Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

February 13, 2019, Decided

2017-1732, 2017-1766, 2017-1769, 2017-2052, 2017-2053, 2017-2054, 2017-2565

Opinion

 [*1006]  Per Curiam.

Trading Technologies International, Inc., ("TT") is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304, 6,772,132, 7,676,411, and 7,813,996. All four patents share a specification and describe a graphical user interface ("GUI") for a trading system that "display[s] the market depth of a commodity traded in a market, including a dynamic display for a plurality of bids and for a plurality of asks in the market for the commodity and a static display of prices corresponding to the plurality of bids and asks." '132 patent at 3:11-16.1 IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC (collectively, "Petitioners") petitioned for covered business method ("CBM") review of each patent.2

The Board instituted CBM review of each patent and issued separate final written decisions. In the proceedings involving the '304 and '132 patents, the Board upheld the patent eligibility of the claims based on our reasoning in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In [**3]  the proceedings involving the '411 and '996 patents, the Board held that the claims were ineligible. In the proceedings involving the '132 and '411 patents, the Board also held that all claims except claims 29, 39, and 49 of the '132 patent would have been obvious.

TT appeals, among other issues, the Board's determinations regarding whether the patents are directed to a technological invention. Petitioners appeal the Board's determinations that the claims of the '304 and '132 patents are patent eligible and that claims 29, 39, and 49 of the '132 patent would not have been obvious. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We vacate the decision of the Board in each case because the patents at issue are for technological inventions and thus were not properly subject to CBM review.

Discussion

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

757 Fed. Appx. 1004 *; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4299 **; 2019 WL 581580

IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, Appellants v. TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross-Appellant, UNITED STATES, Intervenor; IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Appellants v. TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross-Appellant, IBG LLC v. TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L UNITED STATES, Intervenor; TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Appellees, UNITED STATES, Intervenor; TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., IBG LLC v. TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Appellees, UNITED STATES, Intervenor

Notice: THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Ibg Llc v. Trading Techs. Int'l, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 6113 (U.S., Oct. 7, 2019)

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. CBM2015-00161, CBM2016-00035.

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2015-00182.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2015-00181.

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-00031.

IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc., 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 13133 (P.T.A.B., Aug. 7, 2017)IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc., 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 6163 (P.T.A.B., Mar. 3, 2017)TradeStation Group, Inc. v. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc., 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 5135 (P.T.A.B., Feb. 17, 2017)

Disposition: VACATED.

CORE TERMS

patents, invention, technological, eligibility, proceedings, trading

Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Business & Corporate Compliance, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Patent Law, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Substantial Evidence