Paper No.
`Filed: September 3, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., TD AMERITRADE, INC.,
`AND TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00135
`Patent 6,772,132
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`0001
`
`IBG 1031
`CBM of U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`A.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`The Patented Technology ................................................................................. 4(cid:3)
`
`1.
`(cid:3)
`
`2.
`(cid:3)
`
`3.
`(cid:3)
`
`4.
`(cid:3)
`
`Technical Problems with the Prior Art ............................................... 5(cid:3)
`
`The Inventors Created New Technology that Provides
`Improved Accuracy While Maintaining Speed ................................ 10(cid:3)
`
`The Claims Recite the Technical Elements of the
`Inventive Tool ...................................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`
`The Prosecution History Confirms that the ’132
`Patent’s Novelty Is GUI Technology, Not Conducting a
`Trade ...................................................................................................... 24(cid:3)
`
`II.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE THE
`INVENTIVE ASPECT OF THE CLAIMS DOES NOT
`INVOLVE A METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS ............................................ 26(cid:3)
`
`A.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`B.
`(cid:3)
`
`Patents to Novel GUI Tools, Even If Used in the Field of
`Trading, Are Not Within the Scope of AIA § 18 ....................................... 27(cid:3)
`
`The Congressional Record Confirms that Patents to Novel
`GUIs, Even If Used for Trading, Are Not Within the Scope of
`AIA § 18 ............................................................................................................ 32(cid:3)
`
`III.
`
`(cid:3) THE PETITION’S CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS ARE
`INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE CLAIMS ARE NOT FOR A
`“TECHNOLOGICAL INVENTION” ................................................................. 38(cid:3)
`
`IV.
`
`(cid:3) THE CLAIMS ARE FOR A TECHNOLOGICAL INVENTION,
`SO THE STATUTE PROHIBITS CBM REVIEW ............................................. 41(cid:3)
`
`A.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`The Patent Is a Technological Invention in Every Way: It
`Solves a Technical Problem with a Technical Solution and
`Recites Novel and Nonobvious Technical Features .................................. 42(cid:3)
`
`1.
`(cid:3)
`
`Technical Problem: Prior Systems Required Significant
`Sacrificing of Accuracy for Speed and Vice Versa .......................... 42(cid:3)
`
`
`
`i
`
`0002
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-0013
`
`2.
`(cid:3)
`
`3.
`(cid:3)
`
`The Claimed Invention Provides a Technical Solution
`to the Technical Problems: A New GUI Tool that
`Increases Accuracy While Maintaining Speed and
`Improves Visualization ........................................................................ 44(cid:3)
`
`The Claimed Subject Matter that Solves the Above
`Technical Problems Using a Technical Solution Recites
`a Technical Feature that Is Novel and Nonobvious ...................... 51(cid:3)
`
`V.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`PETITIONERS’ PETITION FAILS TO SATISFY THE
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTITUTION OF ITS
`PROPOSED PRIOR ART GROUNDS ................................................................ 54(cid:3)
`
`A.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Petitioners’ Petition Fails to Articulate Where the “Single
`Action” Elements of the Independent Claims Are Found in
`the Cited References ........................................................................................ 55(cid:3)
`
`1.
`(cid:3)
`
`2.
`(cid:3)
`
`Petitioners’ Petition Fails to Articulate Where the
`“Single Action” Elements of the Independent Claims
`Are Found in the Cited References of the TSE
`Combinations ........................................................................................ 56(cid:3)
`
`Petitioners’ Petition Fails to Articulate Where the
`“Single Action” Elements of the Independent Claims
`Are Found in the Cited References of the
`Silverman/Gutterman Combinations ............................................... 59(cid:3)
`
`B.
`(cid:3)
`
`Petitioners’ Petition Fails to Articulate a Complete
`Obviousness Analysis for Independent Claim 14 in Any of Its
`Proposed Grounds .......................................................................................... 61(cid:3)
`
`C.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Petitioners’ 35 U.S.C. § 101 Challenge Is Uninstitutable ........................... 63(cid:3)
`
`VI.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`PETITIONERS CANNOT SHOW THEY ARE “MORE LIKELY
`THAN NOT” TO PREVAIL ON THEIR OBVIOUSNESS
`GROUNDS 3-8, WHEN THE SAME ARGUMENTS HAVE
`BEEN REJECTED REPEATEDLY BY THE OFFICE AND THE
`COURTS ....................................................................................................................... 64(cid:3)
`
`VII.
`
`(cid:3) CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 66(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`0003
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-0013
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................................... 54, 62
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 18, 50, 57, 64
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC,
`728 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................................................................................................... 63
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................................... 62
`
`35 U.S.C. § 322 ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) .................................................................................................................... 54
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .................................................................................................................... 64
`
`AIA § 18 ............................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ..................................................................................................... 54, 61
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ................................................................................................................... 41
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 54, 55, 56
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48620 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................................... 54
`
`Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
` CBM2014-00015, Paper 20 (Mar. 26, 2014) ............................................................ 3, 30
`
`iii
`0004
`
`

`
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2013-00510, Paper 9 (Feb. 12, 2014) ....................................................................... 63
`
`Case No. CBM2014-0013
`
`
`
`
`
`Experian Mktg Solutions, Inc. v. Rpost Commc’ns Ltd.,
`CBM2014-00064, Paper 13 (July 31, 2014) ................................................................... 40
`
`Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183, Paper 12 (July 31, 2013) ...................................................................... 62
`
`
`
`iv
`0005
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`The Patent Owner, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT” or “Patent
`
`Owner”), has been in business since 1994 and currently employs around 400 people.
`
`Ex. 2007, Litigation Tutorial, p. 2. Headquartered in Chicago with offices around the
`
`world, TT develops and sells electronic trading software. Id. TT’s products include an
`
`innovative order entry tool embodied in a graphical user interface (“GUI”) called MD
`
`Trader® that permits users to interact with and send orders to electronic exchanges
`
`around the world. Id., p. 8. MD Trader is the commercial embodiment of the
`
`inventions claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the ’132 patent”). Id., pp. 35-61.
`
`MD Trader is sold to and used by thousands of customers around the world,
`
`including almost every major international bank. Id., slide 2.
`
`The petition should be denied because it provides only unsupported,
`
`conclusory statements insufficient to meet the Petitioners’ burden of showing the
`
`claims are directed to a covered business method (“CBM”). First, the petition fails to
`
`address the claims as a whole or explain why the claimed combination of features—
`
`directed to a tool with particular structural and functional features embodied in a GUI
`
`and not a business method—should be treated as a CBM patent. Second, even
`
`assuming that the claims involve a business method of the sort intended to be
`
`captured by AIA § 18, the petition fails to show why the claims do not meet the
`
`technological exception in Section 18 (“term [covered business method] does not
`
`include patents for technological inventions”). Petitioners also do not address the
`
`1
`0006
`
`

`
`
`
`combination of technical structural and functional features that the Patent Office
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`found made the claims novel and nonobvious.
`
`An analysis of the claims shows that the ’132 patent is not a CBM patent. The
`
`petition presents what TT believes to be a case of first impression (along with Case
`
`Nos. CBM2014-00131, CBM2014-00133, CBM2014-00136, and CBM2014-00137
`
`concurrently filed by Petitioners). The ’132 patent claims a novel GUI tool, not a
`
`method of doing business. The ’132 patent claims specific features of a device
`
`(embodied in a GUI) that happen to be used in the financial industry. The inventive
`
`aspects of this tool have nothing to do with a business method or practice. The claims
`
`do not merely cover “placing a trade order” or sending an order based on a single
`
`click of a mouse. Rather, the claims require specific structural and functional features
`
`of a tool embodied in a GUI. There are countless embodiments of graphical order
`
`entry tools that are not covered by the claims of the ’132 patent.
`
`TT is not aware of any other CBM petition directed to such a patent. To TT’s
`
`knowledge, other petitions have been directed to patents where at least arguably some
`
`inventive aspect of the claims is directed to a business method or practice. TT submits
`
`that claims where all inventive aspects reside in claimed technical features and
`
`structure, such as the graphical order entry tool of the ’132 patent, or a money-sorting
`
`machine or a stapler, fail to qualify as a CBM as a threshold matter and should not
`
`even need to be analyzed under the technological exception (which they would
`
`necessarily meet). Indeed, as shown below, the Congressional Record gives claims of
`
`2
`0007
`
`

`
`
`
`the sort at issue here, where the inventive aspect lies in a GUI tool used for trading, as
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`a specific example of claims not subject to Section 18. Ex. 2009, S5428. A different
`
`result would be illogical given the statutory requirement for a “covered business
`
`method,” contradict Congress’s purposes for enacting the statute, and subject owners
`
`of purely technological patents to the unnecessary time and expense of responding to
`
`improper CBM petitions.
`
`The ’132 patent also meets the technological exception. At the time of the
`
`invention, the main inventor (Mr. Brumfield) recognized that trading screen
`
`technologies suffered from a significant, technical problem—conventional trading
`
`screens required a significant sacrifice in accuracy to achieve speed and vice versa. The
`
`’132 patent provided a technical solution to this problem: a novel and nonobvious
`
`GUI tool that not only improved accuracy while maintaining speed, but also
`
`presented an interface that better visualized market changes, making the tool more
`
`precise and efficient to use. The claimed novel and nonobvious technical features
`
`(explained below) address and provide a solution to these technical problems. The
`
`’132 patent does not involve claims directed to a business practice (or a method of
`
`data processing) that merely recite a conventional GUI element, such as generically
`
`displaying data. See, e.g., Agilysys, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM2014-00015, Paper 20 (Mar.
`
`26, 2014). Rather, the claims are directed to specific technical structural and functional
`
`features of a GUI tool that apply technology to overcome technical problems in the
`
`3
`0008
`
`

`
`
`
`art. Congress never intended technical inventions like those claimed in the ’132 patent
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`to be within the purview of CBM patent review. Ex. 2009, S5428.
`
`The assertion in the petition that the claims are obvious fails to address the
`
`technical features of the claims and simply rehashes old arguments based on
`
`references that have been considered—and overcome—many times before both the
`
`Patent Office, during original examination and the related examination and
`
`reexaminations of the ’132 patent and its children, and in the courts. Petitioners’
`
`arguments provide only an illusion of propriety, glossing over the detailed, technical
`
`features of the claims and ignoring many key facts. Notably, the petition fails to
`
`disclose pertinent contrary information related to this past litigation and prosecution
`
`history.
`
`A.
`
`The Patented Technology
`
`The general field of art of the ’132 patent is order entry tools embodied in a
`
`GUI. See Ex. 1001, 1:11-18 (“Specifically, the invention provides a trader with a
`
`versatile and efficient tool for executing trades. It facilitates the display of and the
`
`rapid placement of trade orders . . . .”); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC,
`
`728 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (describing subject matter of patent (in an
`
`appeal involving a continuation of the ’132 patent with the same specification) as
`
`“a graphical user interface that can display essential data from a commodities market
`
`and allow a user to enter electronic trade orders on an exchange. Drawings [Figures 3
`
`and 4] exemplify several key aspects of the disclosed displays.”). These screens are
`
`4
`0009
`
`

`
`
`
`highly specialized tools used for mission-critical applications. Many companies have
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`invested, and continue to invest, significant amounts of research and development on
`
`designing improved graphical order entry tools. Ex. 2010, ¶¶ 35-38.
`
`As set forth below, the ’132 patent claims are directed to technical features of
`
`such a tool that are novel and nonobvious. The substance of what is inventive about
`
`all of the claims—including the method and computer-readable medium claims—are
`
`the features of a GUI tool, and not practicing a method of doing business or data
`
`processing. The claimed tool can be used to implement trading strategies (e.g., buy
`
`low/sell high), but the claims are not directed to any such strategy. The method claims
`
`merely require that the claimed order entry tool, with the required structural and
`
`functional features, be used. In other words, the claims are about the claimed tool, not
`
`merely about the act of placing an order.
`
`1.
`
`Technical Problems with the Prior Art
`
`Prior to the invention of the ’132 patent, there was well-accepted conventional
`
`wisdom regarding the design of a trading interface for order entry. Ex. 2010, Second
`
`Corrected Expert Report of Christopher Thomas, ¶ 19. For example, it was
`
`conventional to provide the ability to enter orders using order entry tickets. Id. While
`
`there were, and continue to be, a variety of designs for such order tickets, such
`
`screens typically provided a user the ability to fill out a ticket (with information like
`
`type of order, price, quantity, etc.) and then click on a send button (and/or a
`
`confirmation button) provided on the ticket to send an order to an exchange. Id. This
`
`5
`0010
`
`

`
`
`
`approach was widely known as being very accurate for order entry, but also as being
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`slow. Id.
`
`Another typical interface for permitting order entry is shown in Figure 2 of the
`
`’132 patent (shown below with annotations). Figure 2 depicts a conventional GUI
`
`tool used in the trading field that displayed the current “best prices” for a market on
`
`the top line of the GUI.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’132 Patent
`
`Figure 2 represents a screenshot at a particular moment in time. Ex. 2010, ¶ 22.
`
`In these types of tools, the 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.
`
`Id. Similarly, the best ask price that is currently available in the market is always
`
`6
`0011
`
`

`
`
`
`displayed at the top of column 204, and other asks that are currently available in the
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`market are displayed, progressively descending the AskPrc column 204. Id.
`
`In these types of tools, each and every time the inside market (the best bid and
`
`ask prices) changes, the price values displayed within the cells of the top row in
`
`columns 203 and 204 change. Id., ¶ 23. The other displayed bid and ask prices
`
`similarly change based on updates received from the market. Id. Therefore, the
`
`displayed prices are constantly changing in response to changes in the market. Id.
`
`However, the location (or cells) designated for the inside market remains in the same
`
`top row of the display. Id. In other words, these types of tools maintained the display
`
`of the inside market at the same location (i.e., fixed the inside market in a specified
`
`location). Id. Figure 2 provides an example of one particular design of such a prior art
`
`style screen. Various other designs of such style screens (where the inside market is
`
`displayed in a fixed location) existed and continue to be developed and commonly
`
`used today. Id., ¶¶ 24-28.
`
`Some of these types of tools permitted “single action” order entry that
`
`consisted of a trader presetting a default quantity and then clicking on a cell in the
`
`screen (i.e., pressing a button on the tool) to cause a trade order message to be sent to
`
`the exchange at the preset quantity and at the price value associated with that cell.
`
`Id., ¶ 20.
`
`Those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention viewed these types
`
`of trading tools as satisfying well-understood design criteria and as providing
`
`7
`0012
`
`

`
`
`
`numerous advantages. Id., ¶¶ 24-28. For example, fixing the display of the inside
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`market at a designated location on the tool allowed a user to easily locate and focus on
`
`the most important information—the inside market. Id., ¶ 25. At any given time, a
`
`trader could look at the tool and immediately know the current state of the market. Id.
`
`These tools also allowed the trader to rapidly and accurately enter market type orders
`
`(orders made at the inside market prices) by clicking on the location for the best bid
`
`or best ask prices. Id.
`
`Mr. Brumfield, one of the inventors of the ’132 patent, was using a Figure 2
`
`style order entry tool as part of a product purchased from TT prior to the invention.
`
`Ex. 2011, Trial Testimony of Mr. Brumfield, pp. 676-678. He encountered a problem
`
`with this type of tool. Id., pp. 682-706; Ex. 2010, ¶ 31. Mr. Brumfield was focused on
`
`entering orders at particular price levels, as opposed to market type orders. Ex. 2011,
`
`pp. 682-706. If Mr. Brumfield wanted to use fast single action order entry on these
`
`types of tools and was trying to enter an order at a particular price level, he had to
`
`sacrifice accuracy for speed. Id. In particular, there was a risk that he would miss his
`
`intended price as a result of prices changing from under his cursor right at the time he
`
`clicked on a cell. Id. The following example slide (which was used in court in litigation
`
`involving the ’132 patent) illustrates the problem:
`
`8
`0013
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`Ex. 2007, p. 30. In this example, the “ask price” displayed in the top field of the GUI
`
`changes from 111175 to 111180 in the time between the user deciding to place the
`
`order at the displayed price (time 1) and the user executing the click (time 2). The
`
`resulting trade is inaccurate because it executes at a different price (111180) from the
`
`displayed price selected by the user (111175). Ex. 2010, ¶ 30. The ’132 patent
`
`describes this problem at 2:60-67.
`
`A video demonstrating this loss of accuracy in favor of speed in prior art
`
`trading screen tools of the sort shown in Figure 2 that was recognized by Mr.
`
`9
`0014
`
`

`
`
`
`Brumfield is attached as Exhibit 2012.1 This video demonstrating the problem was
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`previously shown to the court in a litigation involving the ’132 patent.
`
`2.
`
`The Inventors Created New Technology that Provides
`Improved Accuracy While Maintaining Speed
`
`In an attempt to address the problem described above, Mr. Brumfield
`
`conceived the design of a new GUI tool. Ex. 2011, pp. 690-693. One of Mr.
`
`Brumfield’s early diagrams of the new GUI tool from September 1998 is shown
`
`below:
`
`
`1 The extensive body of prior art considered in the original examination and then in
`
`reexamination (and in litigation) includes some screens that function differently than
`
`the Figure 2 style screens. As explained below, the Patent Office determined the
`
`claimed combination of features to be novel and nonobvious over this art. Prior to
`
`the inventors, no one put together the combination of claimed features into one
`
`tool—a tool that has proven to be a huge success. Petitioners’ invalidity arguments are
`
`based on a subset of art that was already considered and is actually less than
`
`cumulative than the art considered.
`
`10
`0015
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`Ex. 2013. Mr. Brumfield’s design showed early versions of new features that would be
`
`integrated into his new tool, such as a static price axis display with price levels that
`
`would not move every time the market changed in the manner of Figure 2, multiple
`
`active screen elements such as areas to dynamically display indicators representing
`
`quantity information relative to the price axis, and cells associated with different price
`
`levels along the price axis that could be selected by a single action to cause an order
`
`message to be sent for an order at the corresponding price level. Ex. 2011, pp. 692-
`
`700. The design also included areas to display indicators representing working orders
`
`that have been sent to the exchange but have not yet been filled. Id.
`
`11
`0016
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`Over an extensive period of time, Mr. Brumfield spent significant resources
`
`(both time and money) working with technical consultants from TT to develop a
`
`working prototype of the new GUI tool.2 Id. Once a functioning tool was developed
`
`that could be tested for its intended purpose, Mr. Brumfield confirmed that the new
`
`tool addressed the problem of speed and accuracy discussed above. Id. The ’132
`
`patent describes this problem and how the invention addresses it at 2:60-67 and 7:47-
`
`53. A video (used in court in litigation) illustrating how the claimed invention
`
`addresses this problem is attached as Exhibit 2014.
`
`In addition, he learned that the tool provided the added and unexpected benefit
`
`of solving another technical problem with the prior art. In particular, the interaction
`
`of the static axis and aligned dynamic elements of the new tool better represented the
`
`market and changes in the market than prior art style screens. Ex. 2011, pp. 703-706;
`
`Ex. 2010, ¶ 33. For example, aligning the dynamic elements with the static axis (which
`
`is the result of the claimed juxtaposing of the dynamic indicators and the static axis
`
`that does not move price levels with each change in the market) provided the ability
`
`for a user to enter orders more quickly and accurately at desired prices relative to the
`
`
`2 At the time, TT had two businesses: (1) a product business, in which it sold its
`
`trading application called X_Trader to banks and trading firms around the world; and
`
`(2) a consulting business which provide computer programming/development
`
`services to clients. Ex. 2011, pp. 720-721.
`
`12
`0017
`
`

`
`
`
`market. Id. This resulted in the new tool identifying market changes more precisely
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`and being easier to use and less error prone (due to its improved/more intuitive
`
`visualization) than the prior art style tools. Id.. This improved visualization is
`
`described in the ’132 patent at 7:15-46 and shown by comparing Figures 3 and 4,
`
`which show an example embodiment at time 1 (before a change in the market) and
`
`time 2 (after the change in the market). A video (used in court in litigation) illustrating
`
`the visualization difference between the prior Figure 2 style screens and the claimed
`
`invention is attached as Exhibit 2049.
`
`Experienced people in the field did not even recognize the shortcomings in the
`
`prior art recognized by Mr. Brumfield until after they saw the invention embodied in
`
`TT’s MD Trader product. See, e.g., Ex. 2038, ¶ 6 (“MD Trader provided this speed
`
`benefit by providing for very accurate and fast order entry as compared to the
`
`preexisting screens because there was no risk of the fast order entry as compared to
`
`the preexisting systems . . . . MD Trader also had an improved display of the market
`
`data such that a trader could easily see the ebb and flow of the market . . . . It was only
`
`after seeing the benefits of this new unusual screen [MD Trader] that people like
`
`myself realized the shortcomings of the preexisting systems.”); Ex. 2044, ¶¶ 10-12
`
`(“Once I started using the product [MD Trader], I saw that it was better than the
`
`preexisting order entry screens. In particular, it was faster in that by providing a more
`
`intuitive display, it reduced the time it takes for a trader to recognize opportunities.
`
`Also, it allowed for order entry with less errors than preexisting systems . . . . The
`
`13
`0018
`
`

`
`
`
`combination of the more intuitive display and the fast and reliable order entry cause
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`MD Trader to be a faster tool than preexisting systems . . . . MD Trader provided a
`
`significant change to the order entry screens that were prevalent at the time of its
`
`release. Prior to the release of MD Trader, traders did not even perceive a problem
`
`with the old tools they were using. Only after seeing the benefits of MD Trader did
`
`people like myself realize the shortcomings of the preexisting systems.”); Ex. 2041, ¶ 6
`
`(“For someone who is an active trader, MD Trader was a revolutionary product. Only
`
`after I saw MD Trader did I realize the severe shortcomings of the preexisting
`
`systems. Whoever came up with the ideas behind MD Trader was truly ‘thinking
`
`outside of the box.’”).
`
`In 1999, TT’s business was struggling. Ex. 2010, p. 713. Based on his belief that
`
`the invention could turn the company around if TT developed it into a product,
`
`Mr. Brumfield assigned the invention to TT and became an investor in the company.
`
`Id., pp. 713-714. A significant part of the decision to assign the invention to TT was
`
`based on the ability to patent the innovation so TT’s efforts at development and
`
`commercialization could not be easily copied by others. Id. After the patent
`
`application that led to the ’132 patent was filed, TT completed development of the
`
`technology and released it as the “MD Trader” tool—which was part of TT’s
`
`X_Trader product. Id., p. 800. The X_Trader product, with the MD Trader tool, is
`
`still TT’s flagship product today. See id., p. 715; see also Ex. 2015, X_Trader Website.
`
`14
`0019
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`The MD Trader tool combined the claimed features discussed in detail below,
`
`including the features of a static price display aligned with dynamic displays, an order
`
`entry region aligned with the static price display with areas for receiving single action
`
`commands to set parameters and send an order.
`
`
`
`
`
`MD Trader
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 of the ’132 Patent
`
`This combination allowed for fast order entry with improved accuracy and a
`
`more precise visualization of the market changes. Ex. 2010, ¶ 33. The product also
`
`included features from various dependent claims that recite additional innovative
`
`features, such as regions for displaying working order indicators and that permit the
`
`easy visualization and cancellation of such orders and a re-centering feature. The
`
`15
`0020
`
`

`
`
`
`various inventions claimed in the ’132 patent not only address the problems noted
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`above, but also provided an order entry tool that combined various features that were
`
`kept separate in the prior art (such as an order entry tool and displays of working
`
`orders (sometimes called fill windows) in an innovative GUI that is materially simpler
`
`and more efficient to use. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:17-22.
`
`Mr. Brumfield proved to be right—the invention was revolutionary, and turned
`
`TT around. After a period of initial skepticism, the MD Trader product became a
`
`huge commercial success, Ex. 2007, p. 34, and received widespread industry praise,
`
`Ex. 2010, ¶ 32. The technology received many accolades from experienced people in
`
`the industry. Id. Indeed, over thirty experienced, third-party individuals in the field
`
`signed declarations testifying to the benefits of the invention.3 Id.; see also Exs. 2016-
`
`
`3 Petitioners have been provided voluminous amount of materials from litigation
`
`related to the ’132 patent that has been ongoing for ten years, including the
`
`declarations cited herein. Ex. 2047. The litigation materials, including such
`
`declarations, depositions, trial testimony, an extraordinary number of court pleadings
`
`and decisions, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of documents contain an
`
`overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts assertions being made by
`
`Petitioners. What is cited herein are just a few examples—examples that Petitioners
`
`either have or have access to. The sheer volume of this evidence and the fact that
`
`Petitioners have not bothered to identify contrary information in this evidence
`
`16
`0021
`
`

`
`
`
`2046. For example, the new technology was hailed as “a very significant departure
`
`Case No. CBM2014-00135
`
`
`
`from [systems that were available]” and “a stroke of genius . . . . I had not seen
`
`anything like it before.” Ex. 2010, ¶ 32.
`
`3.
`
`The Claims Recite the Technical Elements of the Inventive
`Tool
`
`The claims of the ’132 patent, never addressed in any detail in the petition,
`
`recite detailed structural and functional features of an inventive GUI tool that make
`
`the claims novel and nonobvious. In particular, the claims recite static and dynamic
`
`portions of the screen aligned in specific ways, multiple display regions to receive
`
`input from a user, and areas for receiving single action order entry commands (which
`
`is shorthand for displaying order entry regions with areas that receive commands to
`
`send orders in the form of single action commands that both set a plurality of
`
`parameters and cause an order message to be sent).
`
`In substance, all claims, whether in method, computer readable medium or
`
`system format, of the ’132 patent recite these features of the GUI tool. The novel and
`
`nonobvious elements of all claims in the ’132 patent are directed to the structure and
`
`
`dictates against institution. This evidence also includes 20 consent judgments, with
`
`most of TT’s traditional competitors finding the ’132/’304 patents valid, Exhibits
`
`2063-2082, and numerous settlements in which companies either dropped the
`
`invention from their product or took a license under the patents.
`
`
`
`17
`0022
`
`

`
`
`
`make-up of the order entry tool (embodied in a GUI). No