TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC [OPINION - NONPRECEDENTIAL] , No. 18-1105 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 31, 2019.

Download PDF

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Appellees UNITED STATES, Intervenor ______________________ 2018-1105 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM201600009. -----------------------------------------------------------TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Appellees 2 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC UNITED STATES, Intervenor ______________________ 2018-1302 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM201600054. -----------------------------------------------------------TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant v. IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Appellees UNITED STATES, Intervenor ______________________ 2018-1438 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM201600087. -----------------------------------------------------------TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC 3 Appellant v. UNITED STATES, ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenors ______________________ 2018-1443 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM201600086. ______________________ Decided: May 21, 2019 ______________________ MICHAEL DAVID GANNON, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR., JENNIFER KURCZ; ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ, Philadelphia, PA; STEVEN BORSAND, JAY QUENTIN KNOBLOCH, Trading Technologies International, Inc., Chicago, IL. BYRON LEROY PICKARD, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellees in 20181105, 2018-1302, 2018-1438. Also represented by ROBERT EVAN SOKOHL, RICHARD M. BEMBEN, JON WRIGHT. KATHERINE TWOMEY ALLEN, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor United States. Also represented 4 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC by MARK R. FREEMAN, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H. HUNT; THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. AMY J. NELSON, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Andrei Iancu in 2018-1443. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. ______________________ Before HUGHES, MAYER, and LINN, Circuit Judges. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. Trading Technologies International, Inc., appeals four Covered Business Method Review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding Trading Technologies’ patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Recently, this Court issued two precedential opinions affirming Board decisions finding several of Trading Technologies related patents unpatentable under § 101. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (IBG I); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (IBG II). The parties submitted supplemental briefing on whether IBG I dictated the outcome of the present appeals. The parties also discussed the effect of IBG I and IBG II at oral argument. We are not persuaded by Trading Technologies’ arguments that the patents at issue here, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,412,416 B2; 7,818,247 B2; 7,685,055 B2; and 7,693,768 B2, are distinguishable from the patents invalidated in IBG I and IBG II. Like IBG I and IBG II, the challenged patents “focus[] on improving the trader, not the functioning of the computer.” IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1383; see also IBG I, 921 F.3d at 1091. Although these patents may provide different information than the patents in IBG I and TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC 5 IBG II, information is “intangible” and its “particular content . . . does not change its character as information.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We therefore hold that IBG I and IBG II control and affirm the Board’s decisions. We also find Trading Technologies waived its constitutional arguments. See IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1385. AFFIRMED

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.