UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 34
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2169
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00032
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 34
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2169
`IBG ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00032
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS & BACKGROUND ...................................................... 2
`II.
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................... 8
`III.
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 9
`V.
`BACKGROUND OF THE INDUSTRY ....................................................... 12
`VI. CONVENTIONAL GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
`TOOLS (“GUI TOOLS”) .............................................................................. 16
`VII. ADVANTAGES OF THE INVENTION ...................................................... 21
`
`i
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`I, Christopher H. Thomas, declare as follows:
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Patent Owner Trading Technologies
`
`International, Inc. (“TT”) (“Patent Owner”) to provide expert opinions in
`
`connection with Case CBM2016-00032, regarding United States Patent No.
`
`7,212,999 (“the ’999 patent”). I am being compensated for my time spent on this
`
`matter, including independent study, document review, analysis, and writing. My
`
`opinions stated herein are based on review and analysis of the materials obtained in
`
`connection with my work in his matter, together with my education and
`
`experience. The opinions stated herein are my own. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon my opinions stated herein or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that a Petition was filed on February 9, 2016 seeking
`
`covered business method (“CBM”) review of claims 1 through 35 of the ’999
`
`patent, and the petition was subsequently assigned case no. CBM2016-00032. I
`
`understand that in the Petition, Petitioners alleged that the claims are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and also provided various grounds under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. I understand that the Petitioner did not allege any grounds of
`
`anticipation. The PTO instituted CBM review, by decision dated August 16, 2016,
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`for all claims of the ’999 patent under § 101 but rejected all asserted § 103
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`grounds.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to address the unconventional nature of the claims
`
`of the ‘999 Patent and in particular, I have been asked to address the advantages of
`
`the claimed invention over conventional prior art GUI’s that existed at the time of
`
`the invention.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS & BACKGROUND
`5. My curriculum vitae is attached to this report as Ex. A. Briefly, my
`
`expertise lies in the field of the engineering, design, and development and
`
`construction of graphical user interface (“GUI”) tools for electronic trading, such
`
`as those used in electronic trade execution systems and proprietary trading
`
`systems.
`
`6.
`
`I have been actively trading on exchanges worldwide and managing
`
`portfolios of futures, commodities, stocks, and stock indexes since 1992. In 1996, I
`
`began developing trading decision and execution systems. At that time, my trading
`
`became completely reliant on the systems that I had developed. Ultimately, this led
`
`to my career in technology as a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for several large
`
`trading companies and Managing Director of a large Canadian bank.
`
`7.
`
`As CTO of Emerald Market Systems in 1997, I designed and
`
`developed an internet quote system that was used by the Chicago Mercantile
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`Exchange to provide free quotes for certain new markets that the exchange was
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`promoting over the internet. The system had two versions. The first version was a
`
`HTML based quote application that provided typical last price, best bid and ask
`
`price information. The second version was a JAVA based version of the HTML
`
`quote application. Both of these versions were used to facilitate trading in the open
`
`outcry trading pits. In 1998, I designed and developed for a Chicago-based Futures
`
`Commission Merchant, named LFG, the first web browser based trade order entry
`
`system for the U.S. commodity markets known as “FuturesOnline.” When
`
`FuturesOnline was first released to users, there were no electronic exchanges for
`
`futures that were available to regular users who were not members of an exchange
`
`in the United States. Because of this, FuturesOnline was initially connected to the
`
`TOPS system at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. This allowed traders connected
`
`via the internet to send orders using FuturesOnline, which would be routed to the
`
`relevant trading pit at the exchange using the TOPS system. FuturesOnline also
`
`provided quotes to its traders and also allowed them to view their previous
`
`transactions, open orders, account balances, etc. Later, when GLOBEX became
`
`available to regular customers of FCMs, FuturesOnline was connected to
`
`GLOBEX as an electronic exchange destination. I was responsible for designing
`
`and programming all of the graphical user interfaces (“GUIs”) and designing and
`
`implementing the database that FuturesOnline used for storing trades, orders,
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`account balances, etc. There was another component to FuturesOnline which I
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`developed and that was the broker version. This enabled brokers at LFG to see all
`
`of the account balances and open and closed orders for all of their clients, and it
`
`enabled the brokers to enter orders, modify existing orders, cancel orders or close
`
`out trades for any of their customer’s accounts. This was functionality that they
`
`had never had before and it greatly increased the productivity of the brokers and
`
`allowed them to have improved risk management over their customers’ trading
`
`activities. FuturesOnline was so successful that I created a white-labeled version
`
`that enabled other FCMs to use the FuturesOnline technology while it appeared to
`
`their customers that it was their own. FuturesOnline was white labeled to three
`
`FCMs, in addition to LFG’s use. In developing LFG’s FuturesOnline, I utilized
`
`Distributed Network Architecture (“DNA”) technology from Microsoft Corp.
`
`FuturesOnline was later featured on Microsoft’s website as a case study for its use
`
`of DNA technology. A copy of the case study is attached as Ex. D. This
`
`technology was developed for electronic trading, not for mimicking or supporting
`
`open outcry trading. As will be discussed below, in the transition away from open
`
`outcry trading, some technology was developed to mimic open outcry trading,
`
`while other technology was developed to carry out electronic trading by sending
`
`trade orders to an electronic exchange for automatic anonymous matching.
`
`FuturesOnline falls into the latter category.
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`During the period from about 1992 to 2002, I was active in the trading
`
`8.
`
`community in a variety of roles relating to trading and/or technology for trading, as
`
`described in this declaration. By virtue of this experience, I witnessed, participated
`
`in, and am familiar with the industry’s transformation from open outcry trading
`
`pits, to early trading tools for after-hours trading (such as the Chicago Board of
`
`Trade’s Project A and the CME/Reuters GLOBEX system) and, eventually, to
`
`what we refer to today as electronic trading and its technology based trading tools.
`
`9.
`
`From late 1999 until 2002, I was the CTO for Stafford Trading, a
`
`proprietary trading company in Chicago, Illinois, USA, which was one of the
`
`largest market makers on the U.S. equity option exchanges. In this capacity, I
`
`managed a staff of roughly one hundred individuals and an annual technology
`
`budget in excess of fifteen million dollars. This staff included approximately 40
`
`software developers, 40 network and server engineers, and 20 support staff. During
`
`this time, I also designed a new desktop order entry system to replace a legacy
`
`system for the traders at Stafford Trading. This system was connected to electronic
`
`exchanges and ECNs for stocks and options on stocks, and was connected to the
`
`CME GLOBEX electronic exchange for futures. I designed the GUIs for that
`
`system, which included Level II type quotes (this is functionally equivalent to
`
`Figure 2 in the TT patents). In April of 2000, while at Stafford Trading I became a
`
`founder and CTO of a technology company called Ragnarok Systems Inc., which
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`was majority owned by the principals of Stafford Trading. Ragnarok Systems was
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`a next generation online trading brokerage firm. Ragnarok Systems along with
`
`parts of Stafford Trading was acquired by Toronto Dominion Bank in March of
`
`2002. Ragnarok Systems was also featured on Microsoft’s website as an example
`
`of large commercial usage of Microsoft’s technologies in the Financial Services
`
`industry. At Toronto Dominion Bank (“the Bank”), a large Canadian bank, after
`
`the acquisition, I served until August 2003 as a Managing Director and CTO of the
`
`new entity at the Bank that was named TD Options, LLC. I subsequently returned
`
`to trading as a Managing Director at TD Options LLC and continued to further
`
`develop trading systems that I had begun using several years earlier. In 2006, I
`
`started my own trading group at TD Options LLC, while still serving as a
`
`Managing Director, and actively traded a long-short portfolio of U.S. Equities and
`
`U.S. equity index futures, using the trading strategies and software tools that I
`
`developed. This trading was electronic trading. When I refer to electronic trading, I
`
`am referring generally to a system in which traders send electronic orders to an
`
`electronic exchange, where the electronic exchange uses technology to implement
`
`an automatic matching engine (via hardware and software).
`
`10.
`
`I left TD Options LLC in October of 2008 and became a founder of a
`
`proprietary trading firm in Chicago, named Pembroke Trading LLC, specializing
`
`in algorithmic trading of futures markets. In this capacity, I was responsible for
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`designing and managing the development of the user interfaces and electronic
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`trading platforms and infrastructure for testing and executing trading strategies in
`
`live markets.
`
`11.
`
`In May of 2011, I started my own proprietary trading firm,
`
`Maridunum Capital, L.L.C., which specializes in automated algorithmic trading of
`
`Futures Markets. In this capacity, I am responsible for designing all trading
`
`software and algorithms for the company. Additionally, I am responsible for
`
`programming portions of the software.
`
`12.
`
`In May of 2016, I became a founder of a software company named
`
`Primal Quant LLC, which will provide trading strategy design and testing tools to
`
`online traders without the need for the trader to have programming experience or
`
`knowledge. At Primal Quant I am responsible for all GUI and database designs, as
`
`well as managing a team of software engineers.
`
`13.
`
`I am not a professional expert witness. My profession is the
`
`development of technology for trading and trading. My experience as an expert is
`
`limited to the subject matter of the TT patents, and I was hired more than 9 years
`
`ago in that role because of my relevant experience in the trading industry,
`
`including open outcry, electronic trading, and the development of technology for
`
`use in electronic trading. Prior to that, I had never testified as an expert witness in
`
`any matter. In sum, before getting involved as expert, I had widespread exposure
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`and personal knowledge as to the state of the art at time of invention, as well as
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`before and after the time of the invention. Through my experience with the TT
`
`litigation, I was exposed to additional items of information. Coupled with my
`
`personal experience in the industry, I have therefore gained extensive knowledge
`
`of the art.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed:
`
`• United States Patent No. 7,212,999 (“the ‘999 patent”);
`
`• Petition for Covered Business Method Review in this proceeding
`
`(Paper 1);
`
`• The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board’s”) decision
`
`instituting Covered Business Method Patent Review entered August
`
`16, 2016 (“the Institution Decision”) (Paper 16);
`
`• Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (Ex. 1012), his CV (Ex. 1013) and
`
`his List of Materials (Ex. 1014) submitted in CBM2016-00032; and
`
`• Deposition Transcript of Kendyl A. Román, dated May 3, 2016 and
`
`May 5, 2016 (Exs. J and YYYY).
`
`15.
`
`I have personal experience with wide variety of technologies for
`
`electronic trading (as referenced above in background) and, over the course of my
`
`professional involvement in trading, have seen numerous GUI tools for electronic
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`trading. Throughout my professional trading career, I have made an effort to stay
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`current and when possible ahead of the curve, on technologies for trading,
`
`including investigating new technology offerings, attending trade shows, and
`
`receiving sales pitches from trading technology vendors, as well as developing
`
`technology myself. I also have colleagues in the industry, some of whom would be
`
`considered one of ordinary skill in the art, and some of whom I would consider to
`
`be of significantly higher levels of skill. Because of my roles in the industry, from
`
`a time significantly before the invention until well thereafter, I was working and
`
`speaking on a regular basis with these colleagues and the traders themselves about
`
`technology for trading in general, and GUI tools in particular, and their needs,
`
`desires, frustrations and challenges with the technology available at the time. These
`
`experiences further inform my opinions from the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`16. The technology at issue in this proceeding is a graphical user interface
`
`(“GUI”) tool for trading. In general, the term GUI refers to a human-machine
`
`interface that allows users to interact with the machine by utilizing graphical
`
`elements, as opposed to, for example, text-based interfaces. Text-based interfaces
`
`typically required the user to type commands on a keyboard. With a GUI tool, the
`
`user may interact with the graphical elements on a display, such as by using a
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`keyboard, a mouse, a stylus, a finger, or other pointing device. GUI tools are
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`constructed using a combination of software and hardware elements. In addition to
`
`desktop and laptop computers, GUI tools are used in a wide variety of handheld
`
`devices. GUIs are also sometimes referred to as MMIs (man-machine interfaces) or
`
`HCIs (human-computer interfaces). These GUIs are analogous to physical devices
`
`because, like physical devices, they are designed to permit a user to interact with a
`
`machine. For example, in older airplanes, the cockpit utilizes physical buttons,
`
`levers or switches to control the operation of the airplane. In modern day aircraft,
`
`the cockpit utilizes GUIs that enable the pilot to control the operation of the
`
`airplane. As another example, old calculators have push buttons that enable the
`
`user to enters values or operations, whereas today’s smartphones utilize, for
`
`example, a GUI that enables the user to enters the same values or operations.
`
`17. GUI tools like the invention of the ’999 patent are typically developed
`
`for and used by professionals, particularly at the time of the invention. Thus, in
`
`addition to providing desirable functionality, these GUI tools must be highly stable
`
`and reliable. In my experience, GUI tools for trading are extensively tested,
`
`including testing in all kinds of simulated market conditions, well in advance of
`
`any use in a live market. As discussed below, GUI tools are mission critical for
`
`professional electronic traders. They are the primary tools of their trade, just like
`
`GUIs in a cockpit are the primary tools for pilots flying modern day aircraft.
`
`10
`
`Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`In the course of my industry experience, I have hired people to do
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`18.
`
`GUI tool development for electronic trading. Backgrounds included previous
`
`experience in software development, technical degrees in computer science,
`
`engineering or other science disciplines, or equivalent work experience etc.
`
`19.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this
`
`proceeding is a person having (1) a bachelor's degree or equivalent experience and
`
`(2) two years of experience designing and/or programming graphical user
`
`interfaces, including experience designing and/or programming graphical user
`
`interfaces for electronic trading based on input from a person with knowledge of
`
`the needs of an electronic trader. I have a greater level of skill, but I can speak
`
`about what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand because of my
`
`background and experience.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed Petitioners’ and Mr. Román’s definition of one of
`
`ordinary skill (submitted with the Petition) and I disagree with it for at least the
`
`reason that it does not provide sufficient weight to the experience designing and/or
`
`programming GUIs for electronic trading based on input from a person with
`
`knowledge of the needs of an electronic trader. Mr. Román’s definition instead
`
`focuses primarily on GUI experience, with no access to or knowledge of the needs
`
`of an electronic trader, which is plainly deficient. They suggest that merely direct
`
`or indirect experience with trading or related systems is adequate. This is incorrect
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`because it ignores the needs of the trader for whom the GUI is designed. In
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`addition, I disagree with their assertion that the person of ordinary skill would need
`
`a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or computer engineering. Based
`
`on my experience in the industry for over 20 years, I believe that this requirement
`
`is too restrictive, again skewing the view of the person of ordinary skill toward a
`
`generalized GUI designer and away from the recited field.
`
`21. My definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is that of a
`
`baseline worker in this industry. Many individuals in the industry, as one would
`
`expect, have a significantly higher level of skill. My level of skill in the art is
`
`significantly higher than that of the person of ordinary skill, and my level of skill
`
`was attained through my numerous relevant work experiences, including trading
`
`experience, self–taught programming proficiencies, as well as experiences in
`
`designing, developing and implementing electronic trading systems.
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF THE INDUSTRY
`22. To understand the claimed invention and its unconventional nature, it
`
`is important to have an understanding of the nature of the industry in which it was
`
`developed and the mission critical nature of tools used for electronic trading. The
`
`electronic trading industry is made up of various groups. These groups include the
`
`exchanges, Futures Commissions Merchants (“FCMs”), technology providers,
`
`such as Independent Software Vendors (“ISVs”) whose primary business is to
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`provide front-end order entry software, trading firms and individual traders. All of
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`the groups identified above provide complimentary services and work together to
`
`facilitate the execution of trades. TT is an example of an ISV. Examples of more
`
`well diversified vendors include CQG and Bloomberg. Examples of an FCM
`
`include RCG and Goldman Sachs. Examples of an exchange include the CME,
`
`Eurex and the Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE”). A broker is generally speaking
`
`someone who, typically for a fee, executes buy and sell orders on behalf of
`
`another. An FCM is an entity that facilitates the buying and selling of futures
`
`contracts and typically holds monetary funds as margin for trading activities. An
`
`exchange is a marketplace in which things of value are traded, such as securities,
`
`options, futures etc.
`
`23. Since at least the early 1990s, many of the industry groups identified
`
`above have been investing in creating and providing front-end order entry
`
`software. The technology providers include ISVs and more well diversified
`
`vendors that provide various technology, including front-end order entry software.
`
`Some FCMs (such as RCG and Goldman Sachs), and exchanges (such as
`
`DTB/Eurex in the 1990s, the CME in the 1990s through the early 2000s and the
`
`Intercontinental Exchange ("ICE”) today) have provided their own front-end order
`
`entry software. Furthermore, many trading firms and individual traders have
`
`invested in their own technology creating their own front-end order entry software.
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 34
`
`
`
`All of the groups identified above compete against each other with respect to front-
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`end order entry software.
`
`24. To better appreciate the significance of the invention, an
`
`understanding of the nature of the industry in which it was developed is helpful.
`
`The incentives for success are pure – there is a lot of money at stake. Traders (who
`
`can be brokers, speculators and/or hedgers) use technology, such as software and
`
`hardware products, to help make quick decisions and seize opportunities. This
`
`technology can be obtained from any of the various industry groups described
`
`above. At the time of the invention there was, and still today there is, a strong
`
`interest in technology that provides even the slightest edge or advantage over
`
`others in the industry. As a result, there are millions of dollars spent each year on
`
`research and development to create technology that can provide a participant in the
`
`industry any edge.
`
`25. Speed and accuracy are often critical factors for success. Because
`
`opportunities may exist for only fleeting moments, the ability to spot them and
`
`seize those opportunities can often be the difference between the success and
`
`failure of a trader. Thus, even the smallest appreciation or suspicion that some new
`
`technology has a chance to provide even a slight advantage is quickly tried by the
`
`industry. Unlike the case in some other industries, there are no market factors or
`
`other reasons why groups in the industry would not try any technology that is
`
`14
`
`Page 16 of 34
`
`
`
`perceived as having the slightest possibility of providing an edge. Similarly, the
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`exchanges and FCMs make more money when more volume is traded. As such,
`
`they are always looking to develop technology that will increase the volume traded
`
`by end users. As a result, new technology that provides a competitive edge spreads
`
`like wildfire.
`
`26.
`
`It is important to appreciate that, in this industry, there is a very fine
`
`edge between failure and success, and differences in GUI tools, which may appear
`
`minor to a layperson or one who is not one of ordinary skill in the art, may actually
`
`be extremely significant to one of ordinary skill. What may seem to be a minor
`
`tweak, especially with the benefit of hindsight, to a person who is not one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art or a person outside of the field of electronic trading, could
`
`mean the difference between a complete failure and an incredible success. As a
`
`result, one of ordinary skill in this art may perceive a difference as critical, whereas
`
`someone outside the field may see the same difference as minor with the benefit of
`
`hindsight.
`
`27. Prior to and at the time of the invention, many well-capitalized
`
`industry groups had the motivation to create better trading screens. For example,
`
`exchanges throughout the world provided electronic trading systems around the
`
`time of the invention. The systems provided order-matching, maintained order
`
`books and positions (or market depth), price information, and managed and
`
`15
`
`Page 17 of 34
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`updated electronic trading databases. Traders used software that created high-speed
`
`interactive screens that enabled them to enter orders, obtain data from the exchange
`
`and monitor their positions. As volume through electronic trading increased,
`
`electronic trading quickly became a large portion of the business for exchanges.
`
`The exchanges, therefore, had great interest in promoting electronic trading. Eurex
`
`invested in promoting electronic trading and trading screens in particular. The
`
`Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”) developed its own screen. The Chicago
`
`Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) provided Globex and Globex II, both of which
`
`included trading screens. All of these exchanges had an incentive to create an
`
`improved trading screen that caused people to trade more and that improved trader
`
`performance, so the exchanges would make more money through increased
`
`volume.
`
`VI. CONVENTIONAL GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE TOOLS (“GUI
`TOOLS”)
`
`28. Both prior to the invention of the ‘999 patent and for a significant
`
`time thereafter, there was a widely accepted conventional wisdom regarding the
`
`design of a graphical user interface tool (“GUI tool”) for order entry. For example,
`
`it was conventional to provide the ability to enter orders using order entry tickets.
`
`With order entry tickets, a trader fills out a ticket (by, for example, entering
`
`parameters for the order such as quantity) and then clicks on a send button (and/or
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 34
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`a confirmation button) provided on the ticket to send an order to an exchange. This
`
`method was known as being very accurate for order entry, but also widely known
`
`as being very slow.
`
`29. With respect to GUI tools that permitted users to enter orders by
`
`directly interfacing with displayed prices (e.g., through the use of a mouse), the
`
`overwhelming majority of GUI tools displayed the best bid price and best ask price
`
`at designated locations on the screen.
`
`30. Figure 2 of another patent assigned to TT, U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132
`
`(“the ‘132 Patent”) (reproduced with annotations below) illustrates an example of
`
`one such common dynamic screen, also referred to as a market grid. A true and
`
`accurate copy of the ‘132 Patent can be found at Ex. 2116.
`
`31. The dynamic screen of Figure 2 represents a screenshot for a market.
`
`In the figure, bid prices are displayed in the BidPrc column 203 and ask prices are
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 34
`
`
`
`displayed in the AskPrc column 204 column adjacent to the BidPrc column. The
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`best bid price that is currently available in the market is always displayed at the top
`
`of column 203, and other bids that are also currently available in the market are
`
`displayed progressively descending the BidPrc column 203. Similarly, the best ask
`
`price that is currently available in the market is always displayed at the top of
`
`column 204, and other asks that are currently available in the market are displayed
`
`progressively descending the AskPrc column 204. The inside market is understood
`
`by those of ordinary skill in the art as meaning the best bid price and best ask price
`
`available in the market.
`
`32. The screen shown in Figure 2 is dynamic with respect to the display
`
`of prices because each and every time the inside market changes, the price values
`
`within the cells of the top row in columns 203 and 204 will change. More
`
`particularly, the value in the best bid price cell changes every time an update
`
`reflecting a change to the best bid price available in the market is received, and the
`
`value in the best ask price cell changes every time an update reflecting a change to
`
`the best ask price available in the market is received. The other displayed bid and
`
`ask prices similarly change based on updates in the market. Therefore, the prices
`
`are constantly changing in response to changes in the market. However, the
`
`location (or cells) designated for the inside market remains in the same top row of
`
`the display of prices. In other words, though the values for the prices are changing
`
`18
`
`Page 20 of 34
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`in the cells, the dynamic display maintains the inside market at the same location in
`
`those top two cells. Thus, the dynamic screen of Figure 2 fixes the inside market
`
`for a commodity in a specified location (i.e., in the top cells). Importantly, in this
`
`type of dynamic screen, there is no price axis. In other words, this screen only
`
`shows those prices for which are pending orders. This screen does not display price
`
`levels that have no orders. For example, in Figure 2 above, price level 7628 is
`
`omitted.
`
`33. Prior to the invention of the ‘999 patent and continuing for years after,
`
`dynamic screens of the sort shown in Figure 2 represented the engrained
`
`conventional wisdom regarding how electronic trading screens were designed.
`
`While most dynamic screens have a format similar to what is shown in Figure 2
`
`(where the best bid and ask prices are provided side-by-side), at the time of the
`
`‘999 invention there were also similar dynamic screens that displayed the prices
`
`vertically (e.g., with the best ask price being displayed above the best bid price).
`
`However, such screens similarly displayed the best bid and best ask prices only at
`
`designated locations on the screen.
`
`34. While various features may have varied from one dynamic screen to
`
`another, there was one constant: the inside market was displayed in a fixed,
`
`designated location to emphasize focus on the primary target for the traders: the
`
`inside market. This was perceived, by those skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`19
`
`Page 21 of 34
`
`
`
`invention, as a significant advantage. The inside market was the focus because,
`
`Case CBM2016-00032
`U.S. Patent 7,212,999
`
`
`prior to the invention, the most common types of orders were orders made at the
`
`inside market (commonly referred to as “market orders” or “market type orders”).
`
`Since the location of the inside market is always known, the trader may easily spot
`
`the target, regardless of changes in the market. At any given time, the trader could
`
`look at the screen and immediately know the current state of the market.
`
`35. Screen “real estate” is a reference to the size of the GUI tool, or the
`
`amount or portion of the trader’s screen that the GUI tool occupies. Conserving
`
`screen “real estate” was important because traders had numerous types of
`
`information provided on the limited space of the trading screen, including: multiple
`
`markets for products to be traded, various price charts, numerous news feeds, etc.
`
`It was critical to minimize space so that the market for each product could be
`
`displayed, as well as to reduce the amount of mouse movement between products.
`
`The dynamic screens satisfied this criteria because the bid and ask prices for a
`
`product are provided in proximate locations. In addition, in the higher-end dynamic
`
`screens, the number of displayed bid and ask prices beyond the inside market may
`
`be adjusted to further minimize the amount of screen real estate required for a
`
`product. That is, the screen real estate for a product can be reduced to simply four
`
`pieces of market data that would be displayed in a single row (or column): a best
`
`bid price and quantity, and a best ask price and quantity. With the dynamic screens,
`
`20
`
`Page 22 of 34
`
`
`
`the other row
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
