`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.;
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.;
`IBG LLC; AND
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00051
`U.S. Patent No. 7,904,374 B2
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER H. THOMAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 86
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2169
`TRADESTATION ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2016-00051
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS & BACKGROUND ...................................................... 5
`II.
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................. 11
`III.
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 13
`V.
`BACKGROUND OF THE INDUSTRY ....................................................... 16
`VI. CONVENTIONAL GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
`TOOLS (“GUI TOOLS”) .............................................................................. 29
`VII. THE UTILITY AND ADVANTAGES OF THE PATENTED
`INVENTION ................................................................................................. 42
`VIII. THE CLAIMED INVENTION IS TECHNICAL ......................................... 73
`IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS .................................................................. 86
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 86
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Christopher H. Thomas, declare as follows:
`
`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. (“Patent Owner”) to provide expert opinions in connection with
`
`Case CBM2016-00051, regarding United States Patent No. 7,904,374 (“the ’374
`
`patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I understand that a Petition was filed on March 29, 2016 seeking
`
`covered business method (“CBM”) review of claims 1 through 36 of the ’374
`
`patent, and the petition was subsequently assigned case no. CBM2016-00051. I
`
`understand that in the Petition, Petitioner alleged that the claims are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. I understand that the Petitioner did not allege any grounds
`
`of anticipation. The PTO instituted CBM review, by decision dated August 17,
`
`2016, for all claims of the ’374 patent under § 101.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to address the technological nature of the claims, as
`
`well as the inquiry into whether the invention solves a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution. I have also been asked to address whether the claim elements
`
`are routine and conventional.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent on this matter, including
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 86
`
`
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`It is my opinion that the invention of claims 1 through 36 of the ’374
`
`patent provide a specific structure, makeup, and functionality of a new GUI tool.
`
`The claims solve a technical problem with a technical solution that is specifically
`
`implemented. The claims are narrowly drawn to not preempt any and all generic
`
`displaying and updating of market information with placement of trade orders in
`
`other systems.
`
`7.
`
`It is also my opinion that the claims are not directed to routine or
`
`conventional elements, but to the features of a specialized GUI tool. Further, as
`
`evidenced by the overwhelming real world evidence, the claimed combination was
`
`not routine or conventional, but a radical departure from the construction of GUI
`
`tools in the prior art. The elements of the ‘374 claims are not combined in a
`
`generic manner, but purposefully arranged to construct the specifically claimed
`
`technological solution. When considering the claim limitations individually and as
`
`a whole, they recite an invention that is not merely the routine and conventional
`
`use of technology. Instead, as described below, the claimed invention went
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 86
`
`
`
`directly against the conventional wisdom at the time of the invention.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS & BACKGROUND
`8. My curriculum vitae is attached to this report as Exhibit 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.
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10. As CTO of Emerald Market Systems in 1997, I designed and
`
`developed an internet quote system that was used by the Chicago Mercantile
`
`Exchange to provide free quotes for certain new markets that the exchange was
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 86
`
`
`
`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, account balances, etc. There was another component to
`
`FuturesOnline which I 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,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 86
`
`
`
`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, (Microsoft DNA Case Study). 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.
`
`11. During the period from about 1992 to 2002, I was active in the trading
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 86
`
`
`
`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.
`
`12. 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 was majority owned by the principals of Stafford Trading.
`
`Ragnarok Systems was a next generation online trading brokerage firm. Ragnarok
`
`Systems along with parts of Stafford Trading was acquired by Toronto Dominion
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 86
`
`
`
`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).
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`designing and managing the development of the user interfaces and electronic
`
`trading platforms and infrastructure for testing and executing trading strategies in
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 86
`
`
`
`live markets.
`
`14.
`
`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 was responsible for designing all trading
`
`software and algorithms for the company. Additionally, I was responsible for
`
`programming portions of the software.
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`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 an expert, I had widespread
`
`exposure and personal knowledge as to the state of the art at time of invention, as
`
`well as before and after the time of the invention. Through my experience with the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 86
`
`
`
`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
`17.
`
`I am familiar with the ‘374 patent, the Petition and supporting exhibits
`
`and declaration, the patent owner’s preliminary response, and the Board’s
`
`institution decision.
`
`18. As a result of my involvement in prior court proceedings for related
`
`TT patents, I have been exposed to the large amount of alleged prior art that has
`
`been presented by the parties in the related litigations over the past ten years.
`
`Many, many documents relating to alleged prior art were produced by the
`
`defendants, members of the Joint Defense Group, and other third parties. In
`
`connection with the court proceedings, there were many dozens of depositions
`
`seeking information on the state of the art and the invention, including a number of
`
`depositions of third party individuals who executed declarations regarding the
`
`uniqueness and benefits to the user and the industry of the commercial
`
`embodiment of the claimed invention. In addition, there were party contentions
`
`and expert reports relating to the validity of the patents. There were summary
`
`judgment filings relating to validity and declarations in support of such filings.
`
`Prior to trial, the parties served expert reports and contentions. In the eSpeed case
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 86
`
`
`
`and the CQG case, I testified at trial, as did a number of other experts for the
`
`parties. Voluminous material relating to the validity of the patents was developed.
`
`Because of my own experience in the industry, my review of the file history, and
`
`my experience in these court proceedings, I have a thorough understanding of the
`
`state of the art at the time of the invention, and before and after the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`19.
`
`In addition, I have personal experience with a 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 trading. Throughout my professional trading career, I have
`
`made an effort to stay 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.
`
`20. 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 86
`
`
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`In addition to the above, I have personally traded on electronic
`
`exchanges using Trading Technologies’ (“TT’s”) products, including MD Trader,
`
`which is the commercial embodiment of the inventions described for example in
`
`the ’374 patent. MD Trader has always been the commercial embodiment of the
`
`claimed inventions described in the ‘374 patent since MD Trader was launched in
`
`2000 through to the present. In addition, I have spoken with numerous users of
`
`MD Trader and other experts in the field about MD Trader and how it functions.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`22. 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
`
`keyboard, a mouse, a stylus, a finger, or other pointing device. GUI tools are
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 86
`
`
`
`HCIs (human-computer interfaces). These GUIs are analogous to mechanical
`
`devices because, like mechanical 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 enter values or operations, whereas today’s smartphones
`
`utilize, for example, a GUI that enables the user to enter the same values or
`
`operations.
`
`23. GUI tools like the invention of the ’374 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.
`
`24.
`
`In the course of my industry experience, I have hired people to do
`
`GUI tool development for electronic trading. Backgrounds included previous
`
`experience in software development, technical degrees in computer science,
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 86
`
`
`
`engineering or other science disciplines, or equivalent work experience, etc.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`I have reviewed Mr. Roman’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. Roman’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. He suggests that merely direct or indirect
`
`experience with trading or related systems is adequate. This is incorrect because it
`
`ignores the needs of the trader for whom the GUI is designed. In 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
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 86
`
`
`
`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.
`
`27. 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
`28. To understand the claimed invention, 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”) (the equivalent of equity brokers for
`
`futures), technology providers, such as Independent Software Vendors (“ISVs”)
`
`whose primary business is to provide GUI tools, trading firms, brokers and
`
`individual traders. All of the groups identified above provide complimentary
`
`services and work together to facilitate the execution of trades. TT is an example
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 86
`
`
`
`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.
`
`29. TradeStation Group, Inc. is the parent company of TradeStation
`
`Technologies, Inc., a trading technology company, and TradeStation Securities,
`
`Inc., an online securities and futures brokerage firm (broker and FCM). I may
`
`refer to these Petitioners collectively as “TradeStation.” TradeStation
`
`Technologies was founded under the name Omega Research in 1982, which
`
`initially focused on developing and marketing tools that would allow users without
`
`a technical or computer programming background to program and test their own
`
`trading strategies. Since that time, TradeStation has been engaged in developing
`
`and marketing technology for traders, including, after the advent of electronic
`
`exchanges, technology for electronic trading. TradeStation’s technology has
`
`included, and today includes, GUI tools for electronic trading. Thus, TradeStation
`
`has been significantly involved in the technology side of the trading industry for
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 86
`
`
`
`over thirty years. TradeStation is a large company that invests millions of dollars
`
`annually on technology development. TradeStation revenue is derived from a
`
`combination of a monthly fee for access to their trading platform and/or a fee per
`
`trade. IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC and IBFX, Inc., (hereinafter
`
`collectively, “IB”) are likewise very large technology and trading companies. IB
`
`conducts an electronic brokerage business, providing its customers what it claims
`
`to be one of the most effective and efficient trading platforms in the industry. IB
`
`charges a fee for access to its data feed, as well as fees on a per share traded basis,
`
`and recently reported annual net revenue is in excess of one billion dollars.
`
`30. Prior to the advent of electronic trading, the trading of futures
`
`occurred in what is known as the open outcry system. Open outcry is the name of
`
`a system of financial trading, used for over one hundred years, in which traders
`
`shout their bids and offers aloud in an area of a trading floor referred to as a trading
`
`pit. In the trading pit, traders utilize shouting and hand signals to transfer
`
`information about buy and sell orders to other traders. To avoid confusion, the
`
`inside market prices were the focus, and traders could only shout and signal
`
`regarding their interest at the best bid/offer or at a price that improves the best
`
`bid/offer. Orders (bids or offers) at prices away from the inside market were not
`
`allowed. Traders executed trades by agreeing with another trader in the pit on a
`
`price and quantity. As such, there was no transparency into what interest others
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 86
`
`
`
`might have at prices away from the best bid/offer. Indeed, traders in a trading pit
`
`frequently would try to hide their interest in order to obtain the best prices for their
`
`orders. In addition, in the trading pit personality and physical presence played a
`
`role—there was no anonymity. Traders often wore distinguishing clothing, such as
`
`colorful jackets or even platform shoes, to garner attention in the pits in an attempt
`
`to gain priority for order execution. For the same reasons, certain locations in the
`
`trading pit could be more desirable than others. Furthermore, each pit was limited
`
`to contracts for a particular product and thus, in the open outcry system, the trader
`
`could only trade the contracts that were available in the pit where he/she stood.
`
`Mobility between the pits was limited, by physical distance between the pits,
`
`timeliness of the opportunity, and other factors. In its early form, there was no
`
`technology in the open outcry trading pits. Nonetheless, open outcry pit trading
`
`was viewed as incredibly efficient and it was viewed favorably and supported by
`
`large numbers of industry groups.
`
`31. As technology developed, exchanges and trading entities utilized the
`
`technology within the open outcry trading paradigm. For example, technology was
`
`added by the exchanges to assist in the processing of orders executed in the open
`
`outcry pits, which is sometimes referred to as backend processing. Similarly,
`
`brokers began to utilize technology to route customer orders to the appropriate
`
`trader in the pit. An example of this type of technology is shown in the patent to
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 86
`
`
`
`Gutterman. See Ex. 1004. Even though it utilized technology to facilitate the
`
`functioning of the entities involved in the trading pit, the open outcry paradigm
`
`was essentially unchanged.
`
`32. Subsequently a different paradigm appeared, which very rapidly
`
`changed the way trading was done. Many in the industry, of course, resisted the
`
`new paradigm, especially in the United States. The new paradigm was electronic
`
`trading. As opposed to the use of computers to facilitate the open outcry system, I
`
`understand “electronic trading” to refer to technologies that allow a trader to send
`
`an order to an electronic exchange, where the exchange uses technology to
`
`implement a matching engine (hardware and software). The electronic exchanges
`
`typically publish rules advising users of the manner in which the exchange will
`
`prioritize and match orders. Technologies that assist in the functioning of an open
`
`outcry trading pit, such as order routing or order management technologies, are not
`
`electronic trading. Initially, electronic trading was used to extend trading hours,
`
`where the electronic markets could be utilized after the open outcry pits had
`
`closed. Later, electronic trading was used as a complete replacement for the open
`
`outcry trading pits. In the new paradigm, electronic trading involves providing
`
`traders with real time data feeds and mission critical GUIs for interacting with the
`
`electronic exchange. In this paradigm, traders no longer pick who they trade with.
`
`Instead, traders send orders at any desired price and quantity as electronic
`
`20
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 86
`
`
`
`messages that get queued and matched by an electronic exchange (computer
`
`hardware and software), typically on a first-in-first-out basis. In this system, the
`
`traders are anonymous to each other. The electronic exchange publishes this mass
`
`amount of data to people all over the world, so the information is known and
`
`transparent in contrast to the situation in traditional open outcry trading pits.
`
`33.
`
`In the early period of applying technology to trading, there were
`
`different approaches and theories driving technology development. Some entities
`
`took the approach, which now seems silly in hindsight, of trying to continue the pit
`
`paradigm by taking advantage of technology to continue pit trading. The patent to
`
`Belden is an example of this approach that attempted to continue the pit paradigm
`
`by mimicking the trading pit. See Ex. 1005. Under the pit-mimicking approach,
`
`the GUI tools were constructed such that the trader could see an electronic
`
`representation of the pit and an electronic representation of other traders
`
`participating within that pit. In the representation of the pit, the various
`
`representations of traders typically also displayed the trader’s offers and/or bids at
`
`the inside market prices. In order to execute a trade, the trader would click on an
`
`icon representing a trader in the pit. There was no matching engine (i.e., no
`
`electronic exchange) in these types of pit-mimicking systems. One train of thought
`
`in support of this approach was that traders who had previously traded in the
`
`trading pits would like it and adapt more readily because it would be more familiar
`
`21
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 86
`
`
`
`to them, in the sense that, as in open outcry pit trading, the traders were able to
`
`select the other trader with whom they wanted to trade. Also, several United States
`
`exchanges and many of their members wanted to retain the open outcry pit trading
`
`model.
`
`34. The other approach looked to create a new and different electronic
`
`trading paradigm. Specifically, this approach was focused on the development of
`
`GUI tools for electronic trading and the development of electronic exchanges. The
`
`invention of the patent here falls into this second approach. The invention is not
`
`compatible with a pit mimicking approach. Likewise, a pit mimicking approach, is
`
`not compatible with an electronic exchange. The pit mimicking approach is
`
`merely a continuation of the open outcry paradigm, with an incremental utilization
`
`of technology. By the time of the invention, those of ordinary skill in the art
`
`working in the direction of the electronic trading approach had issues with the pit
`
`mimicking approach. For example, the pit mimicking approach was really just a
`
`platform for users to execute trades with each other, continuing the open outcry
`
`paradi