Trading Technologies appeals another Patent Board decision involving Interactive Brokers, TradeStation, IBFX
In another case concerning the famous “patent ’556”, Trading Technologies seeks to overturn the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, entered on March 31, 2017.
Earlier this month, FinanceFeeds have informed their readers about Trading Technologies seeking to overturn a February decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a legal move concerning the so-called “patent ‘556”, called “System and Method for Displaying Order Information in Relation to a Derivative of Price”.
As per the latest court filings, seen by FinanceFeeds, on July 21, 2017, Trading Technologies made another move towards a decision by the Board concerning the same patent. This time, the company has turned to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an appeal against the Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, entered on March 31, 2017, and the Decision Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, entered on May 17, 2017.
In its essence, the Final Written Decision from March 31, 2017, sides with a number of online trading companies, including Interactive Brokers LLC, IBG LLC, TradeStation Group Inc, TradeStation Securities, TradeStation Technologies and IBFX. These brokers have been sued by Trading Technologies over an alleged infringement of the patent, which describes “a user interface for an electronic trading system that allows a remote trader to view trends for an item, which assists the trader to anticipate demand for an item”.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board finds that claims 1–22 of the ’556 patent are patent-ineligible”.
Let’s translate this into “human terms”. In March, the Board determined that the patent claims in question are directed to an abstract idea – that of providing a trader with financial information to facilitate market trades, which is a fundamental economic practice. All that “claim 1” encompasses, for instance, are steps that, according to the brokers and the Board, can be performed using pen and paper, or even in a trader’s mind.
The Board was not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the claimed GUI improves the computer because it allows the computer to be used in new and inventive ways. The use of a GUI to display market information was found to be “a well-understood, routine, conventional activity that does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.”
Trading Technologies will seek Vacatur to this decision and the denying of its request for rehearing.
The latest case is captioned Trading Technologies Intl. v. IBG LLC (0:17-bcaag-02323).
