Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:27391
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 05-CV-4811
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier
`
`
`
`CQG’S OPENING BRIEF REGARDING THE PATENT-INELIGIBILITY /
`INVALIDITY OF THE TT PATENTS-IN-SUIT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`
`
`
`CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2065
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00181
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:27392
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`Legal Standard .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`The Asserted Patents Recite Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..... 4
`
`A. Analysis Of Representative Claims Is Appropriate ...................................................... 4
`B. Claims Reciting An Abstract Idea Are Patent-Ineligible .............................................. 4
`C. Alice Part One: The ’132 And ’304 Patents Recite An Abstract Idea .......................... 6
`D. Alice Part Two: The Asserted Claims Do Not Recite An “Inventive Concept” That
`Transforms The Abstract Idea Into A Patent-Eligible Invention .................................. 8
`1. The Individual Claim Elements Recited In The Independent Asserted Claims
`Do Not Transform the Abstract Idea ................................................................ 8
`2. The Independent Asserted Claims, As An Ordered Combination, Do Not
`Transform The Abstract Idea .......................................................................... 13
`3. The Independent Asserted Claims Also Fail The M&T Test ......................... 14
`4. The Dependent Asserted Claims Do Not Add “Something More” To
`Transform The Recited Abstract Idea To A Patent-Eligible Invention .......... 16
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 20
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 2 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:27393
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Accenture Global Serv., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................... 4, 11, 13
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l.,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ....................................................................................................... passim
`Bancorp Serv. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................ 2, 15
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ........................................................................................................... passim
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 3, 5
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107184 (D.N.J. July 31, 2013) ............................................................ 15
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`No. 2013-1112, 2014 WL 7272219 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014) .......................................... passim
`Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. Cellco P’ship,
`885 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2012) .......................................................................................... 16
`Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc.,
`558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 7, 16
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... passim
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 7, 14
`Digitech Image Techs. v. Elect. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... passim
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
`2014 WL 5661456 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) .................................................................... 8, 9, 10
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ...................................................................................................................... 4
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Mfr. & Traders Trust Co.,
`2014 WL 7215193 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) ............................................................................... 5
`Joao Bock Trans. Sys., LLC. v. Jack Henry & Assoc., Inc.,
`2014 WL 7149400 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2014) ............................................................................... 5
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines Inc.,
`2014 WL 4364848 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2014) ............................................................................. 5
`
`i
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 3 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:27394
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) ................................................................................................................ 3
`Money Suite Co. v. MetLife Inc.
`1:13-cv-1748, Dkt. 30 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2015.) .......................................................... 5, 7, 11, 13
`Open Text SA v. Box Inc.,
`3:13-cv-04910 (N.D. Cal.) .......................................................................................................... 1
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .............................................................................................................. 4, 13
`Tenon & Groove, LLC v. Plusgrade S.E.C.,
`2015 WL 82531 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015) ....................................................................................... 5
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 3, 6, 15
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 4 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:27395
`
`In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., the U.S. Supreme Court set out a two-part
`
`framework for analyzing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
`
`The framework requires a trial court to (1) determine whether the claims “are directed to a
`
`patent-ineligible concept[],” i.e., an abstract idea, and (2) if they are, determine whether the
`
`claims recite “additional elements [that] ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” Id. But, the Court cautioned, adding a “generic computer” or reciting
`
`“conventional steps” cannot transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Id. at
`
`2357. As U.S. District Judge Donato (Northern District of California) aptly put it: “[T]ake a
`
`standard this and a standard that . . . and plug them all together, you’re still in the town of
`
`standard.” (Ex. 10 at 19,1 Jan. 14, 2015 Hr’g Tr., Open Text SA v. Box Inc., 3:13-cv-04910.)
`
`TT alleges that CQG infringes various claims of U.S. 6,772,132 and U.S. 6,766,304
`
`(Asserted Claims). The Asserted Claims recite the abstract idea of placing an order for a
`
`commodity on an electronic exchange, based on observed market information, as well as
`
`updating the market information. The abstract idea is nothing more than “a fundamental
`
`economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
`
`The elements recited in the Asserted Claims perform basic functions relating to electronic
`
`commodity trading and updating market information using unidentified and generic computer
`
`components. Using a generic computer to perform “basic functions,” such as obtaining data, are
`
`“well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry,” and do not
`
`add “something more” to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Id. at 2354,
`
`2359. An abstract idea cannot be transformed into a patent-eligible invention merely by reciting
`
`a generic computer or adding instructions to “apply it.” Id. at 2357-58. This, however, is
`
`precisely what is claimed by the Asserted Claims, making them invalid as a matter of law. The
`
`1 Citations to Ex. __ are to exhibits to the Declaration of Kenneth R. Adamo, filed / submitted herewith.
`
`1
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 5 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:27396
`
`functions recited in the Asserted Claims—setting, displaying, and selecting—are all “purely
`
`conventional” and cannot save the claims. Id. at 2359. The Asserted Claims do not recite any
`
`inventive concepts sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible invention.
`
`To be sure, the Asserted Claims also fail both prongs of the “machine or transformation
`
`test” (M&T test). The claims recite conventional and generic computer components that “do[]
`
`not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.” Bancorp Serv. v. Sun Life Assur.
`
`Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The claims also do not transform an article into a
`
`different state or thing as “[t]he mere collection and organization of data” is not enough.
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`The Asserted Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.2
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`The ’132 patent issued August 3, 2004, from an application
`
`filed June 9, 2000. (Ex. 1, ’132, Cvr at (22).) The ’304 patent
`
`issued July 20, 2004, from an application filed June 27, 2001. (Ex.
`
`2, ’304, Cvr at (22).) Both patent applications claim priority to a
`
`provisional application filed March 2, 2000. (Ex. 1, ’132, Cvr at
`
`(60); Ex. 2, ’304, Cvr at (60).) Both patents share the same
`
`specification (because the ’304 patent is a divisional of the ’132
`
`patent) and claim a “Mercury” display, a type of graphical user
`
`interface (GUI), and a method of using it for commodity trading.
`
`(Ex. 1, ’132, Abs; 3:5-6; Ex. 2, ’304, Abs, 3:9-10.) The GUI, depicted in Fig. 3, dynamically
`
`displays the commodity being traded in a market and allows a trader to place orders. (Ex. 1,
`
`2 CQG submits this brief pursuant to the structure and parameters set out by the Court in its Minute
`Entries. Dkts. 886, 892. Although courts resolve patent eligibility in various contexts, see, e.g., Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(c), 56, it is always a pure question of law in any context.
`
`2
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 6 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:27397
`
`’132, 3:11-24; Ex. 2, ’304, 3:15-28.) The GUI presents a number of columns to display trading
`
`information such as price and order quantities. (Ex. 1, ’132, 7:35-51, 8:3-37; Ex. 2, ’304, 7:54-
`
`8:18.) A trader uses the GUI to execute trades by typing in the commodity and a quantity, for
`
`example. (Ex. 1, ’132, 9:3-17; Fig. 6, step 1302; Ex. 2, ’304, 9:35-49; Fig. 6, step 1302.) The
`
`trader can then send the buy order or sell order to the market. (Ex. 1, ’132, 9:7-10:63, Fig. 6,
`
`steps 1306-1315; Ex. 2, ’304, 9:39-11:34, Fig. 6, steps 1306-1315.)
`
`On December 2, 2014, the PTAB instituted a CBMR of the ’132 patent, finding it was
`
`more likely than not that all claims of the ’132 patent recited patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`(Ex. 5, CBM2014-00135, Decision.) On the same day, the PTAB declined to institute a CBMR
`
`of the ’304 patent, finding Petitioner did not provide analysis of why the claims were invalid.
`
`The decision was not on the merits of the § 101 challenge. (Ex. 6, CBM2014-00136, Decision.)
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry is “a threshold test.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593,
`
`602 (2010). Courts resolve § 101 challenges as a matter of law without claim construction or
`
`expert discovery. See, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712-13 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (affirming district court’s ruling on pre-answer motion to dismiss); buySAFE, Inc. v.
`
`Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Content Extraction & Transmission
`
`LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2013-1112, 2014 WL 7272219, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014).
`
`As a matter of law, patent-eligibility is not subject to the “clear and convincing” burden of proof.
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2253 (2011) (Breyer, Scalia, Alito, JJ,
`
`concurring) (“[w]here the ultimate question of patent validity turns on the correct answer to legal
`
`questions . . . today’s strict standard of proof has no application.”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 720
`
`(Mayer, J, concurring) (“no presumption of eligibility should attach” to a § 101 analysis).
`
`3
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 7 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:27398
`
`III. The Asserted Patents Recite Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`A. Analysis Of Representative Claims Is Appropriate
`Courts commonly analyze one or more representative claims in a § 101 analysis. This is
`
`especially true when, as here, the claims are the same or very similar. In Alice, for example, the
`
`Supreme Court ruled on 208 claims in four patents based on an analysis of two claims. 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2359-60; see also Content Extraction, 2014 WL 7272219, at *1, *4 (affirming district
`
`court holding 242 claims in four patents patent-ineligible based on two claims). The § 101
`
`analysis is the same regardless of claim type: methods, systems, or otherwise. See, e.g., Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2360 (system claims “fail for substantially the same reasons” as method claims);
`
`Accenture Global Serv., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) (“system claims that closely track method claims and are grounded by the same
`
`meaningful limitations will generally rise and fall together”); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1374
`
`(“we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes” regardless of claim type).
`
`B. Claims Reciting An Abstract Idea Are Patent-Ineligible
`The Supreme Court holds abstract ideas patent-ineligible. See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson,
`
`409 U.S. 63, 71 (1972) (converting numbers with a generic computer); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
`
`584, 594-96 (1978) (sounding alarm based on formula limits); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 (computer
`
`implemented risk hedging); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (computerized “intermediated settlement).
`
`In Alice, the Court explained a § 101 analysis requires a (1) determination of whether the
`
`claims “are directed to [a] patent-ineligible concept[],” and (2) if they are, a determination
`
`whether the claims recite “additional elements [that] ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
`
`patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2355. The “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
`
`transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention,” because a “wholly
`
`generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any
`
`4
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 8 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:27399
`
`practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
`
`abstract idea itself.” Id. at 2358. Nor is it enough to “append[] conventional steps, specified at a
`
`high level of generality” or “limit the use of the idea to a particular technological environment.”
`
`Id. at 2357-58. Claims that “merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform
`
`[an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2357.
`
`The Federal Circuit has invalidated claims similar to the Asserted Claims under Alice.
`
`In Digitech Image Techs. v. Elect. for Imaging, Inc., the Federal Circuit invalidated a
`
`digital image processing patent, explaining that, without additional meaningful limitations, “a
`
`process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate
`
`additional information is not patent eligible.” 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`In buySAFE, the Federal Circuit found claims directed to a computerized “transaction
`
`performance guaranty” invalid, explaining that limiting an abstract idea to the Internet is “an
`
`attempt to limit the use of the abstract guarantee idea to a particular technological environment,
`
`which has long been held insufficient to save a claim in this context.” 765 F.3d at 1355.
`
`In Content Extraction, the Federal Circuit held claims reciting basic “scanning and
`
`processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts,
`
`addresses, and dates” patent-ineligible because the recited functions were all “well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry.” 2014 WL 7272219, at *4.
`
`Various district courts have also invalidated claims similar to those here under § 101.3
`
`Courts often use the “machine or transformation test” (M&T) to confirm a § 101 analysis
`
`3 Money Suite Co. v. MetLife Inc., (Ex. 7, 1:13-cv-1748, Dkt. 30 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2015.)) (generating
`price quotes for financial products); Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines Inc., 2014 WL
`4364848 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2014) (Bryson, J., by designation) (loyalty award exchange); Tenon &
`Groove, LLC v. Plusgrade S.E.C., 2015 WL 82531 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015) (computerized negotiated
`product upgrade); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Mfr. & Traders Trust Co., 2014 WL 7215193 (D. Del.
`Dec. 18, 2014) (spending limits and notifications, i.e., personal budget); Joao Bock Trans. Sys., LLC. v.
`Jack Henry & Assoc., Inc., 2014 WL 7149400 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2014) (transaction security).
`
`5
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 9 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:27400
`
`as it “can provide a ‘useful clue’ in the second step of the Alice framework.” Ultramercial, 772
`
`F.3d at 716. The M&T test asks whether a claim is “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” or
`
`“transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.” See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 602,
`
`617. If a claim fails both prongs, it is likely patent-ineligible. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716-17.
`
`C. Alice Part One: The ’132 And ’304 Patents Recite An Abstract Idea
`The ’132 patent includes three independent claims reciting similar subject matter that
`
`differ by claim type: method (1), computer readable medium (8), and system (14). The ’304
`
`patent includes two independent claims that also recite similar subject matter and differ by claim
`
`type: method (1) and computer readable medium (27). Representative claims 1 state:
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1, ’132 at Claim 1.)
`
`(Ex. 2, ’304 at Claim 1.)
`
`Each patent recites the abstract idea of placing an order for a commodity on an electronic
`
`6
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 10 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:27401
`
`exchange, based on observed market information, as well as updating the market information. In
`
`other words, the patents claim entering and executing an order to buy or sell a commodity (e.g.,
`
`corn) on an electronic exchange (e.g., Chicago Mercantile Exchange; CME) based on, e.g., the
`
`current price, and obtaining the current market price. All of these elements existed in the prior
`
`art (Ex. 1, ’132, 1:59-60, 2:11-22; Ex. 2, ’304, 1:65-66, 2:16-27) and amount to nothing more
`
`than “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Cf. Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2356. Commodity trading is centuries old, occurring in New York as early as 1725.
`
`(Ex. 8, Markham at 867.) The CME opened in 1898 to allow commodities trade and added
`
`electronic trading between 1987 and 1992. (Ex. 9, Timeline of CME Achievements.)
`
`Like computerized risk hedging in Bilski and intermediated settlement in Alice, the
`
`Asserted Claims are nothing more than “well-established, fundamental concepts” that are patent-
`
`ineligible under § 101. Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988,
`
`991 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611; Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. This is precisely why the
`
`Asserted Claims are distinguishable from those upheld in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
`
`L.P. See 773 F.3d 1245, 1257, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims reciting “fundamental economic or
`
`longstanding commercial practice” or “processing business information” not patent-ineligible).
`
`Several recent district court cases are also instructive.
`
`In Money Suite, Judge Sleet invalidated claims strikingly similar to the Asserted Claims.
`
`(Ex. 7, 1:13-cv-1748, Dkt. 30.) There, the court found claims recited an abstract idea because
`
`“[u]sing computers to apply commonplace ideas—such as generating price quotes [recited in the
`
`claims]—is not a patentable invention, even if the computer is able to handle volumes and
`
`complexity at levels impossible for humans.” (Id. at 11.) The Asserted Claims are even more
`
`abstract than those in Money Suit because the Asserted Claims merely display prices for
`
`7
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 11 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:27402
`
`commodities; they do not assign prices to them.
`
`In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the court invalidated claims directed to “organizing
`
`information using tabular [table] formats” on a computer. 2014 WL 5661456, at *7 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Nov. 3, 2014). For millennia, the court stated, “humans have used tables to store information”
`
`and “[a] patent on the pervasive concept of tables would preempt too much future inventive
`
`activity.” Id. at *6. The Asserted Claims similarly recite organizing information in tabular
`
`format within a GUI; an abstract and entirely commonplace concept.
`
`Indeed, the PTAB has already concluded all 56 claims of the ’132 patent more likely than
`
`not recite patent-ineligible subject matter. (Ex. 5, CBM2014-00135, Decision.)
`
`D. Alice Part Two: The Asserted Claims Do Not Recite An “Inventive Concept”
`That Transforms The Abstract Idea Into A Patent-Eligible Invention
`
`The second part of the Alice framework requires the court to consider the claim elements
`
`“both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements
`
`‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355.
`
`1. The Individual Claim Elements Recited In The Independent Asserted
`Claims Do Not Transform the Abstract Idea
`
`Claim 1 of the ’132 and ’304 patents recites performing basic functions using a generic
`
`display to present a GUI and controlling the GUI with a “user input device.” Both patents state
`
`that the invention can be implemented “on any existing or future terminal or device,” known to
`
`include displays for presenting a GUI, and further discloses that the input device includes a
`
`computer mouse, also a known input device. (Ex. 1, ’132, 4:4-15; Ex. 2, ’304, 4:8-19.)
`
`TT attempted—unsuccessfully—to argue that the ’132 patent does not cover an abstract
`
`idea in its Preliminary Response in a CBMR proceeding. TT argued “[t]he ’132 patent claims a
`
`novel GUI tool.” (Ex. 4, CBM2014-00135, POPR at 2.) But trading GUIs, like the GUI tool,
`
`were common in the prior art. Dkt. 858 at 8. The Background of the Invention section admits
`
`8
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 12 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:27403
`
`that traders regularly “use software that creates specialized interactive trading screens,” i.e., a
`
`GUI. (Ex. 1, ’132, 1:55-59; Ex. 2, ’304, 1:61-65.) Prior art GUIs allowed the trader to “enter
`
`and execute orders, obtain market quotes, and monitor positions.” (Ex. 1, ’132, 1:59-60; Ex. 2,
`
`’304, 1:65-66.) Prior art GUIs also collected and used the same type of information because
`
`“each market supplies and requires the same information to and from every trader” and requires
`
`“that certain information be included in each order.” (Ex. 1, ’132, 2:11-22; Ex. 2, ’304, 2:16-27.)
`
`Indeed, the “input and output of information is the same for every trader.” (Id.) GUIs in the
`
`prior art also dynamically and rapidly changed values “in the price and quantity fields within the
`
`market grid.” (Ex. 1, ’132, 2:56-57; Ex. 2, ’304, 2:60-61.) GUIs, like that of claim 1, were
`
`admittedly conventional due to their use in the industry, prior to the effective dates of the patents.
`
`The recited GUI also received and displaying “physical mapping” of information from an
`
`exchange. (Ex. 1, ’132, 4:61-5:3; Ex. 2, ’304, 4:65-5:7.) But physical mapping can admittedly
`
`“be done by any technique known to those skilled in the art,” prior to the effective dates of the
`
`patents. (Id.) Indeed, the “present invention is not limited by the method used to map the data to
`
`the screen display.” (Id.) The claims are thus nothing more than instructions to implement an
`
`abstract idea on a GUI; this is not patent-eligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; Enfish, 2014 WL
`
`5661456, at *7 (“organizing information using tabular formats” not patent-eligible).
`
`The functions recited in claim 1 of the ’132 and ’304 patents—setting, displaying, and
`
`selecting—are also purely conventional and cannot save the claims. Specifically:
`
`• setting a present parameter for the trader order / setting a plurality of parameters for a trade
`
`order (’132, claim 1 / ’304, claim 1): these elements do not add “something more” because the
`
`admitted point of electronic trading is to enter orders. (Ex. 1, ’132, 1:59-60; Ex. 2, ’304, 1:65-
`
`66.) Allowing a patent to claim such a basic concept raises the very “pre-emption concern that
`
`9
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 13 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:27404
`
`undergirds [the Supreme Court’s] § 101 jurisprudence.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
`
`• displaying market depth of the commodity, through a dynamic display of a plurality of bids
`
`and a plurality of asks . . . the dynamic display being aligned with a static display of prices
`
`corresponding thereto (’132, claim 1): this element merely calls for
`
`aligning the market depth of a commodity next to a static display of
`
`prices. Fig. 3 of the ’132 patent—annotated by TT in its Preliminary
`
`Response to the PTAB (Ex. 4, CBM2014-00135, POPR at 21)—is
`
`provided here for illustration. Fig. 3 lines up in a table the dynamic
`
`display of bids and asks with the static display of prices. Fig. 3,
`
`together with the specification, demonstrates this element is
`
`conventional, and common in the prior art. (Ex. 1, ’132, 1:59-60;
`
`Ex. 2, ’304, 1:65-66.) It is nothing more than “organizing information using tabular formats,”
`
`which is patent-ineligible. Enfish, 2014 WL 5661456, at *7; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350-51.
`
`TT has argued, in its Opposition to CQG’s Motion to Stay, the Asserted Claims recite
`
`“something more” than an abstract idea because they recite a specific GUI that displays market
`
`indicators. Dkt. 858 at 8. But TT’s “main inventor,” Harris Brumfield, testified the recited GUI
`
`is only “
`
`” (Ex. 3, 9/28/04 Brumfield Dep. Tr. at 33,
`
`50-52; Ex. 4, CBM2014-00135, POPR at 3). This is nothing more than mere “data-gathering”
`
`order entry and data organization, none of which are patent-eligible. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
`
`1372; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350-51; Enfish, 2014 WL 5661456, at *7. The Asserted Claims are
`
`not rooted in computer technology; they do not overcome a problem arising in the realm of
`
`computers. Cf. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259. Instead, the Asserted Claims recite a generic
`
`GUI displaying market indicators, which according the patents, was well known in the art. (Ex.
`
`10
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 14 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:27405
`
`1, ’132, 1:59-60; Ex. 2, ’304, 1:65-66.)
`
`The patents further explain order entry as “is a static vertical column of prices with the
`
`bid and ask quantities displayed in vertical columns to the side of the price column and aligned
`
`with the corresponding bid and ask prices.” (Ex. 1, ’132, 7:29-34; Ex. 2, ’304, 7:49-54.)
`
`Although TT might contend that this comprises a very sophisticated method of organizing
`
`market data, “the complexity of the implementing software or the level of detail in the
`
`specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible
`
`system of method.” Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345. Similarly, in Money Suite, the court held
`
`“[u]sing computers to apply commonplace ideas—such as generating price quotes—is not a
`
`patentable invention, even if the computer is able to handle volumes and complexity at levels
`
`impossible for humans.” (Ex. 7, 1:13-cv-1748, Dkt. 30 at 11.) Indeed, here, the element
`
`amounts to nothing more than a list of prices and corresponding quantities sought; a conventional
`
`organization and display of market data. The patents do not assert this element is anything more
`
`than conventional and in fact call it “logical.” (Ex. 1, ’132, 7:17-18; Ex. 2, ’304, 7:37-38.) A
`
`process for “organizing information through mathematical correlation,” however, is patent-
`
`ineligible. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350-51. The Federal Circuit explained that “[w]ithout
`
`additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
`
`information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Id. at 1351. The same is
`
`true of the ’132 and ’304 patents. These elements amount to nothing more than lining up bid and
`
`ask quantities with a price in a table similar to that depicted in Fig. 3. This is not inventive.
`
`• displaying an order entry region aligned with the static display prices / displaying an order
`
`entry region (’132, claim 1 / ’304, claim 1): these elements do not add “something more”
`
`because, again, the entire point of electronic trading is to enter orders. The patents admit that
`
`11
`
`REDACTED
`
`Page 15 of 25
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 898 Filed: 02/02/15 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:27406
`
`GUIs used to enter orders, obtain market quotes, and monitor positions were known in the art.
`
`(Ex. 1, ’132, 1:59-60; Ex. 2, ’304, 1:65-66.) According to the patents, all prior art GUIs
`
`collected and used the same information because “each market supplies and requires the same
`
`information to and from every trader” and certain information must “be included in each order.”
`
`(Ex. 1, ’132, 2:11-22; Ex. 2, ’304, 2:16-27.) At most, these elements call for receiving data from
`
`a user, a form of patent-ineligible “data-gathering.” CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372.
`
`• selecting a particular area in the order entry region through single action of the user input
`
`device / selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action of a user
`
`input device (’132, claim 1 / ’304, claim 1): these elements are also nothing more than
`
`conventional steps of entering an order for a commodity, which, according to the patents, were
`
`common in all prior art GUIs. (Ex. 1, ’132, 1:59-60; Ex. 2, ’304, 1:65-66.) The “single action”
`
`element is also conventional. Mr. Brumfield admitted during his depositions he used trading
`
`software that allowed
`
`
`
` prior to the effective dates of the patents. (Ex. 3, 9/28/04 H.
`
`Brumfield Dep. Tr. at 48.) These elements add nothing new or inventive. CyberSource, 654
`
`F.3d at 1372 (“data-gathering” insufficient to transform claim).
`
`• displaying a first indicator . . . the first indicator representing quantity associated with at
`
`least one order to buy / displaying a second indicator . . . the second indicator representing
`
`quantity associated with at leas