Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 50
`Filed: March 2, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`____________
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 50
`Filed: March 2, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`____________
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Petitioner, International Securities Exchange, LLC, filed a second
`corrected Petition (Paper 7, “Pet.”) requesting review under the transitional
`program for covered business method patents of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,266,044 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’044 patent”). Patent Owner, Chicago
`Board Options Exchange, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 14,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). On March 4, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we
`instituted this trial as to claims 1–3 on one ground of unpatentability,
`35 U.S.C. § 101 (Paper 15, “Dec. to Inst.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”), a First Supplemental Response (Paper 36,
`“PO First Supp. Resp.”), a Second Supplemental Response (Paper 48, “PO
`Second Supp. Resp.”), a Motion to Amend (Paper 23, “Mot.”), and a Reply
`in support of its Motion (Paper 39, “PO Reply”). Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 33, “Pet. Reply”) to Patent Owner’s Response, a First Supplemental
`Reply (Paper 38, “Pet. First Supp. Reply”), a Second Supplemental Reply
`(Paper 49, “Pet. Second Supp. Reply”), and an Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend (Paper 35, “Opp.”).
`An oral hearing was held on August 22, 2014, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 46, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 of the ’044 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`The ’044 Patent
`A.
`
`The ’044 patent, titled “Automated Trading Exchange System Having
`Integrated Quote Risk Monitoring and Integrated Quote Modification
`Services,” issued on September 11, 2012, based on U.S. Patent Application
`No. 13/178,289 (“the ’289 application”), filed on July 7, 2011.1
`The ’044 patent relates to automated trading systems for option
`contracts (“options”). Ex. 1001, 1:18–22, Abstract. Specifically, the
`claimed invention is directed to systems for managing the risk of a maker of
`an options market in an automated trading system. Id. at 1:18–22.
`Options are traded publicly on exchanges. Id. at 1:27–28. Each
`option covers certain rights to buy or sell an underlying security at a fixed
`price for a specified period of time. Id. at 1:28–31. The potential loss to the
`buyer of an option is no greater than the initial premium paid for the option,
`regardless of the performance of the underlying security. Id. at 1:37–39. On
`the contrary, in exchange for the premium, the seller of the option (“the
`market-maker”) assumes the risk of being assigned the obligation to buy or
`sell the underlying security, according to the option terms, if the contract is
`exercised. Id. at 1:40–45. Thus, writing options may entail large risks to the
`market maker. Id. at 1:44–45.
`Many option trading systems utilize an “open outcry” method. Id. at
`
`1 The ’289 application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`12/035,996 (“the ’996 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`7,980,457 B2 (“the ’457 patent”). The ’996 application is a continuation of
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/475,534, which issued as U.S. Patent No.
`7,356,498 B2 (“the ’498 patent”). The ’457 patent is the subject of
`CBM2013-00050 and IPR2014-00098. The ’498 patent is the subject of
`CBM2013-00049 and IPR2014-00097. Final Written Decisions also are
`entered in these cases concurrently with this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`1:53–54. In such systems, market-makers are required to make a two-sided
`market by providing an order and offer quote. Id. at 1:54–56. In a non-
`automated open outcry system, a market-maker communicates verbally with
`traders indicating their willingness to buy and sell various quantities of
`securities. Id. at 1:56–59. Because a market-maker in such systems has
`personal control over the types and number of options traded, the market-
`maker can manage risk associated with his or her options portfolio. Id. at
`1:59–61. A market-maker manages risk by modifying quotes for options to
`favor trades that tend to hedge against unwanted risk. Id. at 1:61–65.
`The ’044 patent Specification states that an automated trading
`environment already was known in the art. Id. at 1:66, 2:1–8. An automated
`computer-based trading system typically records quotes and automatically
`matches them with orders that enter the system. Id. at 1:66–2:4. One
`disadvantage of known automated trading systems is that the systems
`execute trades so rapidly that a market-maker may be unable to withdraw or
`modify his quotes in a timely manner. Id. at 2:4–15.
`Software tools that assess trading option portfolio risk and
`recommend quote modifications also were known. Id. at 2:16–21. An
`automated trading system, however, processes transactions in the order
`received. Id. at 2:26–28. Thus, even if a market-maker uses such software
`tools to modify quotes, those tools may be unable to act in time, given the
`speed at which the automated trading exchange system executes orders. Id.
`at 2:21–26. For example, an automated trading exchange may have a
`message queue containing additional orders that must be processed before
`the automated exchange receives and processes the market-maker’s quote
`modification request. Id. at 2:28–33. These known automated trading
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`exchange systems, therefore, limit a market-maker’s ability to manage risk.
`Id. at 2:34–42. The ’044 patent Specification recognizes the need for a
`method that automatically modifies quotes under certain trading conditions
`in an automated trading exchange system. Id. at 2:43–45.
`The invention of the ’044 patent is directed to systems for an
`automated trading exchange that modify quotes, where the system provides
`integrated quote risk monitoring and quote modification services. Id. at
`2:49–51. Thus, one aspect of the invention is an apparatus that implements
`the method using a computer, having memory, a processor, and a
`communication port. Id. at 2:51–54.
`The computer receives orders and quotes, wherein a quote has
`associated trading parameters, such as a risk threshold. Id. at 2:54–57. The
`computer then may generate a trade by matching the received orders and
`quotes to previously received orders and quotes. Id. at 2:64–66. If a trade is
`not generated, the computer stores each of the received orders and quotes.
`Id. at 2:66–67. The computer determines whether a market-maker’s quote
`has been filled as a result of the generated trade, and, if so, determines a risk
`level and aggregate risk level associated with the trade. Id. at 2:67–3:4. The
`computer then compares the aggregate risk level with the market-maker’s
`risk threshold for a quote; if the threshold is exceeded, the computer
`automatically modifies at least one of the market-maker’s remaining quotes.
`Id. at 3:4–7.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`B.
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is the only independent claim.
`Claim 1 of the ’044 patent, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
`challenged claims:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`
`A system for processing trades of securitized
`1.
`instruments based on security orders and quotes received from
`client computers, comprising:
`
`at least one server computer comprising a memory, and a
`
`processor, said server computer configured to perform the steps
`of:
`
`receiving orders and quotes, wherein specified
`
`ones of said quotes belong to a quote group, and wherein said
`specified ones of said quotes have associated trading parameters
`comprising a predefined number of bought or sold contracts
`relating to said quote group;
`
`generating a trade by matching said received
`
`orders and quotes to previously received orders and quotes;
`
`storing each of said orders and quotes when a trade
`
`is not generated;
`
`determining whether a quote having associated
`
`trading parameters has been filled as a result of the generated
`trade, and if so, determining a number of contracts that have
`been bought or sold within said quote group, including the
`generated trade;
`
`comparing said number of contracts that have been
`
`bought or sold within said quote group with said predefined
`number of bought or sold contracts relating to said quote group;
`and,
`
`automatically modifying at least one of the
`
`remaining specified ones of said quotes in the quote group if
`said predefined number of bought or sold contracts is exceeded.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the AIA,2 the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) interprets claims of an unexpired
`patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification
`of the challenged patent. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 448667, at *5–8 (Fed. Cir.
`Feb. 4, 2015). There is a “‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its
`ordinary and customary meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). In our
`Decision to Institute, we determined that our analysis did not require an
`express interpretation of any term. Dec. to Inst. 7–8. The parties do not
`contest that determination. See, e.g., Tr. 61:6–17, 102:12–103:18. We
`likewise determine that, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, our
`analysis does not require us to provide an express interpretation for any
`claim term.
`For purposes of this decision, and based on the record before us, we
`interpret the following claim language: “automatically modifying at least
`one of the remaining specified ones of said quotes in the quote group,” as set
`forth in claim 1.
`We must determine whether the claim limitation encompasses issuing
`a “new quote.” Petitioner’s proposed construction for this claim language
`does not touch upon the term “remaining.” Pet. 13.
`
`
`2 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`
`We are persuaded that the Specification differentiates between
`modifying a “remaining quote” and issuing a new quote when trades have
`occurred against previous quotes. Specifically, the ’044 patent Specification
`states:
`
`The computer then compares the aggregate risk level with the
`market-maker’s risk threshold, and if the threshold is exceeded,
`automatically modifies at least one of the remaining quotes in
`the quote group. The computer may also automatically
`regenerate quotes, that is, automatically issue new quotes when
`trades have occurred against previous quotes.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:49 (emphases added). Thus, based on this record, we are
`persuaded that the recited “automatically modifying at least one of the
`remaining specified ones of said quotes in the quote group” means
`“automatically cancelling or revising a price or quantity of at least one of the
`received specified quotes still available for execution.”
`
`B. Claims 1–3 of the ’044 Patent are Unpatentable as Directed to
`Non-Statutory Subject Matter
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3 of the ’044 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101, as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Pet. 21–29. Patent
`Owner maintains that its claims are directed to patent-eligible processes
`because, for example, the claims include specific meaningful limitations that
`must be performed on specific hardware configured to perform numbers
`steps and sub-steps, electronic exchanges that incorporate the claimed
`features were an improvement over systems without them, the claimed steps
`cannot be performed manually, the claims are not directed to similar or
`substantially similar methods of managing risk market-makers previously
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`used, and the claims do not preempt hedging risk management techniques.
`PO Resp. 39–75.
`35 U.S.C. § 101 Patentability Analysis
`1.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we must first identify whether an invention
`fits within one of the four statutorily provided categories of patent-
`eligibility: “processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of
`matter.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 713–714 (Fed. Cir.
`2014). Here, each of the challenged claims recites a “machine,” e.g., a
`system, under § 101.
`Section 101 of the Patent Act defines subject matter eligibility, and
`the Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important
`implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
`are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347,
`2354 (2014) (citing Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,
`Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) (internal quotation marks and brackets
`omitted)). “The ‘abstract ideas’ category embodies the longstanding rule
`that ‘[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.’” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2355
`(citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (quotations omitted)).
`In Alice Corp., the Supreme Court emphasized the “Mayo
`framework,” which provides “a framework for distinguishing patents that
`claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
`claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. (citing Mayo
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1298
`(2012)). Under the Mayo framework, “[w]e must first determine whether
`the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. Next,
`“we consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements
`‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.
`(citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297–98). To be patentable, a claim must do
`more than simply state the law of nature or abstract idea and add the words
`“apply it.” Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294; see Benson, 409 U.S. at 67.
`Furthermore, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
`patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice Corp.,
`134 S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
`1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“And after Alice, there can remain no doubt:
`recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
`ineligible claim patent-eligible.”) (citation omitted). “Thus, if a patent’s
`recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an
`abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent
`eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted).
`A challenged claim must incorporate sufficient meaningful limitations
`to ensure that it claims more than just an abstract idea and is not merely a
`“‘drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. at 2357
`(quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297). “Simply appending conventional steps,
`specified at a high level of generality,” is not “enough” for patent eligibility.
`Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1292). Further, the “prohibition against
`patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the
`use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding
`‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–
`11 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981)).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`Thus, we analyze the claims to determine whether the claims embody
`a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea or are directed merely to
`nothing more than the abstract idea itself.
`2. Claims 1–3 of the ’044 Patent Are Unpatentably Abstract
`In accordance with the Supreme Court’s framework, we must first
`“determine whether the claims at issue are directed to” an abstract idea.
`Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2355. The patents at issue in Alice claimed “a
`method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a
`third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk.” Id. at 2356. Like the
`method of hedging risk in Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3240—which the Court
`deemed “a method of organizing human activity”—Alice’s “concept of
`intermediated settlement” was held to be “‘a fundamental economic practice
`long prevalent in our system of commerce.’” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2356
`(citations omitted). With respect to the first step of the “Mayo framework,”
`the Supreme Court concluded in Alice Corp. that “there is no meaningful
`distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of
`intermediated settlement” in Alice Corp. and that “[b]oth are squarely within
`the realm of ‘abstract ideas’ as we have used that term.” Id. at 2357.
`Here, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s claims are directed to the
`abstract concept of “managing trading risk expressed in the claims as
`automatically modifying pending quotes so that market makers do not
`accumulate unacceptable amounts of risk,” similar to the “hedging risk”
`claims in Bilski. Pet. 24; Pet. Reply 1, 3–4. Patent Owner does not dispute
`that the ’044 patent claims are directed to an abstract idea. See PO Resp. 46
`(“Patent Owner respectfully submits that the claims are not merely to an
`abstract idea, but rather provide a specific application of risk management
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`with many specific, meaningful limitations.” (emphasis added)); Ex. 1001,
`1:18–22. Similar to the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice Corp.
`and the concept of risk hedging in Bilski, we conclude that the concept of
`managing trading risk (“risk management”) is an economic practice long
`prevalent in our system of commerce and squarely within the realm of
`abstract ideas. As the ’044 patent itself explains, in the prior art “open
`outcry” exchanges, market-makers adjusted their trading strategies in order
`to manage their exposure, or risk, associated with their holdings by adjusting
`their quotes to favor trades that would tend to hedge away unwanted
`exposure. Ex. 1001, 1:53–65. Furthermore, the claims recite, for example, a
`server computer configured to perform the steps of “receiving orders and
`quotes,” “generating a trade,” “determining a number of contracts that have
`been bought or sold within said quote group, including the generated trade,”
`“comparing said number of contracts that have been bought or sold within
`said quote group with said predefined number of bought or sold contracts
`relating to said quote group,” and “automatically modifying” one of the
`remaining quotes if the predefined number of bought or sold contracts is
`exceeded (claim 1). Accordingly, we analyze the ’044 patent claims to
`determine whether they incorporate sufficient meaningful limitations to
`ensure that the claims are more than just an abstract idea. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at
`1297.
`
`3. Claims 1–3 of the ’044 Patent Are Not Meaningfully
`Limited Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`Step two of the Supreme Court’s “Mayo framework” requires that we
`consider the elements of the claim and determine whether there is “an
`element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
`patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`[ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo,
`132 S.Ct. at 1294).
`The relevant inquiry here is whether “additional substantive
`limitations . . . narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in
`practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself.” Accenture
`Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344–45
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citation omitted). As we noted
`above, the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. cautioned that merely limiting the
`use of an abstract idea “to a particular technological environment” or
`implementing the abstract idea on a “wholly generic computer” is not
`sufficient as an additional feature to provide “practical assurance that the
`process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract
`idea] itself.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (citations omitted).
`Patent Owner argues that the challenged independent claims “do not
`merely incorporate a general purpose computer to perform standard
`computing functions” (PO Resp. 59), but rather require “specific
`programming in the system computer” (id. at 49). Patent Owner contends
`“the challenged claims include meaningful limitations that narrow the claims
`to a specific implementation of risk management, executed on a new
`automated exchange trading system.” Id. at 49. In support, Patent Owner
`refers extensively to the Declaration of Dr. Tuomas Sandholm. See e.g., id.
`at 59–61, 67 (citing Ex. 2017). Petitioner disagrees and argues that the
`claims “do nothing but ‘apply’ an abstract idea of risk management using
`generic functions of a generic computer.” Pet. Reply 9; see CyberSource
`Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(Section 101 does not embrace a process defined by using a computer to
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`perform a series of mental steps). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument.
`The challenged claims do not require any specialized hardware. As
`Petitioner contends, the challenged independent claims recite only common
`computer elements, e.g., “server computer” comprising a “memory” and
`“processor,” recognized as generic computer technology by the Supreme
`Court in Alice Corp. Pet. Reply 2; see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357;
`Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 713, 722–23. The ’044 patent Specification
`affirms that the claimed systems can be a general purpose computer with a
`generic programming and processing environment. For example, the ’044
`patent Specification states: “In accordance with a first aspect of the
`invention, an apparatus is implemented using at least one computer, having
`memory, a processor, and a communication port.” Ex. 1001, 2:51–54. The
`Specification also makes clear that “[v]arious types of general purpose or
`specialized computer apparatus or computing device may be used with or
`perform operations in accordance with the teachings described herein.” Id.
`at 17:18–20 (emphasis added). The ’044 patent Specification likewise
`explains that “system 100 . . . includes a plurality of computers, which may
`be one or more work-stations, servers, mainframes, or other computer
`hardware platforms that provides sufficient resources to meet the desired
`trading volume and desired transaction-processing rate.” Id. at 3:31–38
`(emphasis added). Thus, the Specification indicates that the claimed
`systems for processing trades of securitized instruments can be built using a
`general purpose computer and that the complexity of the system depends
`only on the volume and rate of trading desired.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`Furthermore, the Specification explains that the claimed systems can
`be implemented using known off-the-shelf computer hardware. For
`example, the Specification states that preferable servers are off-the-shelf
`“SUN EnterpriseTM” or “StarfireTM” servers. Id. at 3:41–47; Tr. 37:15–17.
`Our review of the patent does not indicate that specialized computer
`hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the
`claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360
`(determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional
`and generic,” and did not “offer[] a meaningful limitation beyond generally
`linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,
`that is, implementation via computers”) (citations and internal quotation
`marks omitted).
`Patent Owner refers extensively to the declaration of its witness,
`Dr. Sandholm, in support of its position that the claimed systems require
`specialized and customized hardware and software. PO Resp. 59–64 (citing
`Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 25–36, 39). We do not find Dr. Sandholm’s testimony
`persuasive, however, because it generally relates to commercial
`embodiments and is not supported by the ’044 patent Specification. See,
`e.g., Ex. 2017 ¶ 26. For example, Dr. Sandholm states that systems for
`processing trades of securitized instruments “include extremely large server
`networks with extensive processing capabilities” (Ex. 2017 ¶ 25), but the
`claims do not require any particular network size or extent of processing
`capability. Further, the ’044 patent Specification explains otherwise.
`According to the Specification, the preferred embodiment of the invention
`“includes a plurality of computers, which may be one or more work-stations,
`servers, mainframes, or other computer hardware platforms that provide
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`sufficient resources to meet the desired trading volume and desired
`transaction-processing rate.” Ex. 1001, 3:34–38 (emphasis added), 3:38–44.
`Patent Owner also argues that, although the ’044 patent Specification
`recognizes that generic hardware can provide the starting materials needed
`to create an automated exchange trading system, “the hardware is ultimately
`specifically programmed to implement the modules of the patent, such that
`they can perform the operations defined by the claims of the ’044 patent.”
`PO Resp. 77–78; PO First Supp. Resp. 2–3. The Supreme Court, however,
`has stated expressly that simply executing an abstract concept on a computer
`does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it automatically
`transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Alice
`Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer
`cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
`invention. . . . Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
`implementation is not generally the sort of additional featur[e] that provides
`any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
`designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”) (citations and quotation
`marks omitted); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d
`1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Consequently, we determine that the
`challenged claims’ purported use of a generic computer, configured to
`perform the steps recited in the claims, does not confer patent eligibility,
`similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“In considering patent eligibility
`under § 101, one must focus on the claims.”).
`Patent Owner further argues that the challenged claims include many
`steps that define the relationship of the various limitations and how the
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`claimed functions are accomplished within the exchange trading system,
`demonstrating that those claims are directed to an application of an abstract
`idea. PO Resp. 46–48. Patent Owner emphasizes that the claims require the
`server computer to be configured to perform at least 14 specific steps and
`sub-steps. Id. at 48. Patent Owner notes, for example, that “claim 1 requires
`that the ‘quotes have associated trading parameters comprising a predefined
`number of bought or sold contracts relating to said quote group.’” Id. at 49–
`50. Patent Owner contends that “[t]he addition of this new trading
`parameter, a risk threshold, which is associated with a market maker’s
`quotes, was in no way routine or conventional.” Id. at 50. We are not
`persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`The claims contemplate using a generic computer to perform “‘well-
`understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the
`industry.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294);
`see Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300 (“simply appending conventional steps,
`specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena,
`and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas
`patentable”). The ’044 patent explains that, in the known open outcry
`method of trading, market-makers had personal control over the types and
`number of contracts traded, and could “adjust their trading strategies” as
`their positions changed. Ex. 1001, 1:53–61. Thus, they managed their
`exposure, or risk, associated with their holdings by “adjusting their quotes”
`to favor trades that would tend to hedge away unwanted exposure. Id. at
`1:61–65. The ’044 patent Specification also recognizes that software
`analysis tools were available in the prior art to evaluate the “risk associated
`with stock and option portfolios.” Id. at 2:16–21. That it was well known to
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`manage trading risk is supported by the testimony of Dr. Maureen O’Hara,
`Petitioner’s witness. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44 (stating that the steps which the server
`computer in claim 1 is configured to perform amount to “exactly the same
`method of managing risk that market makers have been performing
`manually for years prior to the December 1999 filing date of the ’044 patent
`. . . selectively accounting for past trades (such as the volume of past trades)
`and current holdings and/or evaluating greek values”). Also, the claimed
`“predefined number of bought or sold contracts relating to said quote group”
`of claim 1 is recited at a high level of generality, and as Petitioner argues,
`emulates the personal tolerance level of a market-maker with respect to a
`type of risk. Pet. Reply 5, 7. Lastly, there is no dispute that the prior art
`included “automated and computer-based trading system[s].” Ex. 1001,
`2:2–3. The claimed systems integrate an automated exchange trading
`system, already known in the art, with methods that mitigate the risks of a
`market-maker, also already known in the art. See id. at 2:49–51. In sum, the
`claims amount to nothing more than instructions to apply previously known
`methods of electronic trading and trade risk management using a generic
`computer to perform generic computer functions—calculating a risk and
`determining if that risk exceeds a threshold, and, if so, automatically
`modifying a quote. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2359.
`Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims are
`patent ineligible because the claims “do nothing more than automate an
`abstract and mental risk management technique used by market makers in
`open outcry exchanges for decades.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d
`at 1279 (“[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does
`not make that process patent-eligible”)). As discussed above, in the prior art
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00051
`Patent 8,266,044 B2
`
`
`outcry options trading systems, market-makers determined and hedged their
`risks mentally. Ex. 1001, 1:52–65; Ex. 1004 ¶ 44; Ex. 1005, 244:24–245:20.
`We do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s arguments that the claimed
`systems are limited to steps performed by the exchange trading system and
`cannot be performed manually because a human “cannot perform the
`functions of an exchange trading system.” PO Resp. 73. Patent Owner’s
`argument that a human cannot handle millions, or hundreds of millions, of
`orders and quotes each day misses the point. See Tr. 69:22–73:13. The
`claims are not limited to a certain quantit
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
