Paper No. ____
` Filed: October 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC. AND
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`Case CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent 6,766,304 B2
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Contents
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION ........................................... 3
`
`III. TRADESTATION'S PETITION FAILS TO SHOW THAT IT IS
`MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE ’304
`PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER § 112 ....................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`TradeStation Fails to Explain that Its § 112 Argument Has
`Already Been Considered In Litigation, and Rejected ......................... 9
`
`The ’304 Patent Claims Meet the Written Description
`Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`The term “static price axis” does not require “non-static”
`price levels or a price axis with some price levels static
`and other price levels non-static—non-static price levels
`are an unclaimed, unrecited feature .......................................... 12
`
`2.
`
`The claims meet the written description requirement. .............. 14
`
`IV. TRADESTATION'S PETITION FAILS TO SHOW THAT IT IS
`MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE '304
`PATENT ARE PATENT INELIGIBLE UNDER § 101 .............................. 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`TradeStation Fails to Even Mention the District Court Decision
`Finding the Claims Eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................... 19
`
`The District Court Correctly Rejected TradeStation’s § 101
`Arguments ........................................................................................... 25
`
`TradeStation’s Arguments Under § 101 Fail to Consider the
`USPTO’s Most Recent Examination Guidance .................................. 34
`
`TradeStation’s Incomplete Analysis Cannot Be Saved By a
`Non-Precedential and Non-Final Board Decision that Predates
`Both DDR and the PTO’s Own Updated § 101 Guidance. ................. 37
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
` 
`
`

`
`V.
`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER 35 U.S.C §
`322(A)(2) AND 35 U.S.C. § 325(A)(1) BECAUSE
`TRADESTATION FAILS TO SHOW CQG IS NOT AN RPI,
`WHILE ADMITTING COORDINATED EFFORTS. ................................. 37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Admitted Coordination in Preparing Petitions Against TT’s
`Patents Establishes RPI Status for CQG ............................................. 39
`
`The Agreement to Divide the Petition Filings Amongst
`Defendants Represents Payment-In-Kind for Those Petitions ........... 40
`
`C. As CQG’s Proxy, TradeStation’s Petition Should Be Barred
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) ............................................................... 42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`RPX illustrates why CQG is an RPI .......................................... 43
`
`JP Morgan presents different circumstances than this
`case ............................................................................................ 45
`
`VI. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT
`REPRESENTS A MISUSE OF THE COVERED BUSINESS
`METHOD REVIEW PROCESS. .................................................................. 47
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Has the Authority to Deny the Petition for Misuse of
`the CBM Review Process .................................................................... 47
`
`TradeStation’s Petition Misuses CBM Review Because It
`Purposefully Delayed Its Repetition of Arguments ............................ 49
`
`VII. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE THE ’304
`PATENT IS NOT A COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT ............ 52
`
`A.
`
`TradeStation’s Conclusory and Admittedly “[B]rief” Analysis
`Falls Short of Establishing That the ’304 Patent Claims a
`“Covered Business Method” And Is Therefore Within the
`Jurisdictional Scope of Section 18 ...................................................... 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`TradeStation’s reliance on the patent’s classification fails
`to establish CBM eligibility ...................................................... 52
`
`TradeStation’s reliance on phrases that are “financial in
`nature” fails to establish CBM jurisdiction ............................... 53
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
` 
`
`

`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`TradeStation cannot establish CBM jurisdiction by
`ignoring facts that contradict its conclusion that the
`claimed invention is a covered business method ...................... 54
`
`TradeStation technological invention arguments are
`deficient. .................................................................................... 56
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`TradeStation failed to show that claims do not
`recite a novel and non-obvious technological
`invention because it did not address the claimed
`GUI ................................................................................. 56
`
`TradeStation cannot establish CBM jurisdiction by
`ignoring facts contrary to its conclusion that the
`claims are not for a technological invention................... 57
`
`5.
`
`TradeStation cannot circumvent establishing jurisdiction
`by pointing to a prior, non-precedential decision denying
`institution .................................................................................. 60
`
`B.
`
`Even If the Board Were to Conduct Its Own Analysis, All of
`the Evidence Shows That the ’304 Patent Falls Outside of the
`Scope of CBM Review. ....................................................................... 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’304 patent does not claim a covered business
`method ....................................................................................... 62
`
`The ’304 patent claims a technological invention .................... 68
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`There is no evidence to refute the Examiner’s
`original determination that the claimed
`combination of GUI features is novel and non-
`obvious ............................................................................ 69
`
`The prior art GUIs’ had a speed and accuracy
`problem ........................................................................... 70
`
`The inventors solved the prior art GUIs’ speed and
`accuracy problem as well as another technical
`problem of usability ........................................................ 74
`
`The problem previously identified by the Board
`was incomplete ............................................................... 76
`iv
` 
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`TradeStation’s petition—presenting the third attack on the ’304 patent by the
`
`joint defense group—should be denied for many independent reasons.
`
`The petition presents two grounds, one based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the
`
`other based on 35 U.S.C. § 112. While TradeStation informs the Board that it is
`
`making substantially the same arguments that CQG presented in previously denied
`
`petitions, it fails to inform the Board that CQG also presented these arguments in
`
`district court—and lost. TradeStation similarly neglects to mention contradictory
`
`statements in the testimony it presents with the petition, as well as the recent § 101
`
`guidance from the PTO that contradicts its position. Because TradeStation fails to
`
`address known evidence that undermines its positions, the Board should find that
`
`TradeStation fails to meet its burden that it is more likely than not to succeed on
`
`the merits.
`
`Each of the grounds should also be denied because they have no merit. For
`
`the § 112 ground, TradeStation creates an argument that mixes up the difference
`
`between the features required by the claims and additional, unclaimed features of
`
`infringing products. This argument was not only rejected by the district court as
`
`legally deficient but also runs counter to Federal Circuit precedent never addressed
`
`by the petition. For the § 101 ground, the district court’s analysis was correct—the
`
`
`
`
`1
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`claims are patent eligible under both prongs of the Alice test. For this additional
`
`reason, the Board should deny each ground.
`
`The petition should also be denied for three additional independent reasons.
`
`First, there is evidence that reasonably suggests that CQG is a real-party-in-interest
`
`(“RPI”) (e.g., the admitted coordination, reliance on same argument, etc.) and
`
`TradeStation fails to meet its burden to establish that CQG is not. Instead,
`
`TradeStation rests on a mischaracterization of a prior, non-precedential decision.
`
`Second, TradeStation is misusing these proceedings for purposes of
`
`litigation gamesmanship, by employing a “wait-and-see” strategy of delaying
`
`filing, to perpetually stay litigation and to get multiple bites at the apple after
`
`seeing TT’s responses to arguments.
`
`Third, the ’304 patent is not a covered business method patent. The ’304
`
`patent is not a covered business method patent because the claims are directed to a
`
`combination of GUI features that solve a problem with prior GUI tools used to
`
`conduct a trade—not a data processing or operations business method.
`
`TradeStation ignores the evidence that supports that conclusion and ignores the
`
`substantive elements of the claim. Instead, TradeStation focuses on irrelevant facts
`
`such as the patent’s classification, statements in the preamble of the claims, and a
`
`few words in the claim taken out-of-context. None of that is sufficient to establish
`
`that the patent is a CBM patent.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`Finally, TradeStation attempts to improperly short circuit its burden by
`
`relying on prior panel decisions. Not only are those decisions non-precedential, but
`
`they also predate further guidance from the PTO and the Federal Circuit on the
`
`issues TradeStation relies upon them for. Moreover, TT presents additional
`
`evidence and arguments here that those panels did not consider.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
`A brief overview of the claimed invention will set the context for many of
`
`the issues set forth below. Independent claim 1 of the ’304 patent states:
`
`1. A method for displaying market information relating to
`and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an
`electronic exchange having an inside market with a
`highest bid price and a lowest ask price on a graphical
`user interface, the method comprising:
`
`dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a
`plurality of locations in a bid display region, each
`location in the bid display region corresponding to a price
`level along a common static price axis, the first indicator
`representing quantity associated with at least one order to
`buy the commodity at the highest bid price currently
`available in the market;
`
`dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a
`plurality of locations in an ask display region, each
`location in the ask display region corresponding to a
`
`
`
`
`3
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`price level along the common static price axis, the second
`indicator representing quantity associated with at least
`one order to sell the commodity at the lowest ask price
`currently available in the market;
`
`displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to
`fixed price levels positioned along the common static
`price axis such that when the inside market changes, the
`price levels along the common static price axis do not
`move and at least one of the first and second indicators
`moves in the bid or ask display regions relative to the
`common static price axis;
`
`displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of
`locations for receiving commands to send trade orders,
`each location corresponding to a price level along the
`common static price axis; and
`
`in response to a selection of a particular location of the
`order entry region by a single action of a user input
`device, setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order
`relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to
`the electronic exchange.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:35-13:3.
`
`The claims are directed to a GUI order entry tool that is connected to an
`
`electronic exchange such that the tool receives updates from the exchange and can
`
`be used to send order messages to the exchange. Figures 3 and 4 of the ’304 patent
`
`4
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`show an embodiment of the claimed invention at two times (T1 and T2), just
`
`before and after receipt of an update from the electronic exchange reflecting a
`
`change in the inside market (the best bid and best ask price).
`
`
`
`As seen in these figures, the GUI includes a static price axis with a range of
`
`price levels displayed in column 1005. The GUI also provides dynamic displays of
`
`indicators that are displayed in regions with locations corresponding to the levels
`
`of the price axis. In this embodiment, the indicators displayed in column 1003
`
`represent information regarding bid or buy orders in the market (referred to herein
`
`
`
`
`5
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`as “bid indicators”) and the indicators displayed in column 1004 represent
`
`information regarding ask or sell orders in the market (referred to herein as “ask
`
`indicators”). The best bid indicator represents quantity available in the market at
`
`the current best bid price (the highest bid/buy price) and the best ask indicator
`
`represents quantity available in the market at the current best ask price (the lowest
`
`ask/sell price). The GUI displays these indicators based on data that is being
`
`received from the electronic exchange. In Figure 3, the price levels representing
`
`the current inside market are labeled with reference number 1020. The best bid
`
`indicator represents a quantity of 18 at the price level of 89 and the best ask
`
`indicator represents a quantity of 20 at the price level of 90.
`
`The 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 to both
`
`set a plurality of order parameters (e.g., the price and type of the order) and to send
`
`an order message to an exchange. In particular, in the shown embodiment, the cells
`
`of the dynamic bid column 1003 are configured to receive single action commands
`
`that both set the price and that the order is a buy order and send an order message
`
`with these parameters to the exchange. Likewise, the cells of the dynamic ask
`
`column 1004 are configured to receive single action commands that both set the
`
`price and that the order is a sell order and send an order message with these
`
`parameters to the exchange. For shorthand, we use the phrase “single action order
`
`
`
`
`6
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`entry” to refer to the feature of providing order entry locations corresponding to
`
`price levels of the price axis that can be selected by a single action of a user input
`
`device to set a plurality of order parameters and send an order message with those
`
`parameters to the electronic exchange.1
`
`Figure 4 displays information for the same tradeable object at a later time
`
`when, in response to market updates, the GUI caused the inside market indicators
`
`to be moved up relative to the price axis such that the indicators now reflect a best
`
`bid price of 92 and a best ask price of 93. The inside market indicators moved
`
`relative to the price axis between T1 and T2 and the price levels of the price
`
`column remained fixed. Unlike conventional prior art screens of the sort shown in
`
`Figure 2 of the ‘304 patent, if the user clicked to send an order at the very moment
`
`the market changed with the illustrated embodiment of the invention, an order
`
`message would have been set with the user’s intended price because the order entry
`
`location remained associated with the same price level.
`
`The independent claims of the ’304 patent are directed to this combination
`
`of features and it was this combination of features that was the very reason for
`
`
`1 Although not mentioned by TradeStation, the term “trade order” in the claim was
`
`construed in district court to mean a “single, electronic message in executable form
`
`that includes at least all required parameters of a desired trade.” Ex 2020 at 18-19.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`allowance during the original examination and later reexaminations. Ex. 1012 at 5;
`
`Ex. 2021 at 2-3. Claim 1 of the ’304 patent claims, inter alia, the combination of a
`
`static price axis, dynamically displaying bid and ask indicators in bid and ask
`
`display regions respectively, such bid/ask display regions having locations
`
`corresponding to price levels of the static price axis, and single action order entry.
`
`The claimed combination of features of this patent is not directed in any way
`
`to a business method or practice. For example, it does not merely claim trading or a
`
`specific strategy for trading, or implementing such a process on a generic computer
`
`with a generic display. Rather, the claims are specifically directed to particular
`
`GUI features and functionality. Trading, which is only referenced in the preamble
`
`of the claims, is merely the context and application for the claimed technology and
`
`incidental to the heart of the claims. These claims are no more directed to a
`
`business practice than claims directed to an improved instrument panel in an
`
`airplane are directed to the process of flying.
`
`III. TRADESTATION'S PETITION FAILS TO SHOW THAT IT IS
`MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE ’304
`PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER § 112
`
`TradeStation’s petition fails to show that it is more likely than not that the
`
`claims of the ‘304 patent are not in compliance with the written description
`
`requirement of § 112 for at least two reasons. First, TradeStation fails to address a
`
`
`
`
`8
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`district court’s decision on the same issue in view of the same arguments. Second,
`
`TradeStation’s analysis is incorrect on the law and the facts.
`
`A. TradeStation Fails to Explain that Its § 112 Argument Has
`Already Been Considered In Litigation, and Rejected
`
`TradeStation has ignored and mis-cited legal authority, mischaracterized the
`
`claims, and ignored contradictory facts. Consequently, TradeStation’s Petition fails
`
`to establish that the claims are “more likely than not invalid” under § 112, and the
`
`Board should deny institution. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). A proper analysis shows that
`
`the district court's conclusion that the claims are eligible under § 112 is correct.
`
`The district court in the CQG case involving the same patent rejected the
`
`same argument several times. First, that district court denied a motion for summary
`
`judgment of invalidity based on § 112 in which CQG made the same arguments
`
`being made here. Ex. 2022, 10-11. Then, at trial, CQG’s same § 112 defense failed
`
`again. After all of the evidence was in, TT moved under Rule 50 for judgment as a
`
`matter of law because CQG’s argument was improperly seeking to require written
`
`description support for unclaimed features (non-static prices). The district court
`
`granted the motion, taking CQG’s 112 defense away from the jury. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`2028, 2527:3-17; id. at 2520-24 . TradeStation admits that the arguments in the
`
`current petition are “substantially identical” to the arguments set forth in the CQG
`
`CBM petition against the ’304 patent. See Pet. at 4; see also Ex. 2023 (redlining
`
`the differences between CQG’s and TradeStation’s petitions). TradeStation even
`
`
`
`
`9
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`relies on CQG’s expert declaration—TradeStation’s Ex. 1013 is the same as
`
`CQG’s CBM Ex. 1028, which consists of testimony copied from litigation reports.
`
`See e.g., Ex. 2024 (redlining the differences between Dr. Mellor’s prior § 112
`
`report and his report filed with the Petition). The arguments presented in the CQG
`
`CBM petition, and that TradeStation by extension is now presenting, are the same
`
`arguments made to the district court during litigation. CQG lost on these
`
`arguments. However, even though TradeStation adopts the arguments and evidence
`
`from the CQG CBM petition, TradeStation fails to explain why the district court’s
`
`decisions were incorrect. See Pet. at 52-60. In fact, TradeStation’s petition does not
`
`even disclose that the district court looked at the same issue or that the district
`
`court rejected the same arguments being presented here—facts that must have been
`
`known to TradeStation before filing the petition.
`
`The district court’s rulings on § 112 are highly relevant to this proceeding
`
`because they address both the same patent (i.e., ’304 patent) and legal issue (i.e.,
`
`§ 112) presented in TradeStation's petition.
`
`The district court properly concluded that the claims in the ’304 patent are in
`
`compliance with the “written description” requirement of § 112. Ex. 2022 at 10-11.
`
`CQG argued that “there is no support in the written description for a static
`
`limitation that covers a price column where some, but not all, prices are static.” Id.
`
`at 10. This argument is substantially identical to the arguments put forth by
`
`
`
`
`10
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`TradeStation. This argument seeks written description support for an unclaimed
`
`feature (non-static prices) because the claims do not require a price axis that
`
`includes non-static prices. The district court in the CQG case rejected these
`
`arguments because it found what is required by the claim term “static” is supported
`
`by the written description and that there is no requirement that there be written
`
`description support for unclaimed features. Id. at 9-11. Therefore, the district court
`
`held that the ’304 claims are in compliance with the “written description”
`
`requirement of § 112.
`
`Although not binding, the district court’s analysis represents the most
`
`relevant evidence of whether TradeStation’s § 112 argument shows that “more
`
`likely than not” at least one claim of the patent is invalid because the district court
`
`fully considered the same legal issue and substantively the same argument. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`TradeStation is completely silent with respect to the district court’s analysis
`
`and TT’s prior arguments on this very point in the Preliminary Response to the
`
`CQG CBM petition, instead simply rehashing CQG’s losing argument. Because
`
`TradeStation offers no reason why the district court was wrong or why the Board
`
`should come to opposite conclusions, the petition fails to establish that the claims
`
`are more likely than not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and the petition should be
`
`denied.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`Although not raised by TradeStation, the fact that the burden proof here may
`
`be different than the burden of proof on § 112 at the district court is not enough to
`
`save TradeStation’s deficient petition.2 That does not relieve TradeStation of the
`
`burden to be fully transparent with the Board and to explain why a different result
`
`is likely here.
`
`B.
`
`The ’304 Patent Claims Meet the Written Description
`Requirement Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`In the Petition, TradeStation incorrectly argues, mirroring arguments made
`
`by CQG in CQG's CBM petition, that the claims “are invalid for lack of written
`
`description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 if, as TT asserts (and Petitioners accept for
`
`purposes of this petition), the claims cover a price column where some but not all
`
`displayed prices are static.” Pet. at 59 (emphasis in original).
`
`1. The term “static price axis” does not require “non-static”
`price levels or a price axis with some price levels static and
`other price levels non-static—non-static price levels are an
`unclaimed, unrecited feature
`
`As an initial matter, TradeStation is creating confusion regarding the
`
`meaning of the term “static price axis” and TT’s position on this issue.
`
`
`2 Indeed, any potential difference in the burden of proof is irrelevant here with
`
`respect to the § 112 issue, which is an issue of law based on the four corners of the
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`TradeStation alleges that “TT has consistently argued in the counterpart litigation
`
`that the construction [of ‘common static price axis’] should include a price axis in
`
`which only some prices in a price column are static rather than requiring all prices
`
`in the price column to be static.” Pet. at 23 (emphasis in original). TradeStation
`
`then argues that “for the purposes of this proceeding only, the proposed BRI of
`
`‘common static price axis’ includes price axes in which at least some, but not
`
`necessarily all, of the prices are static.” Pet. at 23. To be clear, in pending litigation
`
`involving the ‘304 patent, the controlling construction of “static” as found by a
`
`district court and affirmed by the Federal Circuit does not require a price axis or
`
`column that has both a range of “static” price levels and “non-static” price levels.
`
`TT has never argued for a construction of “static” that would require “non-static”
`
`price levels.
`
`The controlling construction of “static” in the litigation is “a line comprising
`
`price levels that do not change positions unless a manual re-centering command is
`
`received and where the line of prices corresponds to at least one bid value and one
`
`ask value.” Ex. 1019 at 5-6; Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595
`
`F.3d at 1354. A different petitioner adopted that same construction in a petition
`
`regarding a related patent, CBM2014-00136, Paper 4 at 11-12, and TradeStation
`
`states that this construction is the correct BRI. Pet. at 23. Importantly, the term
`
`“static price axis” in the ‘304 patent should not be construed, using the BRI or any
`
`
`
`
`13
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`other interpretation, to require a price axis or column that has both “static” and
`
`“non-static” price levels. The term “static,” however defined, describes and
`
`requires only a range of “static” price levels. Accordingly, to the extent that
`
`TradeStation’s arguments are based on a construction of “static” that requires
`
`“non-static” price levels, such an unduly narrow construction is incorrect and
`
`TradeStation’s petition should be denied on this basis alone.
`
`As explained below, the presence of “non-static” price levels in an accused
`
`product that has “static” price levels does not avoid infringement because such
`
`“non-static” price levels are merely an unclaimed, unrecited additional feature.
`
`Importantly, as explained below, there is no requirement that there be written
`
`description support for such an unrecited feature.
`
`2. The claims meet the written description requirement.
`Once it is understood that the claims do not recite or require “non-static”
`
`price levels, it is clear that TradeStation’s written description argument is the same
`
`argument on which CQG lost and fails for the same reasons. It is undisputed that
`
`the specification of the ‘304 patent describes a static column of price levels that
`
`fully supports the “static” claim term. TradeStation argues that the written
`
`description must also describe non-static price levels. However, the law is clear
`
`that there is no requirement to that the specification describe such an unclaimed
`
`feature. See e.g. Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, 314 F.3d 1313, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`2003) (“the patentee need only describe the invention as claimed, and need not
`
`describe an unclaimed method of making the claimed product”); Ethicon v. U.S.
`
`Surgical, 93 F.3d 1572, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In other words, the proper focus
`
`is not on the features of an accused product that may be covered by a claim, but
`
`rather it is on the features required by the claim. As explained below, like CQG,
`
`TradeStation is confusing the difference between what a claim requires and what it
`
`covers.
`
`With respect to the ‘304 patent, all that is required for infringement is a
`
`“static price axis.” As discussed above, TT has never argued that the claim requires
`
`a price column with some but not all of the price levels static. Rather, TT argued
`
`that the claims cover products that have a static price axis, regardless of whether
`
`the products might also have additional features, including non-static prices, and
`
`that consequently, such products infringe. Ex. 2033 at 13. This is not a claim
`
`construction argument.
`
`CQG presented the same argument being presented here twice during
`
`litigation, failing both times. CQG’s first attempt was a motion for summary
`
`judgment based on the same testimony from Dr. Mellor presented with the
`
`Petition. Supra at III.A. During litigation, TT explained that CQG applied the
`
`wrong standard in its arguments because the proper standard for written description
`
`support is whether the language of the claims is supported—not whether there is
`
`
`
`
`15
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`written description support for unclaimed additional features found in the accused
`
`products. Ex. 2029, 4-5. The claims of the ’304 patent recite a “static price axis”
`
`and do not recite having a display where some price levels are static and some are
`
`not static. TT explained that CQG was improperly seeking to require support for an
`
`unclaimed feature—non-static price levels.
`
`The court denied CQG’s motion for summary judgment, Ex. 2022 at 9-11,
`
`making the following findings:
`
` The written description requirement only needs to describe the
`
`claimed invention, not what is unclaimed. Id. at 9 (citing Ariad
`
`Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(en banc); Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1333.
`
` “The patents-in-suit do not expressly state that the entire price column
`
`must be static nor do they exclude a price column that is static with
`
`additional features.” Id at 10.
`
`At trial, the district court permitted CQG to attempt to establish a § 112
`
`defense. Again, CQG asserted the same § 112 defense—arguing that because the
`
`claims could cover a product with some but not all displayed prices static, the
`
`claims should be found invalid under § 112. After all of the evidence was in, TT
`
`moved under Rule 50 for judgment as a matter of law because CQG’s argument
`
`was improperly seeking to require written description support for unclaimed
`
`
`
`
`16
`
` 
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00161
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`features (non-static prices). The district court granted the motion, taking CQG’s
`
`112 defense away from the jury. Ex. 2028, 2527:3-17. Id. at 2520-24.
`
`TradeStation provides no reason to reject the court’s analysis. This is
`
`because the law makes clear that the district court was correct. As explained by the
`
`court, there only needs to be written description support for what the claim
`
`requires, not for unclaimed features. Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1333; Ethicon Endo-
`
`Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1581-82 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`(explaining that a specification can fully support a claim even if it does not
`
`describe some features in a product that is within the scope of the claim). The only
`
`possible exception to this rule is if the specification contains some sort of
`
`disclaimer or requirement that does not permit the unclaimed feature at issue. See,
`
`e.g., Crown Packaging Tech. v. Ball Metal Bev. Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (where the specification describes an essential element
`
`missing from the claim, there may be a written description issue).3 In the ‘304
`
`patent, the claims merely require a “static price axis” and it is undisputed that the
`
`
`3 The case TradeStation cites for the premise of looking at what the claim “covers”
`
`also looked at the “claimed invention,” not unclaimed features of an infringing
`
`product