INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCH. v. CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCH. , No. 15-1743 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC, Appellant v. CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC., Appellee ______________________ 2015-1743, 2015-1744 ______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2014-00097, IPR2014-00098. ______________________ Decided: March 25, 2016 ______________________ MICHAEL MARTIN MURRAY, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by MICHAEL JOHN SCHEER, Los Angeles, CA; GEOFFREY P. EATON, Washington, DC. STEVEN M. LIEBERMAN, Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH A. HYNDS, BRIAN ANDREW TOLLEFSON. ______________________ 2 INT’L SECURITIES EXCH. v. CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCH. Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”) challenges the determination of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) in inter partes review proceedings involving U.S. Patent Nos. 7,356,498 (“the ’498 patent”) (IPR2014-00097) and 7,980,457 (“the ’457 patent”) (IPR2014-00098). The Board found that ISE failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ’498 and ’457 patents are unpatentable as either anticipated, obvious, or both, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In light of our decision in Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Secs. Exch., Case Nos. 2015-1728, -1729, and -1730, issued contemporaneously herewith, affirming the Board’s conclusion that both patents address unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we find this companion case moot. We dismiss the appeal and vacate the Board’s decisions. DISMISSED

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.