Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`Miscellaneous Docket No. ______
`
`
`
`
`IN THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Patent
`and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal PTAB,
`Case CBM2015-00161
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 46
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2099
`TRADESTATION v TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00161
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`Certificate of Interest
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Trading Technologies International, Inc. certify the
`following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
`
`
`
`
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`
`2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not
`the real party in interest) represented by me is:
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent
`or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
`
`None
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the
`party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or are expected to
`appear in this court are:
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
`Erika H. Arner, Cory C. Bell, Rachel L. Emsley, Joshua L. Goldberg, Kevin
`D. Rodkey
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Steven F. Borsand
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`“Data Processing” Method or “Other Operation” and Falls Within
`
`The ’304 Patent Claims the Makeup, Structure, and Features
`of a Technological GUI Tool, Not a “Data Processing”
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. iv
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .............................................................................. vii
`I.
`Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................... 1
`II.
`Statement of the Issue ...................................................................................... 3
`III.
`Statement of Relief Sought .............................................................................. 3
`IV. The Record Establishes that the ’304 Patent Does Not Claim a
`the Technological Exception of § 18 ............................................................... 3
`A.
`Method or “Other Operation” ............................................................... 4
`B.
`Solves Problems of Speed, Accuracy, and Usability in GUIs .............. 9
`C.
`Technological GUI Tool ..................................................................... 10
`D.
`Not CBM Patents................................................................................. 11
`E.
`“Data Processing” Method or “Other Operation” ............................... 12
`F.
`Court Opinions in Finding the ’304 Patent Is a CBM Patent ............. 13
`V. All of the Requirements for Mandamus Are Met .......................................... 17
`A.
`Because the PTAB Is Outside its Jurisdictional Authority ................. 17
`B.
`Patent ................................................................................................... 18
`
`This Court Found the ’304 Patent Claims a GUI Tool That
`
`A District Court Found the ’304 Patent Claims a Specific
`
`The Legislative History Confirms Patents to GUI Tools Are
`
`TradeStation Did Not Allege that the ’304 Patent Claims a
`
`The PTAB Ignored the Dispositive Evidence and Prior
`
`This Case Is Different from Cases Denying Mandamus,
`
`The ’304 Patent Is Clearly and Indisputably Not a CBM
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 4 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`C.
`
`Method or “Other Operation” ................................................... 18
`Patent Because It Claims a Technological Invention ............... 19
`Misunderstanding of the Claimed GUI Technology ................ 22
`Regardless of Claim Form (Method, System or CRM) ............ 24
`Error and Undue Prejudice .................................................................. 25
`1. Mandamus Is Especially Appropriate Here Because
`the Error Is Jurisdictional and Recurring .................................. 25
`2.
`CBM Determination Is Not Corrected Now ............................. 27
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`TT Lacks Other Adequate Means to Obtain Relief and
`Mandamus Is Appropriate to Prevent the PTAB From
`Exceeding Its Statutory Authority and to Prevent Recurring
`
`The ’304 Patent Is Indisputably Not a CBM Patent
`Because It Does Not Claim a “Data Processing”
`
`The ’304 Patent Is Also Indisputably Not a CBM
`
`The PTAB’s Decision Reflects a Fundamental
`
`The ’304 Patent’s Underlying Invention is a GUI Tool
`
`TT Will Be Unfairly Prejudiced if the Erroneous
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 5 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International,
`123 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .............................................................................. 9, 21, 24
`
`Athlone Indus., Inc. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n,
`707 F.2d 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 27
`
`BancOhio Corp. v. Fox,
`516 F.2d 29 (6th Cir. 1975) ................................................................................ 26
`
`Belle v. Sellevold,
`713 F.2d 1396 (8th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 26
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`No. 2015-1391, 2016 WL 791107 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016) .............................. 14
`
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ............................................................................................ 25
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 24
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 21
`
`In re Dutile,
`953 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................ 26
`
`In re EchoStar Commc’ns Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 17
`
`First Jersey Sec., Inc. v. Bergen,
`605 F.2d 690 (3d Cir. 1979) ......................................................................... 26, 27
`
`In re Hot-Hed Inc.,
`477 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 26
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 6 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`In re Lowe,
`102 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 25
`
`Pieczenik v. Domantis,
`120 F. App’x 317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (unpublished) .............................................. 25
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee,
`797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 19, 24
`
`In re Procter & Gamble Co.,
`749 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 17
`
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Special Invs., Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc.,
`360 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 26
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`Stein v. KPMG, LLP,
`486 F.3d 753 (2d Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 26
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. CQG, Inc.,
`No. 05-cv-4811, 2015 WL 774655 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015) ......................passim
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 27
`
`U.S. v. Boe,
`543 F.2d 151 (C.C.P.A. 1976) ...................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. et al.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................passim
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) ......................................................................... 17
`
`America Invents Act § 18 .................................................................................passim
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 7 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`Other Authorities
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48734, 48736-37 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 8 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`In this petition, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) seeks relief
`
`from a Covered Business Method Review (“CBMR”) (CBM2015-00161) instituted
`
`by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`
`(“the ’304 patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 101 is the sole ground of institution in CBM2015-
`
`00161. The petitioners are TradeStation Group, Inc. and TradeStation Securities,
`
`Inc. (collectively “TradeStation”). No appeal in or from CBM2015-00161 was
`
`previously before this Court or any appellate court.
`
`Appeal No. 2016-1616 pending in this Court is an appeal by CQG, a joint
`
`defense partner of TradeStation, from a district court decision upholding the
`
`validity of the ’304 patent and a related patent under § 101 in Trading Techs.
`
`International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05-cv-4811, 2015 WL 774655 (N.D. Ill. Feb.
`
`24, 2015). That appeal (the “§ 101 Appeal”) follows a jury verdict finding
`
`infringement of the ’304 patent and awarding damages and a permanent injunction.
`
`Appeal Nos. 2015-1767, -1768, Trading Techs. International, Inc. v.
`
`Sungard Data Systems, Inc., are pending before this Court and relate to the ’304
`
`patent. Oral argument is scheduled for March 8, 2016. These appeals involve
`
`issues relevant to this petition because the infringement issues relate to claimed
`
`technological graphical user interface (“GUI”) features in accused GUI products.
`
`In 2008, this Court heard appeals from a jury verdict finding infringement of
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 9 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`the ’304 patent in Appeal Nos. 2008-1392, -1393, and -1422. This Court (Judges
`
`Rader, Lourie, and Clark (sitting by designation)) affirmed the lower court’s
`
`decisions and the jury verdict. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d
`
`1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The issues included claim construction, definiteness,
`
`infringement, and validity. In that decision, this Court made findings regarding the
`
`claimed invention of the ’304 patent that are relevant to this petition because they
`
`go to the issue of the underlying claimed invention being a technological GUI tool.
`
`Appeal No. 2011-1424 (Judges Rader, Lourie, and Wallach) to this Court
`
`involved the ’304 patent and affirmed damages issues from the eSpeed case.
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 469 F. App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(unpublished).
`
`In 2013, this Court heard Appeal No. 2012-1583 involving multiple
`
`defendants (including TradeStation), regarding a lower court’s application of
`
`collateral estoppel based on the first eSpeed decision to issues of written
`
`description and prosecution history estoppel (“PHE”) for patents not on appeal
`
`here, but from the same family as the ’304 patent, including U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,676,411 (“the ’411 patent”), which shares the same specification as the ’304
`
`patent. This Court (Judges Lourie, Plager, and Benson (sitting by designation))
`
`reversed the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity and its finding that
`
`PHE applied to the patents-at-issue there. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry,
`
`viii
`
`Page 9 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 10 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`LLC, 728 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This Court made findings regarding the
`
`claimed invention described in the common specification of the ’411 and ’304
`
`patents that are relevant to this petition because they go to the issue of the
`
`underlying claimed invention being a technological GUI tool. Afterward, the case
`
`was remanded for further proceedings. This consolidated district court case is the
`
`underlying litigation to CBM2015-00161 and is still pending with respect to two
`
`defendants (the others have settled). The patents-in-suit include the ’304 patent and
`
`eleven other patents directed to GUI tools used for electronic trading. These two
`
`district court cases are captioned:
`
`• Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, No. 10-CV-00721 (N.D.
`
`Ill.); and
`
`• Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. TradeStation Secs., Inc., No. 10-CV-
`
`0084 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`Both cases are consolidated under the caption Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BGC,
`
`No. 10-CV-715 (N.D. Ill.) (Judge Kendall). This consolidated case is referred to
`
`here as the “TradeStation District Court Case.”
`
`The following USPTO proceedings, each styled TD Ameritrade v. Trading
`
`Technologies International, Inc., filed by TD Ameritade (a former joint defendant
`
`with TradeStation in the TradeStation District Court Case) involved either the ’304
`
`patent or other patents claiming GUI tools in the TradeStation District Court Case,
`
`ix
`
`Page 10 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 11 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`some of which are related to the ’304 patent:
`
`• CBM2014-00136 (Re: the ’304 patent; institution was denied, but
`
`the PTAB found that the ’304 patent qualified as a covered
`
`business method (“CBM”) patent within the jurisdictional scope of
`
`Section 18);
`
`• CBM2014-00131 (Re: U.S. Patent No. 7,533,056) (instituted;
`
`terminated due to settlement);
`
`• CBM2014-00133 (Re: the ’411 patent) (instituted; terminated due
`
`to settlement);
`
`• CBM2014-00135 (Re: U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132) (instituted;
`
`terminated due to settlement); and
`
`• CBM2014-00137 (Re: U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055, a continuation-
`
`in-part of the ’132 patent) (instituted; terminated due to
`
`settlement).
`
`(Collectively the “TD Ameritrade CBMRs”).
`
`The following USPTO proceedings involving the ’304 and ’132 patents
`
`were denied institution by the PTAB because the petitioner had previously filed a
`
`declaratory judgment action:
`
`• CQG, Inc. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00057 (Re: the
`
`’304 patent); and
`
`x
`
`Page 11 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 12 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`• CQG, Inc. v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00058 (Re: the
`
`’132 patent).
`
`(Collectively the “CQG CBMRs”).
`
`The following USPTO proceeding, currently pending with the PTAB, also
`
`involves the ’304 patent in which the petitioner IBG, a joint defense partner of
`
`TradeStation, is asserting the same § 101 grounds as those in CBM2015-00161:
`
`• CBM2016-00035, IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (filed
`
`February 17, 2016).
`
`The following USPTO proceedings, currently pending before the PTAB,
`
`involve other patents owned by TT that are directed to similar technology as the
`
`’304 patent (i.e., GUI tools used for electronic trading):
`
`• CBM2015-00172, TradeStation Grp., Inc. v. Trading Techs. Int’l,
`
`Inc. (filed August 12, 2015) (Re: The ’556 patent; instituted
`
`February 12, 2016 on § 101 grounds only);
`
`• CBM2015-00179, IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (filed
`
`September 2, 2015) (Re: The ’056 patent; instituted February 24,
`
`2016 on §§ 101 and 103 grounds);
`
`• CBM2015-00181, IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (filed
`
`September 11, 2015) (Re: the ’411 patent; instituted March 7, 2016
`
`on §§ 101 and 103 grounds);
`
`xi
`
`Page 12 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 13 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`• CBM2015-00182, IBG LLC, TradeStation Grp., Inc. v. Trading
`
`Techs. Int’l, Inc. (filed September 11, 2015) (Re: the ’132 patent;
`
`instituted March 3, 2016 on §§ 101 and 103 grounds);
`
`• CBM2016-00009, IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (filed
`
`February 2, 2016) (Re: the ’055 Patent; awaiting institution);
`
`• CBM2016-00031, TradeStation Grp., Inc. v. Trading Techs. Int’l,
`
`Inc. (filed October 23, 2015) (Re: U.S. Patent No. 7,813,996, a
`
`continuation of the ’132 patent and which shares the same
`
`specification as the ’304 patent; awaiting institution decision);
`
`• CBM2016-00032, IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (filed
`
`February 9, 2016) (Re: U.S. Patent No. 7,212,999; awaiting
`
`institution decision); and
`
`• CBM2016-00040, IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. (filed
`
`February 25, 2016) (Re: U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556, which shares a
`
`specification with the ’304 patent; awaiting institution decision).
`
`
`
`xii
`
`Page 13 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 14 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is needed to correct a recurring
`
`jurisdictional error by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”): it improperly
`
`instituted a covered business method review (“CBMR”) under § 18 of the America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”) against a patent that is clearly and indisputably not a CBM
`
`patent. In § 18, “Congress created a special review regime, over and above any
`
`other authority the PTAB might have, for reviewing and invalidating patents that
`
`qualify as CBM patents.” Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
`
`1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The PTAB has no jurisdictional authority to institute CBMR
`
`for a patent that is not a CBM patent, which § 18(d)(1) defines as:
`
`[T]he term “covered business method patent” means a patent that
`claims a method or corresponding apparatus[1] 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.
`
`Thus, there are three separate requirements for a patent to qualify for
`
`CBMR: (1) it must claim a “data processing” method or “other operation” (e.g., a
`
`business method); (2) the claimed invention must be used with respect to a
`
`financial product/service; and (3) it must not be for a technological invention.
`
`The ’304 patent (Ex. A) indisputably does not meet either the first or third
`
`
`1 “Corresponding apparatus” encompasses patents that substantively tie up the
`underlying method using claim drafting techniques.
`
`1
`
`Page 14 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 15 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`requirements for CBMR jurisdiction because (1) it claims the makeup, structure,
`
`and features of a technological tool, not a “data processing” or business method;
`
`and (2) the claimed technological tool solves technical problems of speed,
`
`precision, and usability with prior art technology. Indeed, this Court twice found
`
`that the ’304 patent claims an invention that solves these technical problems in the
`
`prior art technology. Moreover, a district court recently held the ’304 patent claims
`
`are patent-eligible under § 101 because, inter alia, they claim technological
`
`improvements to prior technology and devices. The overwhelming evidence,
`
`mostly uncontested, definitively establishes that the ’304 patent, just like a patent
`
`claiming a physical device, is not close to qualifying for CBMR.
`
`
`
`Despite this, the PTAB instituted CBM2015-00161 against the ’304 patent
`
`on the sole ground of § 101 eligibility. In concluding that the ’304 patent is a CBM
`
`patent, the PTAB ignored the dispositive evidence and prior court opinions (except
`
`a footnote stating they “do not give much, if any, deference” to the district court).
`
`There is no rational basis for or credible evidence supporting the PTAB’s decision.
`
`Instead, the PTAB focused on the fact that the claimed invention is used in a
`
`financial setting (trading) and the truism that improving technology in that field
`
`provides a financial benefit. CBM jurisdiction, however, requires more than using
`
`an invention in a financial setting. The ’304 patent does not claim trading—it
`
`indisputably claims a tool that solves technical problems. The PTAB has also
`
`2
`
`Page 15 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 16 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`repeated this clear jurisdictional error four times in the last few weeks and is
`
`certain to do so again in the pending CBM petitions awaiting institution
`
`decisions. Although the AIA provides the USPTO Director with discretion to
`
`intervene and deny institution to prevent these types of errors, the Director has
`
`refused to do so, citing a prior delegation of this authority to the PTAB.2
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`Whether the PTAB exceeded its authority under AIA § 18 by instituting
`
`CBM2015-00161 even though the ’304 patent is clearly and indisputably outside
`
`CBMR jurisdiction, claiming a technological tool that solves technical problems,
`
`not a “data processing” method, business method, or entrepreneurial activity?
`
`III. STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`TT requests that the Court direct the PTAB to vacate its institution decision
`
`(Ex. BA) in CBM2015-00161 and terminate that proceeding.
`
`IV. THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE ’304 PATENT DOES NOT
`CLAIM A “DATA PROCESSING” METHOD OR “OTHER OPERATION”
`AND FALLS WITHIN THE TECHNOLOGICAL EXCEPTION OF § 18
`
`The evidence definitively establishes: (1) the ’304 patent does not claim a
`
`“data processing” method or “other operation;” (2) the ’304 patent claims a
`
`specific GUI tool used for electronic trading; (3) the claimed GUI tool is
`
`2 TT asked Director Lee, before and after institution, to exercise her discretion to
`terminate for lack of jurisdiction. Exs. B-E (without attachments). On February 19,
`2016, her office responded for the first time declining to do so. Ex. F.
`
`3
`
`Page 16 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 17 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`technological; (4) the claimed GUI tool solves problems with prior GUIs related to
`
`speed, accuracy, and usability; and (5) speed, accuracy and usability are technical
`
`problems. This Court and a district court have found that the ’304 patent claims a
`
`GUI tool that solved technical problems of speed, accuracy, and usability with
`
`prior GUI tools, and the district court specifically determined that the claimed
`
`invention is technological. The PTAB ignored the dispositive evidence and the
`
`prior court opinions in exercising jurisdiction under § 18.
`
`A. The ’304 Patent Claims the Makeup, Structure, and
`Features of a Technological GUI Tool, Not a “Data
`Processing” Method or “Other Operation”
`
`The ’304 patent relates to GUI tools for electronic order entry that
`
`“provide[] a trader with a versatile and efficient tool for executing trades.” See Ex.
`
`A at 1:19. The patent explains that speed and accuracy are important to GUI tools
`
`for trading. Id. at 2:47-65. In prior art GUIs, such as shown in Figure 2, a displayed
`
`price could unexpectedly change under a trader’s pointer as he clicked the GUI,
`
`causing an order message to be sent with an unintended price parameter. Id. at
`
`2:60-3:6. The ’304 patent’s claims address this problem with a GUI that includes
`
`“a dynamic display for a plurality of bids and for a plurality of asks” and “a static
`
`display of prices corresponding to the plurality of bids and asks.” Id. at 3:15-20.
`
`Figures 3 and 4 (reproduced and annotated below alongside claim 1) show a
`
`claimed GUI tool at two times, before (Time 1, FIG. 3) and after (Time 2, FIG. 4)
`
`4
`
`Page 17 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120
`
`Document: 2-1
`
`Page: 18
`
`Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`an update from the electronic exchange reflecting a change to the best bid and best
`
`ask prices (the inside market). The claimed GUI includes a static price axis with a
`
`range of price levels displayed in the “Prc” column. The GUI provides dynamic
`
`indicators representing bids and asks that are displayed in regions (BidQ and AskQ
`
`columns, respectively) with locations corresponding to the levels of the price axis.
`
`Id. at 7:54-8:19. In response to the update, the bid and ask indicators dynamically
`
`move along the price axis (e.g., up from 89 and 90 in Figure 3 to 92 and 93, in
`
`Figure 4, respectively), yet the values of the price axis remained fixed. The ’304
`
`claims refer to these price levels as “static.”
`
`.
`
`,
`
`,.
`
`'
`
`1. A method for displaying market iniurmatiui relating to
`and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an
`clcctmnic exchange having an inside market with a highest
`bid price and n lm\'L-st ask price on a graphical mcr irtterfncc,
`the method comprising:
`dynamically displayiitg n tlrst indicator in one of :4 plu-
`ralily oflueations in a bid display region, each location
`in the bid display region cortespondirg to I price level
`along a common static prion axis. the first
`indicator
`representing quantity associated with at least one onler
`in my the uunrttntlity at the ttigltcst lvkl prion: currently
`available in tht: market:
`itttlicalur in tune til a
`tlyrtamieally tlisplaying : !~’cCDlltl
`plurality nl‘ lueatium: in an ask «Ii».-pt:-y region. each
`location in the risk display n.-gim ourmspunditig to in
`price level along the common static prroe axis.
`the
`second indicator representing quantity associated with
`at test one order to sell the commodity at the lowest
`ask prion cum.-ntl_\‘ available in Ilto market;
`displaying the lvirl and ask display regions in relation tu
`fixed price levels positioned along the common static
`price axis such lll:tl when the inside market changes. the
`price lCVCl.\i along the common static price axis do not
`mow and at least one of the first and second indicators
`moves in the hid or ask display regions relative to the
`common static prior: axis;
`displaying an urrlcr entry region L‘(|IVl|)t'l\‘lI|g .1 pluutlityrtf
`Iucatium for l'B‘CL‘l\'t|)}.‘, oummamls to st-ixl trade orders,
`unill luealiun corn.-vapnntling In .'I price l\.'Vt.‘l slung the
`umtmmt static priu: axis; nail
`in response to a §¢lI:£1l0|'|(Jf a particular location of the
`order entry region by a single action 0|‘ a user input
`dcviw. sa.'tIini_.'
`II
`ivlnrality ul p;tranwtt:r.\ for {I
`trade
`urder relating tu tltv wntrttudity and xnding the trade
`order to the electronic exchange.
`
`299
`
`mHEHEEEEEEEEEINIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIII
`
`The claimed GUI also provides locations corresponding to different price
`
`levels of the price axis that can be selected by a single action of a user input device
`
`Page 18 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 19 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`to set order parameters (e.g., price and order type) and send an order message. For
`
`example, the cells of the BidQ/AskQ columns are configured to receive single
`
`action commands that set the price, specify that the order is a buy or sell order, and
`
`send an order message with these parameters to the exchange. E.g., id. at 10:46-48,
`
`11:3-5. These locations are analogous to buttons on a physical device.
`
`Unlike Figure 2’s prior-art type GUIs, if a user clicks on the claimed GUI to
`
`send an order at the same moment that the GUI changes the bid/ask indicators to
`
`reflect a market change, the order message will still be set with the user’s intended
`
`price because the order entry location remains associated with the same level along
`
`the price axis, even when the bid/ask indictors move. Id. at 7:15-46, FIGS. 3 and 4.
`
`The claimed invention also improves usability by providing a more intuitive
`
`visualization of market changes than prior GUIs. Id. at 7:15-46; Ex. G at 13-14.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’304 patent recites a combination of GUI features shown in
`
`the embodiment of Figures 3 and 4, including a common static price axis;
`
`dynamically displaying bid/ask display indicators in locations of bid/ask display
`
`regions corresponding to levels along the static price axis; displaying the bid/ask
`
`display regions such that when market updates are received, the levels of the
`
`common static price axis do not move, but the indicators move in the bid/ask
`
`display regions relative to the static price axis; and displaying an order entry region
`
`with locations corresponding to levels along the static price axis that can be
`
`6
`
`Page 19 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 20 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`selected by a single action of a user input device to set parameters and send an
`
`order message. See Ex. A, claim 1. This combination of GUI features was the
`
`reason for allowance during the original examination (Ex. H at 5) and confirmation
`
`in a later reexamination (Ex. I at 2-3). While the claims refer to trading, this is
`
`merely the invention’s application. The claimed invention is a GUI tool. The
`
`demonstrative in Ex. J, cited in the PTAB proceedings below, shows how the body
`
`of claim 1 recites elements that define the makeup, structure, and features of a GUI
`
`tool—not a business method such as a trading strategy. Ex. J at 33-46.
`
`
`
`GUI development is indisputably technological, falling under the scientific
`
`field of Human Computer Interaction (“HCI”), which is a category of the broader
`
`scientific field of Man Machine Interface (“MMI”). Ex. K. Universities across the
`
`country offer technical degrees in the HCI field. See, e.g., Exs. L-R. TradeStation’s
`
`expert and experts from all sides in the patent’s long litigation history agree that
`
`the patent claims a GUI tool that addresses problems of speed, accuracy/precision,
`
`and usability and that GUIs are technology. Ex. J at 65-66, 67, 68, 69. This has
`
`also been confirmed by the declarations of thirty-one users praising TT’s
`
`commercial embodiment of the invention (“MD Trader”). Exs. S-AW. As found by
`
`the European Patent Office (“EPO”), the claimed GUI “solves a technical problem
`
`which is to improve the operation of the system in terms of increasing the accuracy
`
`for placing orders. In fact, this problem is independent from the business aspects of
`
`7
`
`Page 20 of 46
`
`

`
`Case: 16-120 Document: 2-1 Page: 21 Filed: 03/08/2016
`
`the claims.” Ex. AX at 6; see also Exs. BO-BQ. Problems of speed,
`
`accuracy/precision, and usability are classic engineering problems that are
`
`indisputably technical. Ex. G at pp. 15-17.
`
`
`
`As noted by TradeStation and the PTAB, the CBM definition in § 18 tracks
`
`the USPTO’s classification definition for Class 705. Ex. AY at 11; Ex. BA at 12.
`
`The USPTO defines “data processing” in Class 705 as “[a] systematic operation on
`
`data in accordance with a set of rules which results in a significant change in data.”
`
`Ex. BB at 4. “Data” is defined as “[r]epresentation of information in a coded
`
`manner suitable for communication, interpretation or processing.” Id. Thus, “data
`
`processing” is different from communicating or interpreting data. The claimed
`
`invention does not perform any “operation on data . . . which results in a
`
`significant change of data.” Ex. BB. An example of a patent performing “data
`
`processing” would be one claiming a technique for data sorting or filtering noise
`
`out of data. The ’304 patent does not claim anything remotely close to a “data
`
`processing” method under Class 705’s definition of that term. Neither the PTAB
`
`nor TradeStation have proposed any other definition of “data processing.”
`
`Although not a basis of the institution decision, the ’304 patent does not
`
`claim any “other operation” (e.g., a business method) under § 18. While the
`
`claimed invention may be used to conduct a business practice (e.g., a trading
`
`strategy), the claims are to a GUI tool that changes how the computer operates.
`
`8
`
`Page 21 of 46
`
`

`
`Ca