`are real parties-in-interest, and the subject patent is a CBM patent.2 Id. at 18-20;
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.302, 42.301(a), 42.301(b). (2) Petitioners must set forth a claim
`
`construction for the challenged claims. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b), 42.204(b), and
`
`42.304(b). (3) Petitioners must show how the construed claim is unpatentable
`
`over the relevant evidence. Id. Where the grounds for unpatentability are based on
`
`prior art, the Petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the
`
`prior art. Id.
`
`The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has
`
`failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that
`
`
` 2
`
` For purposes of this CBM Review, Markets-Alert admits that the real parties-in-interest
`include the Petitioners and the Lawsuit defendants identified its Mandatory Notices Pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`support the challenge. Id. Failure to meet any one of these requirements warrants
`
`denial of the Petition. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48680 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48688.
`
`IV. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED FOR FAILING TO MEET
`THRESHOLD OR STANDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CBM
`REVIEW
`
`The ‘357 Patent is not subject to the narrow transitional CBM Review
`
`because it is exempt as one of the “patents for technological inventions.” SAP
`
`America at 17; 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48765 (“A covered business
`
`method patent means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for
`
`performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration,
`
`or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not
`
`include patents for technological inventions.”) (emphasis added). A technological
`
`invention is determined on a case-by-case basis, where the “claimed subject matter
`
`as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior
`
`art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48734
`
`(August 14, 2012) at 48735 (emphasis added); see SAP America at 25 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.301(b).
`
`Contrary to all of Petitioners’ arguments, the legislative history shows that
`
`certain inventions, even those directed towards the financial industry, were meant
`
`to be excluded from CBM Review. For example, the technological invention
`
`exception covers “novel software tools and graphical user interfaces that are used
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`by electronic trading industry workers to implement trading or asset allocation
`
`strategies,” such as the systems that Markets-Alert has accused of infringement in
`
`the Lawsuits. 157 Cong. rec. S5402, S5433 (daily ed. Sep. 8, 2011) (stmt. of Sen.
`
`Durbin), Response Ex. 2. “[P]atents protecting such job-creating products are not
`
`understood to be the target of section 18.” Id.; see 157 Cong. rec. S5402, S5433
`
`(daily ed. Sep. 8, 2011) (stmt. of Sen. Kirk) (“However, I vote for this legislation
`
`with the understanding that Section 18, which establishes a review process for
`
`business-method patents, is not too broadly interpreted to cover patents on tangible
`
`products that claim novel and non-obvious software tools used to execute business
`
`methods…it would defy the purpose of this bill if its authority were used to
`
`threaten the viable patents held by companies that employ hundreds of Americans
`
`by commercializing software products they develop and engineer.”) (emphasis
`
`added), Response Ex. 2.
`
`
`
`Petitioners argue that “[t]he ‘357 Patent applicant does not assert to have
`
`invented stock market event monitoring, technical analysis, or communication to a
`
`user.” Petition at 6. Markets-Alert agrees that the ‘357 Patent invention is not just
`
`stock market event monitoring. It is not just technical analysis. It is not just
`
`communication to a user. The fatal defect of the Petition is that is completely
`
`omits looking at the invention “as a whole,” as required by the PTO. Instead,
`
`Petitioners only look at features in isolation. However, the examiner allowed the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`‘357 Patent because the invention as a whole recites a technologically novel and
`
`unobvious combination of claimed elements and limitations tied together in real-
`
`time. Notice of Allowability at 2-3 (“[C]ausing in a real-time notification by
`
`network computers to be provided to the user via a remote communication device
`
`upon the occurrence of the event defined by the user-specified watch-data, the real-
`
`time notification directed to a communications device of a user so that the user can
`
`then provide instructions for share market transactions on an instantaneous basis…
`
`None of the prior art discloses or renders obvious the claim limitations…”),
`
`Response Ex. 5.
`
`This problem in the Petition is highlighted by Petitioners’ absurd argument
`
`that the invention covers a method that could be done by “pencil and paper.” The
`
`‘357 Patent invention cannot be performed by pencil and paper. For example,
`
`receiving real-time stock market data; receiving watch data defining an event; and
`
`causing a real-time notification to a user’s device are just some of the steps that are
`
`technical in nature and cannot be performed with pencil and paper. Even the
`
`technical analysis contemplated by the ‘357 Patent could not be perf