TradeStation, Interactive Brokers say latest Trading Technologies’ patent infringement case not amenable to mediation
Confirming their stance from analogical cases, TradeStation and Interactive Brokers state that the parties’ current positions preclude mediation.
Online trading companies TradeStation and Interactive Brokers have once again underlined their position regarding any mediation in the series of patent infringement cases brought by Trading Technologies.
Let’s recall that a case, captioned Trading Technologies Intl. v. IBG LLC (0:18-bcaag-01302), was filed by Trading Technologies on December 18, 2017. This is the seventh such case brought by TT since July 2017. All of the actions in question challenge decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over TT’s patents. In all of the cases, including the latest one, IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers, LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., and TradeStation Securities, Inc. are named as Appellees.
The brokers have submitted their Docketing Statements, making it clear that mediation is not an option. The Appellees state that the parties’ current positions preclude settlement.
Trading Technologies challenges the decisions made by the PTAB on October 17, 2017. These rulings relate to patent U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768 B2 (“the ’768 patent”).
The ’768 patent is titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth” and was issued on April 6, 2010. The invention of the ’768 patent “is directed to the electronic trading of commodities.” Id. at 1:16–17. The ’768 patent discloses a graphical user interface (GUI), named the Mercury display, and a method of using the Mercury display to displaying market information and placing trade orders for a commodity on an electronic exchange.
In its October ruling, the PTAB sided with IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers, LLC, TradeStation Group, Inc., and TradeStation Securities, Inc. in finding that the patent is subject to a covered business method (CBM) patent review and in determining that claims 1–23 of the ’768 patent are unpatentable.
The PTAB found that the patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of “placing an order based on observed (plotted) market information, as well as updating market information.” The Board agreed with the brokers that what the technology described by the patent does could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen-and-paper with little difficulty because the claim requires plotting only a few data points and that the claims are directed to commodity trading which is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in the US system of commerce.
