Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 135
`Entered: April 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and IBFX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 135
`Entered: April 26, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and IBFX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On February 28, 2017, we entered a final written decision in
`
`CBM2015-00182, determining that claims 1–28, 30–38, 40–48, and 50–56
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 B1 are unpatentable (CBM2015-00182,
`
`Paper 129), and on March 3, 2017, we entered a final written decision in
`
`CBM2015-00181, determining claims 1–28 (the “challenged claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 B2 are unpatentable (CBM2015-00181,
`
`Paper 138 (“Final Dec.”). Patent Owner seeks rehearing of those decisions,
`
`but only with respect to whether the TSE reference (“TSE”)1 qualifies as a
`
`printed publication. CBM2015-00181, Paper 142 (“Request” or “Reh’g
`
`Req.”); CBM2015-00182, Paper 134.2
`
`
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`In covered business method review, the petitioner has the burden of
`
`showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states:
`
`The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with
`the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously
`addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.
`
`
`1 Tokyo Stock Exchange Operation System Division, Futures/Option
`Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation Guide (1998) (Ex. 1006;
`Ex. 1007 is the English translation). Exhibits numbers are from the
`CBM2015-00181 record. The same reference is at issue in CBM2015-
`00182.
`2 Citations to the record hereinafter are with reference to CBM2015-00181,
`unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Patent Owner’s Request is based on disagreement with our
`
`determination that the TSE reference is a printed publication. Request 1–7.
`
`Petitioner presents two main groups of arguments: those directed to our
`
`alleged misunderstanding of Federal Circuit decisions (id. at 2–5), and those
`
`directed to alleged inconsistencies between our decision and those of other
`
`panels at the Board (id. at 5–7).
`
`With respect to its discussion of Federal Circuit decisions, we note
`
`that Patent Owner fails to even once cite to “the place where each matter
`
`was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d). Patent Owner’s Request simply sets forth its disagreement with
`
`our Final Decisions. We are aware of the Federal Circuit decisions
`
`addressing public accessibility, and we discussed those decisions in our
`
`Final Decisions. Final Dec. 34, 40. Disagreement with our determination
`
`alone is not sufficient basis for us to modify our Final Decisions.
`
`As for Patent Owner’s discussion of other decisions by other Board
`
`panels, we note that none of those decisions are precedential and, therefore,
`
`are not binding upon us.
`
`Moreover, our Final Decisions also determined that
`
`even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`narrowly limited to a “GUI designer” as Patent Owner asserts,
`we find that securities companies for banks (“participants”)
`provided their own front-end order entry software, and that such
`participants would have employed GUI designers to formulate
`the front-end order entry software to facilitate trading on the
`Tokyo Stock Exchange.
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 2169 ¶ 32). Accordingly, “[w]e determine[d] . . . that
`
`the record evidence supports a determination that TSE was publically
`
`accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter.”
`
`Id. (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to identify, or even allege, error in our
`
`finding that “securities companies for banks (‘participants’) provided their
`
`own front-end order entry software, and that such participants would have
`
`employed GUI designers to formulate the front-end order entry software to
`
`facilitate trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.” Id. Whether TSE was
`
`required to be accessible to GUI designers, therefore, does not change our
`
`ultimate determination that TSE qualifies as a printed publication.
`
`For all of these reasons, Patent Owner’s Request does not apprise us
`
`of sufficient reason to modify our Final Decisions.
`
`Patent Owner additionally suggests an expanded panel to decide the
`
`issues noted above. Reh’g Req. 7–9. Discretion to expand a panel rests with
`
`the Chief Judge, who, on behalf of the Director, may act to expand a panel
`
`on a suggestion from a judge or panel. AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) (Paper 12)
`
`(informative). Patent Owner’s suggestion was considered by the Chief
`
`Administrative Patent Judge, who declined to expand the panel.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request is denied in each of
`
`CBM2015-00181 and CBM2015-00182.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181 (Patent 7,676,411 B2)
`CBM2015-00182 (Patent 6,772,132 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert Sokohl
`Rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Lori Gordon
`Lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Richard Bemben
`Rbemben-ptab@skgf.com
`
`John Phillips
`Cbm41919-0008cp1@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Leif Sigmond
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`
`Cole Richter
`richter@mbhb.com
`
`Michael Gannon
`gannon@mbhb.com
`
`Jennifer Kurcz
`kurcz@mbhb.com
`
`Jay Knobloch
`Jay.knobloch@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
