`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ____
`
` Filed: January 30, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.,
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., IBG LLC, and
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC.,
`
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`Case CBM2015-001721
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`TO ORDER DATED JANUARY 23, 2017
`
`
`
`1 Case CBM2016-00040 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`I. What effect does the Federal Circuit’s decision in Trading Techs. Int’l,
`Inc., v. CQG, Inc., No. 16-1616, 2017 WL 192716 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18,
`2017) (“CQG”) have on these proceedings?
`A. CQG’s patent eligibility findings for the ’304 and ’132 patents
`resolve the § 101 grounds in CBM2015-00161 and -00182.
`CQG reviewed the legal issue of § 101 de novo, as the Federal Circuit would
`
`in an appeal from the Board, and found the same claims challenged in these CBMs
`
`patent eligible under either step of Alice. Id. at *3-4. CQG fully analyzed the
`
`claims by discussing the technological problem and solution involved, id. at *1, 3-
`
`4, and explaining how the district court’s opinion was “in accord with precedent,”
`
`id. at *3. The Court’s holding that “the subject matter claimed in the ’132 and ’304
`
`patents is patent-eligible,” id. at *4, resolves the § 101 grounds in these CBMs.
`
`CQG’s non-precedential designation means it “does not add significantly to
`
`the body of law,” Fed. Cir. R. 32.1(b), but it is a Federal Circuit decision
`
`demonstrating how to apply the Alice framework to these claims. CQG, 2017 WL
`
`192716 at *3-4. CQG affirmed that the district court’s conclusion was proper under
`
`the same precedent that controls here. Also, because the CBM petitions mirror the
`
`arguments in CQG, compare, e.g., Ex. 2412, 20-23, Ex. 2413 with 00161, paper 2
`
`and 00182, paper 7, the law should not apply differently here.
`
`In re Baxter would not apply to support a different legal conclusion on § 101
`
`by the Board here. 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Baxter, the prior Federal
`
`Circuit decision affirming non-obviousness did not find the claims “valid” under
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`§ 103. Id. at 1364. Instead, it found that the challenger did not meet its burden in
`
`district court. Id. Baxter thus permitted a different outcome at the PTO because the
`
`underlying factual findings were subject to different burdens of proof. Id. Here, it
`
`the does not matter whether the burden of proof is “clear and convincing” or
`
`“preponderance of the evidence” because the Federal Court ruled that “under either
`
`standard the legal requirements for patentability are satisfied” by these claims.
`
`CQG, 2017 WL 192716 at *2, FN2.
`
`CQG supports finding the related CBMs’ claims patent eligible.
`B.
`CQG is the most relevant authority because it applied the Alice framework
`
`to GUI claims like those in TT’s related patents. 2017 WL 192716 at *3. CQG
`
`affirms that GUI inventions that “impart[] a specific functionality to a trading
`
`system ‘directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
`
`software arts’” are patent eligible under § 101. Id. at *4 (quoting Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`The ’411 claims are patent eligible because, while different in scope, for
`
`purposes of patent eligibility they are indistinguishable from the ’132 and ’304
`
`claims. Indeed, the ’411 claims recite a combination of features─a dynamic display
`
`of bid and ask indicators that move relative to a price axis with single-action order
`
`entry─that address the same problem with prior GUIs (e.g., missing your price) as
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`the claims in the ’132 and ’304 patents. Compare id. at *1-4 with CBM2015-
`
`00181, Paper 76, Sec. I.
`
`The ’056 claims are patent eligible because they “do not simply claim
`
`displaying information on a [GUI].” See CQG, 2017 WL 192716, at *3. Instead,
`
`the ’056 claims “require a specific, structured [GUI] paired with a prescribed
`
`functionality directly related to the [GUI]’s structure that is addressed to and
`
`resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.” See id. In
`
`particular, the ’056 invention improves prior trading interfaces by providing
`
`market information in an intuitive format that allows traders to enter orders quickly
`
`by selecting locations on the axis using a default quantity. See, CBM2015-00179,
`
`Ex.1001, 1:15-17; 2:44-66; 8:28-40; Fig. 3A. Under Alice step two, the combined
`
`claim elements provide an inventive concept: “specific structure and concordant
`
`functionality of the [GUI],” e.g., displaying bid and offer indicators relative to a
`
`price axis, setting a default quantity, and locations along the price axis, selected to
`
`set a desired price for an order. See CQG, 2017 WL 192716, at *3.
`
`The ’556 claims are patent eligible because they “do not simply claim
`
`displaying information on a [GUI].” See id. Like the ’132 and ’304 patents, the
`
`’556 patent distinguishes its claimed GUI features from prior art GUIs, e.g., the
`
`’132 patent GUI. CBM2015-00172, Ex. 1001, 3:12-16. Under Alice step two, the
`
`combined claim elements provide an inventive concept, and require “specific
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`structure and concordant functionality of the [GUI],” e.g., a new, particular value
`
`axis and display and movement of indicators along that value axis. See id.
`
`C. CQG’s analysis of the inventions confirms that these patents are
`technological and should be excluded from CBM review.
`The Federal Circuit’s analysis in CQG demonstrates how these GUI
`
`inventions are technological, so they should be excluded from CBM review. AIA
`
`§ 18. Consequently, the Board should terminate the proceedings and vacate its
`
`institution decisions, as it has done in the past. See, e.g., Global Tel*Link Corp. v.
`
`Securus Technologies Inc., CBM2015-00145, Paper 49 (Nov. 15, 2016).
`
`While CQG was in the § 101 context, the nature of the patented invention
`
`should be the same for CBM jurisdiction purposes. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has
`
`looked to § 101 cases to determine the nature of an invention for CBM purposes.
`
`See, e.g., Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015).
`
`At least four findings in CQG signal that claims like those in the ’304 and
`
`’132 patents cover technological inventions. First, “the challenged patents ‘solve
`
`problems of prior [GUI] devices . . . in the context of computerized trading[]
`
`relating to speed, accuracy and usability.’” CQG, 2017 WL 192716, at *2-3.
`
`Second, the claims recite “specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or
`
`improve the functioning of a known system.” Id. at *3. Third, the invention is “not
`
`simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.”
`
`Id. Fourth, the claims are “directed to a specific improvement to the way
`
`computers operate” because the claimed GUI invention “imparts a specific
`
`functionality to a trading system ‘directed to a specific implementation of a
`
`solution to a problem in the software arts.’” Id. at *4. CQG confirms the
`
`technological nature of the ’132 and ’304 patents, so the Board should have “no
`
`power to determine the unpatentability of the challenged claims” and should vacate
`
`institution and terminate the proceedings. See Securus, Paper 49 at 2. The related
`
`patents likewise recite technological GUI inventions, so the Board should vacate
`
`and terminate those CBMs as well. Supra at B.
`
`II. Are the parties contemplating any settlement negotiations regarding
`these proceedings and, if so, what is the status of the negotiations?
`
`While TT is open to settlement discussions, none are ongoing at this time.
`
`III. What is the status of any other proceedings in the courts involving the
`patents listed in the caption or involving the patents that are the subject
`of the related covered business method patent reviews?
`CQG remains pending at the Federal Circuit. All other related cases, except
`
`those involving Petitioners (1:10-cv-00721, 1:10-cv-00884, consolidated as 1:10-
`
`cv-00715 (N.D. Ill.); and 16-cv-60296 (S.D. Fl.)), have concluded. Petitioners’
`
`cases are stayed for these CBMs. See Exs. 2414-2416.
`
`Dated: January 30, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Erika H. Arner/
`Erika H. Arner, Reg. No. 57,540
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case CBM2015-00172
`U.S. Patent 7,783,556
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to Order Dated January 23, 2017 was served on January 30,
`
`2017, via email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`rsokohl@skgf.com
`
`John C. Phillips
`phillips@fr.com
`
`Kevin Su
`CBM41919-0002CP1@fr.com
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Matthew A. Argenti
`margenti@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`Date: January 30, 2017
`
`
`
`/Valencia Daniel/
`Valencia Daniel
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`