`
`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
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
