`
`Jay Q. Knobloch
`Director of IP Licensing & Litigation
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`Direct line: 312.698.6497
`
`jay.knobloch@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`VIA FED EX
`
`October 30, 2015
`
`Hon. Michelle K. Lee
`
`Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`600 Dulany St., MDW IOD44
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`Re: Continued Abuse of Post-Grant Review Process
`
`Dear Director Lee:
`
`On October 23, 2015, the same day that we sent our second letter regarding abusive CBM
`filingsl (“Second Letter”), Interactive Brokers Group (“IBG”) and CQG filed another CBM petition
`against U.S. Patent No. 7,685,055 (CBM2016-00009).
`
`This new filing continues the abuse and gamesmanship of the CBM process outlined in our
`
`letter dated August 10, 2015 (“First Letter”) and our Second Letter.
`
`Once again, the petitioners have waited an inordinate amount of time before filing this
`
`petition and also knowingly chose not to join a previous CBM petition on the same patent, which
`
`was filed by their co-defendant.
`
`0 Waited Almost 3 Years to File. TT filed its infringement complaints against CQG
`
`and IBG on February 3, 2010. The CBM program was available to both of these
`
`parties on September 16, 2012. The petitioners filed CBM2016-00009 on October
`
`23, 2015. Therefore, they waited over 3 years (1133 days) to file a petition against
`
`this patent.
`
`Did Not Join TDA CBM Petition. IBG and CQG had the opportunity to join the
`
`TD Ameritrade CBM petition against the ’055 patent on May 19, 2014. They
`
`knowingly chose to not join at that point, even though they now advance similar
`arguments.
`
`1 The CBMS discussed in our Second Letter were CBM2015-00172, CBM201 5-001 79, CBM201 5-00181,
`and CBM20l5-00182.
`
`1'RAD|NG
`1-EcHNoLoG|E5~
`
`222 South Riverside Plaza
`Suite 1100
`Chicago. IL 60606
`
`+1 312 476 1000 Main
`+1 312 4761001 Fax
`
`tradingtechnologiescom
`
`1
`
`TS 1019
`
`
`
`Page |2
`
`Furthermore, for the same reasons set forth in our First and Second Letters, the ’055 patent
`
`is not a covered business method patent within the jurisdictional scope of Section 18. Like the
`
`patents discussed in our First and Second Letters, the ’OSS patent claims are not directed to a
`
`business method or practice. Rather, they are directed to technology — particular structural and
`
`functional features of a GUI tool. The claims were found by the USPTO to be novel and non-
`
`obvious over other GUI prior art based on the claimed GUI features — not based on alleged
`
`innovations in the steps of a business process or practice.
`
`Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in our First and Second Letters, TT respectfully
`
`requests that you exercise your discretion as Director (pursuant to, inter alia, 35 U.S.C. §§ 324-325
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.208) to also promptly deny institution of this new petition.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`J 5! Q /
`
`ay Q. Knoblfili.' cnsing & Litigation
`
`Director of IP _
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`John C. Phillips (phi1lips@fr.com);
`Robert E. Sokohl (rsokoh1@skgf.com);
`Erika H. Amer (erika.arner@f1nnegan.c0m);
`Steven F. Borsand (steve.borsand@tradingtechnologies.com).
`
`2