Paper No.
`Filed: September 3, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., TD AMERITRADE, INC., AND TD
`AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`I. 
`
`Table of Contents
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................. 1 
`A.  The Patented Technology .......................................................................................... 5 
`1.  Technical Problems with the Prior Art ................................................................ 6 
`2.  The Inventors Created New Technology that Provides Improved Accuracy
`While Maintaining Speed .............................................................................................. 11 
`3.  The Claims Recite the Technical Elements of the Inventive Tool ................ 18 
`4.  The Prosecution History Confirms that the ’411 Patent’s Novelty Is GUI
`Technology, Not Conducting a Trade ........................................................................ 28 
`II.  TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE THE INVENTIVE
`ASPECT OF THE CLAIMS DOES NOT INVOLVE A METHOD OF DOING
`BUSINESS ............................................................................................................................... 33 
`A.  Patents to Novel GUI Tools, Even If Used in the Field of Trading, Are Not
`Within the Scope of AIA § 18 .......................................................................................... 34 
`B.  The Congressional Record Confirms that Patents to Novel GUIs, Even If
`Used for Trading, Are Not Within the Scope of AIA § 18 ......................................... 38 
`III. 
`THE PETITION’S CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS ARE
`INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE CLAIMS ARE NOT FOR A
`“TECHNOLOGICAL INVENTION” ............................................................................. 44 
`IV. 
`THE CLAIMS ARE FOR A TECHNOLOGICAL INVENTION, SO THE
`STATUTE PROHIBITS CBM REVIEW .......................................................................... 46 
`A.  The Patent Is a Technological Invention in Every Way: It Solves a Technical
`Problem with a Technical Solution and Recites Novel and Nonobvious Technical
`Features ................................................................................................................................ 47 
`1.  Technical Problem: Prior Systems Required Significant Sacrificing of
`Accuracy for Speed and Vice Versa ............................................................................ 47 
`2.  The Claimed Invention Provides a Technical Solution to the Technical
`Problems: A New GUI Tool that Increases Accuracy While Maintaining speed
`and Improves Visualization .......................................................................................... 50 
`3.  The Claimed Subject Matter that Solves the Above Technical Problems
`Using a Technical Solution is Novel and Nonobvious ............................................ 55 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`V.  PETITIONERS’ PETITION FAILS TO SATISFY THE THRESHOLD
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTITUTION OF ITS PROPOSED GROUNDS ........ 57 
`A.  Petitioners’ Petition Fails to Articulate Where the “Single Action” Elements of
`the Independent Claims are Found in the Cited References ....................................... 58 
`1. 
`Petitioners’ Petition Fails to Articulate Where the “Single Action” Elements
`of the Independent Claims Are Found in the TSE Combinations ........................ 59 
`2. 
`Petitioners’ Petition Fails To Articulate Where the “Single Action”
`Elements of the Independent Claims Are Found in the Silverman/Gutterman
`Combinations .................................................................................................................. 62 
`B.  Petitioners’ 35 U.S.C. § 101 Challenge Is Uninstitutable .................................... 64 
`VI. 
`PETITIONERs CANNOT SHOW THEY ARE “MORE LIKELY THAN
`NOT” TO PREVAIL ON THEIR OBVIOUSNESS GROUNDS 2-4, WHEN THE
`SAME ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED REPEATEDLY BY THE
`OFFICE AND THE COURTS ........................................................................................... 65 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 66 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................................... 58
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 60
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC,
`728 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 5, 29
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................................................................................................... 64
`
`35 U.S.C. § 322 ............................................................................................................ 57, 58, 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) .................................................................................................................... 57
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................................................... 65
`
`AIA § 18 ............................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................................ 58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................................... 47
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4) .................................................................................................. 58, 59
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48620 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................................... 57
`
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
` CBM2014-00015, Paper 20 (Mar. 26, 2014) ................................................................... 4
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`Experian Mktg Solutions, Inc. v. Rpost Commc’ns Ltd.,
`CBM2014-00064, Paper 13 (July 31, 2014) ................................................................... 45
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`The Patent Owner is Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”). TT has
`
`been in business since 1994 and currently employs around 400 people. Ex. 2007,
`
`Litigation Tutorial, slide 2. Headquartered in Chicago with offices around the world,
`
`TT develops and sells electronic trading software. Id. TT’s products include an
`
`innovative order entry tool embodied in a graphical user interface (GUI) called MD
`
`Trader® that permits users to interact with and send orders to electronic exchanges
`
`around the world. Id., slide 8. MD Trader is the commercial embodiment of the
`
`inventions claimed in U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 (“the ’411 patent”).1 Id., slides 35-61.
`
`MD Trader is sold to and used by thousands of customers around the world,
`
`including almost every major international bank. Id., slide 2.
`
`The petition should be denied because it provides only unsupported,
`
`conclusory statements insufficient to show that the claims are directed to a covered
`
`business method (“CBM”). First, the petition fails to address the claims as a whole or
`
`explain why the claimed combination of features—directed to a tool with particular
`
`structural and functional features embodied in a GUI and not a business method—
`
`should be treated as a CBM patent. Second, even assuming that the claims at some
`
`
`1 The ’411 patent is a continuation from and shares a common specification with U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,772,132 and 6,766,304, which are the subject of CBM2014-00135 and
`
`CBM2014-00136.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`level involve a business method of the sort intended to be captured by AIA § 18, the
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`petition fails to show why the claims do not meet the technological exception in
`
`Section 18 (“term [covered business method] does not include patents for
`
`technological inventions”). Petitioners do not address the combination of technical
`
`structural/functional features that the Patent Office found made the claims novel and
`
`nonobvious.
`
`An analysis of the claims shows that the ’411 patent is not a CBM patent. The
`
`petition presents what TT believes to be a case of first impression (along with Case
`
`Nos. CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00135, CBM2014-00136, and CBM2014-00137
`
`filed by the same petitioner). The ’411 patent claims a novel and non-obvious tool
`
`embodied in a GUI tool, not a method of doing business. The ’411 patent claims
`
`specific structural and functional features of a GUI tool that happens to be used in
`
`the financial industry. The inventive aspects of this tool, however, have nothing to do
`
`with a method of doing business or a business practice. The claims do not merely
`
`cover placing a trade or sending an order based on a single click of a mouse.
`
`Moreover, the claims are not directed to “a method for performing data processing,”
`
`as alleged by petitioner to argue the ’411 patent claims a CBM. Rather, the claims
`
`require specific structural and functional features of GUI elements of a novel tool.
`
`There are countless embodiments of graphical order entry tools that are not covered
`
`by the claims of the ’411 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`TT is not aware of any other CBM petition (prior to this and petitioner’s
`
`concurrently filed petitions) directed to such a patent. To TT’s knowledge, other
`
`petitions have been directed to patents where at least arguably some inventive aspect
`
`of the claims is directed to a business method or practice. TT submits that claims
`
`where all inventive aspects reside in claimed technical features and structures, such as
`
`the graphical order entry tool of the ’411 patent, or a money-sorting machine or a
`
`stapler, fail to qualify as a CBM as a threshold matter and should not even need to be
`
`analyzed under the technological exception (which they would necessarily meet).
`
`Indeed, as shown below, the Congressional Record gives claims of the sort at issue
`
`here, where the inventive aspect lies in a graphical user interface tool used for trading,
`
`as a specific example of claims not subject to Section 18. Ex. 2009, S5428. A different
`
`result would be illogical given the statutory requirement for a “covered business
`
`method” and would contradict Congress’s purposes for enacting the statute, and
`
`subject owners of purely technological patents to the unnecessary time and expense of
`
`responding to improper CBM petitions.
`
` The claims of the ’411 patent also meet the technological exception. At the
`
`time of the invention, the main inventor (Mr. Brumfield) recognized that trading
`
`screen technologies suffered from a significant, technical problem—conventional
`
`trading screens required a significant sacrifice in accuracy to achieve speed and vice
`
`versa. The ’411 patent provided a technical solution to this problem: a novel and
`
`nonobvious GUI tool that not only improved accuracy while maintaining speed, but
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`also presented an interface that better visualized market changes, making the tool
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`more precise and efficient to use. The claimed novel and nonobvious technical
`
`features (explained below) address and provide a solution to these technical problems.
`
`The ’411 patent does not involve claims directed to a business practice (or a method
`
`of data processing) that merely recite a conventional GUI element, such as generically
`
`displaying data. See, e.g., Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014-00015, Paper 20.
`
`(Mar. 26, 2014). Rather, the claims are directed to specific technical structural and
`
`functional features of a GUI tool that apply technology to overcome technical
`
`problems in the art. Congress never intended technical inventions like those claimed
`
`in the ’411 patent to be within the purview of CBM patent review. Ex. 2009, S5428.
`
`The assertion in the petition that the claims are obvious fails to address the
`
`technical features of the claims and simply rehashes old arguments based on
`
`references that have been considered—and overcome—many times before both the
`
`Patent Office during original examination and the related examination and
`
`reexaminations of the ’132 and ’304 patents, and in related litigation. Petitioners’
`
`arguments provide only an illusion of propriety, glossing over the detailed, technical
`
`features of the claims and ignoring many key facts. Notably, the petition fails to
`
`disclose pertinent contrary information related to this past litigation and prosecution
`
`history.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Patented Technology
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`The general field of art of the ’411 patent is GUI tools for placing an order. See
`
`Ex. 1001, Field of Invention, 1:21-27 (“Specifically, the invention provides a trader
`
`with a versatile and efficient tool for executing trades. It facilitates the display of and
`
`the rapid placement of trade orders . . . .”); Trading Techs Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC,
`
`728 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Federal Circuit describing patented subject
`
`matter as “a graphical user interface that can display essential data from a
`
`commodities market and allow a user to enter electronic trade orders on an exchange.
`
`Drawings [Figures 3 and 4] exemplify several key aspects of the disclosed displays.”).
`
`These screens are highly specialized tools used for mission-critical applications. Many
`
`companies have invested, and continue to invest, significant amounts of research and
`
`development on designing improved graphical order entry tools. Ex. 2010, ¶¶ 35-38.
`
`As set forth below, the ’411 patent claims are directed to technical features of
`
`such a tool that are novel and nonobvious. The substance of what is inventive about
`
`all of the claims—including the method and computer-readable medium claims—are
`
`the features of a GUI tool, and not practicing a method of doing business or data
`
`processing. The claimed tool can be used to implement trading strategies (e.g., buy
`
`low/sell high), but the claims are not directed to any such strategy. The claims merely
`
`require that the claimed order entry tool, with the required structural and functional
`
`features, be used. In other words, the method claims are about the claimed tool, not
`
`merely about the act of placing an order.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`1.
`
`Technical Problems with the Prior Art
`
`Prior to the invention of the ’411 patent, there was well-accepted conventional
`
`wisdom regarding the design of a trading interface for order entry. Ex. 2010, Second
`
`Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas, ¶ 19. For example, it was
`
`conventional to provide the ability to enter orders using order entry tickets. Id. While
`
`there were, and continue to be, a variety of designs for such order tickets, such
`
`screens typically provided a user the ability to fill out a ticket (with information like
`
`type of order, price, quantity, etc.) and then click on a send button (and/or a
`
`confirmation button) provided on the ticket to send an order to an exchange. Id. This
`
`approach was widely known as being very accurate for order entry, but also as being
`
`slow. Id.
`
`Another typical interface for permitting order entry is shown in Figure 2 of the
`
`’411 patent (shown below with annotations). Figure 2 depicts a conventional GUI
`
`tool used in the trading field that displayed the current “best prices” for a market on
`
`the top line of the GUI.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’411 Patent
`
`Figure 2 represents a screenshot at a particular moment in time. Ex. 2010, ¶ 22.
`
`In these types of tools, the best bid price that is currently available in the market is
`
`always displayed at the top of column 203, and other bids that are also currently
`
`available in the market are displayed, progressively descending the BidPrc column 203.
`
`Id. Similarly, the best ask price that is currently available in the market is always
`
`displayed at the top of column 204, and other asks that are currently available in the
`
`market are displayed, progressively descending the AskPrc column 204. Id.
`
`In these types of tools, each and every time the inside market (the best bid and
`
`ask prices) changes, the price values displayed within the cells of the top row in
`
`columns 203 and 204 change. Id., ¶ 23. The other displayed bid and ask prices
`
`similarly change based on updates received from the market. Id. Therefore, the
`
`displayed prices are constantly changing in response to changes in the market. Id.
`
`However, the location (or cells) designated for the inside market remains in the same
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`top row of the display. Id. In other words, these types of tools maintained the display
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`of the inside market at the same location (i.e., fixed the inside market in a specified
`
`location). Id. Figure 2 provides an example of one particular design of such a prior art
`
`style screen. Various other designs of such style screens (where the inside market is
`
`displayed in a fixed location) existed and continue to be developed and be commonly
`
`used today. Id., ¶¶ 24-28.
`
`Some of these types of tools permitted “single action” order entry that
`
`consisted of a trader presetting a default quantity and then clicking on a cell in the
`
`screen (i.e., pressing a button on the tool) to cause a trade order message to be sent to
`
`the exchange at the preset quantity and at the price value associated with that cell. Id.,
`
`¶ 20.
`
`Those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention viewed these types
`
`of trading tools as satisfying well-understood design criteria and as providing
`
`numerous advantages. Id., ¶¶ 24-28. For example, fixing the display of the inside
`
`market at a designated location on the tool allowed a user to easily locate and focus on
`
`the most important information—the inside market. Id., ¶ 25. At any given time, a
`
`trader could look at the tool and immediately know the current state of the market. Id.
`
`These tools also allowed the trader to rapidly and accurately enter market type orders
`
`(orders made at the inside market prices) by clicking on the location for the best bid
`
`or best ask prices. Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`Mr. Brumfield, one of the inventors of the ’411 patent, was using a Figure 2
`
`style order entry tool as part of a product purchased from TT prior to the invention.
`
`Ex. 2011, Trial Testimony of Mr. Brumfield, pp. 676-678. He encountered a problem
`
`with this type of tool. Id., pp. 682-706; Ex. 2010, ¶ 31. Mr. Brumfield was focused on
`
`entering orders at particular price levels, as opposed to market type orders. Ex. 2011,
`
`pp. 682-706 If Mr. Brumfield wanted to use fast single action order entry on these
`
`types of tools and was trying to enter an order at a particular price level, he had to
`
`sacrifice accuracy for speed. Id. In particular, there was a risk that he would miss his
`
`intended price as a result of prices changing from under his cursor right at the time he
`
`clicked on a cell. Id. The following example slide (which was used in court in litigation
`
`involving the ’132 patent) illustrates the problem:
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Ex. 2007, p. 30. In this example, the “ask price” displayed in the top field of the GUI
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`changes from 111175 to 111180 in the time between the user deciding to place the
`
`order at the displayed price (time 1) and the user executing the click (time 2). The
`
`resulting trade is inaccurate because it executes at a different price (111180) from the
`
`displayed price selected by the user (111175). Ex. 2010, ¶ 30. The ’411 patent
`
`describes this problem at 2:60-67.
`
`A video demonstrating this loss of accuracy in favor of speed in prior art
`
`trading screen tools of the sort shown in Figure 2 that was recognized by Mr.
`
`Brumfield is attached as Exhibit 2012.2 This video demonstrating the problem was
`
`previously shown to the court in related litigation.
`
`
`2 The extensive body of prior art considered in the original examination and then in
`
`reexamination (and in litigation) includes some screens that function differently than
`
`the Figure 2 style screens. As explained below, the Patent Office determined the
`
`claimed combination of features to be novel and nonobvious over this art. Prior to
`
`the inventors, no one put together the combination of claimed features into one
`
`tool—a tool that has proven to be a huge success. Petitioners’ invalidity arguments are
`
`based on a subset of art that was already considered and is actually less than
`
`cumulative than the art considered.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`The Inventors Created New Technology that Provides
`2.
`Improved Accuracy While Maintaining Speed
`
`In an attempt to address the problem described above, Mr. Brumfield
`
`conceived the design of a new GUI tool. Ex. 2011, pp. 690-693. One of Mr.
`
`Brumfield’s early diagrams of the new GUI tool from September 1998 is shown
`
`below:
`
`
`Ex. 2013. Mr. Brumfield’s design showed early versions of new features that would be
`
`integrated into his new tool, such as a price axis display with price levels that would
`
`not move every time the market changed in the manner of Figure 2, multiple active
`
`screen elements such as areas to dynamically display indicators representing quantity
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`information relative to the price axis, and cells associated with different price levels
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`along the price axis that could be selected by a single action to cause an order message
`
`to be sent for an order at the corresponding price level. Ex. 2011, pp. 692-700. The
`
`design also included areas to display indicators representing working orders that have
`
`been sent to the exchange but have not yet been filled. Id.
`
`
`
`Over an extensive period of time, Mr. Brumfield spent significant resources
`
`(both time and money) working with technical consultants from TT to develop a
`
`working prototype of the new GUI tool.3 Id. Once a functioning tool was developed
`
`that could be tested for its intended purpose, Mr. Brumfield confirmed that the new
`
`tool addressed the problem of speed/accuracy discussed above. Id. The ’411 patent
`
`describes this problem and how the invention addresses it at 2:60-67 and 7:47-53. A
`
`video (used in court in related litigation) illustrating how the invention addresses this
`
`problem is attached as Exhibit 2014.
`
`In addition, he learned that the tool provided the added and unexpected benefit
`
`of solving another technical problem with the prior art. In particular, the interaction
`
`of the axis and dynamic indicator elements of the new tool better represented the
`
`
`3 At the time, TT had two businesses: (1) a product business, in which it sold its
`
`trading application called X_Trader to banks and trading firms around the world; and
`
`(2) a consulting business which provide computer programming/development
`
`services to clients. Ex. 2011, pp. 720-721.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`market and changes in the market than prior art style screens. Ex. 2011, pp. 703-706.
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`For example, allowing the market indicators to move up and down relative to the
`
`price (which is the result of the claimed juxtaposing of the dynamic indicators and the
`
`price axis that does not move price levels with each change in the market) provided
`
`the ability for a user to enter orders more quickly and accurately at desired prices
`
`relative to the market. Id. This resulted in the new tool identifying market changes
`
`more precisely and being easier to use and less error prone (due to its improved/more
`
`intuitive visualization) than the prior art style tools. Id. This improved visualization is
`
`described in the ’411 patent at 7:15-46 and shown by comparing Figures 3 and 4
`
`which show an example embodiment at time 1 (before a change in the market) and
`
`time 2 (after a change in the market). A video (used in court in related litigation)
`
`illustrating the visualization difference between the prior Figure 2 style screens and
`
`the invention is attached as Exhibit 2049.
`
`Experienced third parties in the field did not even recognize the shortcomings
`
`in the prior art recognized by Mr. Brumfield until after they saw the invention
`
`embodied in TT’s MD Trader product. See, e.g., Ex. 2019, ¶ 9 (“One of the most
`
`impressive things about MD Trader is the fact that prior to its release traders did not
`
`even perceive a problem with the old tools they were using. It was not until seeing the
`
`benefits of MD Trader, did they realize the shortcomings of the old order book type
`
`screens.”); see also Ex. 2038, ¶¶ 6 (“MD Trader provided this speed benefit by
`
`providing for very accurate and fast order entry as compared to the preexisting
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`screens because there was no risk of the fast order entry as compared to the
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`preexisting systems . . . MD Trader also had an improved display of the market data
`
`such that a trader could easily see the ebb and flow of the market . . . . It was only
`
`after seeing the benefits of this new unusual screen [MD Trader] that people like
`
`myself realized the shortcomings of the preexisting systems.”); Ex. 2044, ¶¶ 10-12
`
`(“Once I started using the product [MD Trader], I saw that it was better than the
`
`preexisting order entry screens. In particular, it was faster in that by providing a more
`
`intuitive display, it reduced the time it takes for a trader to recognize opportunities.
`
`Also, it allowed for order entry with less errors than preexisting systems … The
`
`combination of the more intuitive display and the fast and reliable order entry cause
`
`MD Trader to be a faster tool than preexisting systems…MD Trader provided a
`
`significant change to the order entry screens that were prevalent at the time of its
`
`release. Prior to the release of MD Trader, traders did not even perceive a problem
`
`with the old tools they were using. Only after seeing the benefits of MD Trader did
`
`people like myself realize the shortcomings of the preexisting systems.”); Ex. 2041, ¶ 6
`
`(“For someone who is an active trader, MD Trader was a revolutionary product.
`
`Only after I saw MD Trader did I realize the severe shortcomings of the preexisting
`
`systems. Whoever came up with the ideas behind MD Trader was truly ‘thinking
`
`outside of the box.’”).
`
`In 1999, TT’s business was struggling. Ex. 2010, p. 713. Based on his belief that
`
`the invention could turn the company around if TT developed it into a product,
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Mr. Brumfield assigned the invention to TT and became an investor in the company.
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`Id., pp. 713-714. A significant part of the decision to assign the invention to TT was
`
`based on the ability to patent the innovation so TT’s efforts at development and
`
`commercialization could not be easily copied by others. Id. After the patent
`
`application that led to the U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, from which the ’411 patent is a
`
`continuation, was filed, TT completed development of the technology and released it
`
`as the “MD Trader” tool—which was part of TT’s X_Trader product. Id., p. 800. The
`
`X_Trader product, with the MD Trader tool, is still TT’s flagship product today. See
`
`id., p. 715; see also Ex. 2015, X_Trader Website.
`
`The MD Trader tool combined the claimed features discussed in detail below,
`
`including the features of a price axis, a dynamic display of indicators representing
`
`quantities where the indicators move relative to the price axis when the market
`
`changes, and single action order entry.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`MD Trader
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 of the ’411 Patent
`
`This combination allowed for fast order entry with improved accuracy and a
`
`more precise visualization of the market changes. Ex. 2010, ¶ 33. The product also
`
`included features from various dependent claims that recite additional innovative
`
`features, such as regions for displaying working order indicators and that permit the
`
`easy visualization and cancellation of such orders and a re-centering feature. The
`
`various inventions claimed in the ’411 patent do not only address the problems noted
`
`above, but also provided an order entry tool that combined various features that were
`
`kept separate in the prior art (such as an order entry tool and displays of working
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`orders (sometimes called fill windows) in an innovative GUI that is materially simpler
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`
`
`and more efficient to use. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:37-53.
`
`Mr. Brumfield proved to be right—the invention was revolutionary, and turned
`
`TT around. After a period of initial skepticism, the MD Trader product became a
`
`huge commercial success, Ex. 2007, slide 34, and received widespread industry praise,
`
`Ex. 2010, ¶ 32. The technology received many accolades from experienced people in
`
`the industry. Id. Indeed, over thirty experienced third-party individuals in the field
`
`signed declarations testifying to the benefits of the invention.4 Id.; see also Exs. 2016-
`
`2046. For example, the new technology was hailed as “a very significant departure
`
`
`4 Petitioners have been provided voluminous amount of materials from litigation
`
`related to the ’411 patent that has been ongoing for ten years, including the
`
`declarations cited herein. Ex. 2047. The litigation materials, including such
`
`declarations, depositions, trial testimony, an extraordinary number of court pleadings
`
`and decisions, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of documents contain an
`
`overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts assertions being made by
`
`Petitioners. What is cited herein are just a few examples—examples that Petitioners
`
`either have or have access to. The sheer volume of this evidence and the fact that
`
`Petitioners have not bothered to identify contrary information in this evidence
`
`dictates against institution.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`from [systems that were available]” and “a stroke of genius . . . I had not seen
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`anything like it before.” Ex. 2010, ¶ 32.
`
`3.
`
`The Claims Recite the Technical Elements of the Inventive Tool
`
`The claims of the ’411 patent, never addressed in any detail in the petition,
`
`recite detailed structural and functional features of the inventive GUI tool that make
`
`the claims novel and nonobvious. In particular, the claims recite displaying bid display
`
`and ask display regions with graphical locations corresponding to different price levels
`
`of a price axis, displaying indicators representing quantity associated with the current
`
`highest bid/ask prices each in graphical location of the bid/ask display regions,
`
`moving the indicators relative to the price axis to a new graphical location upon
`
`receipt of market information comprising an new highest bid price or lowest ask
`
`price, and displaying an order entry region with graphical areas corresponding to
`
`different price levels along the axis for receiving single action commands to set an
`
`order price and to send an order.
`
`In substance, all claims, whether in method or computer-readable medium
`
`format, of the ’411 patent recite these features of the GUI tool. The novel and
`
`nonobvious elements of all claims in the ’411 patent are directed to the structure and
`
`make-up of the order entry tool (embodied in a GUI). None of the claims are merely
`
`directed to a general method of placing an order or sending an order in response to a
`
`single action of a user input device.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00133
`
`As shown below, the claimed combination of GUI elements is why the
`
`’411 patent was allowed over the prior art. These and other