Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`No. 2016-1616
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`v.
`
`CQG, INC., CQG, LLC, fka CQGT, LLC,
`
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
`in No. 1:05-cv-04811, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
`
`Kenneth R. Adamo
`Eugene Goryunov
`Meredith Zinanni
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 862-2000
`
`John C. O’Quinn
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`655 15th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 879-5000
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellants
`
`
`
`Adam G. Kelly
`William J. Voller III
`John A. Cotiguala
`LOEB & LOEB LLP
`321 North Clark Street
`Suite 2300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 464-3100
`
`
`
`August 24, 2016
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 38
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2413
`TRADESTATION ET AL. v. TRADING TECH
`CBM2015-00172
`
`

`

`FORM 9_ Certificate ofiaggigsfi-1616
`
`Document: 42
`
`Page: 2
`
`Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`Fol-m9
`Rev. 03/16
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc
`
`V.
`
`CQG, Inc. and CQG, LLC
`
`Case No.
`
`16-1616
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for the:
`
`El (petitioner)
`
`(appellant) El (respondent) El (appellee)I:| (amicus)|:| (name of party)
`
`CQG, Inc. and CQG, LLC
`
`certifies the following (use "None" if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`1. Full Name of Party
`Represented by me
`
`2. Name of Real Party in interest
`(Please only include any real party
`in interest NOT identified in
`Question 3) represented by me is:
`
`3. Parent corporations and
`publicly held companies
`that own 10 % or more of
`stock in the party
`
`CQG, Inc.
`
`CQG, LLC (fka CQGT, LLC)
`
`CQG, Inc.
`
`CGQ, LLC
`
`None
`
`CQG, Inc. (Parent)
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus
`now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who
`have not or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
`
`See Exhibit A, attached.
`
`AUQUST 24. 2016
`
`Isl Kenneth R. Adamo
`
`Date
`
`Signature of counsel
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`
`Kenneth R. Adamo
`
`Printed name of counsel
`
`Page 2 of 38
`
`Reset Fields
`
`I
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`The names of all law firms and the partner or associates that appeared for CQG, Inc. and CQG,
`LLC (fka CQGT, LLC) in the trial court (N.D. IL Case No. 05-cv-4811) or are expected to
`appear in this court (Fed. Cir. Case No. 16-1616) are:
`
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`Kenneth R. Adamo
`John O’Quinn
`Eugene Goryunov
`Meredith Zinanni
`
`
`Loeb & Loeb LLP
`Adam Glenn Kelly
`Christopher M Swickhamer
`John Anthony Cotiguala
`Laura A Wytsma
`Terry D Garnett
`William J. Kramer
`William Joshua Voller
`Melaina D. Jobs
`Johnnet Simone Jones
`
`
`Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.
`David Seth Argentar
`
`Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC (now K&L Gates)
`Heather Ann Boice
`Jeana R. Lervick
`Kara Eve Foster Cenar
`
`
`Faegre & Benson LLP (now Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP)
`Jared B. Briant
`Nina Y. Wang
`Mark W. Fischer
`Neal S. Cohen
`
`Welsh & Katz, Ltd.
`Joseph E. Cwik
`Kara Eve Foster Cenar
`Robert B. Breisblatt
`
`Bryan Cave LLP
`Kara Eve Foster Cenar
`Mariangela M. Seale
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`TT’S CLAIMS DO NOT CLAIM A “GUI TOOL.” ..................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TT Claims A Method Of Using A GUI, It Does Not Claim A
`“GUI Tool.” ........................................................................................ 2
`
`TT’s Method Claims Merely Automate An Abstract Idea. .................. 5
`
`TT’s Method Claims Are Not Analogous To A Mechanical
`Device................................................................................................. 6
`
`II.
`
`THE CLAIMED METHODS ARE DIRECTED TO AN ABSTRACT
`IDEA FOR ORGANIZING BASIC INFORMATION. ............................... 10
`
`A.
`
`TT’s Method Claims Are Directed To The Abstract Idea Of
`Organizing Information For Commodities Trading. .......................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`CQG Does Not Oversimplify The Claims. .............................. 10
`
`TT’s Specification Confirms Its Claims Are Directed To
`An Abstract Idea. .................................................................... 12
`
`Use Of A Computer For Improved Speed Does Not
`Confer Patent-Eligibility. ........................................................ 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TT’s Method Claims Do Not Improve The Functioning Of A
`Computer And Do Not Solve A Technological Problem. .................. 15
`
`TT’s Method Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea Even
`Without Total Preemption Of The Idea. ............................................ 20
`
`III. THE CLAIMED METHODS DO NOT INCLUDE AN INVENTIVE
`CONCEPT. ................................................................................................. 21
`
`A.
`
`The “Static Price Axis” Is Not An Inventive Concept. ...................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A “Static Price Axis” Is Routine And Conventional
`Activity. .................................................................................. 21
`
`The Purported Novelty Of A “Static Price Axis” Does
`Not Mean It Is An Inventive Concept. .................................... 23
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 4 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Ordered Combinations Of Claim Elements Do Not Include
`An Inventive Concept. ...................................................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Ordered Combinations Of Claim Elements Are Not
`Novel Or Inventive. ................................................................ 26
`
`TT’s Claims Are Fundamentally Different From Those
`Found To Include An Inventive Concept. ............................... 27
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................ passim
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 20, 25, 26
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ...................................................................................... 25
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 15
`
`Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
`__F.3d __, 2016 WL 3514158 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 27, 2016) ............................. passim
`
`Bilski v. Kappos
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ....................................................................................... 6, 24
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 24
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 6, 24
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 16
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 16, 28
`
`Diamond v. Diehr
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ..................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
`__ F.3d __, 2016 WL 4073318 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) ............................. passim
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 6 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 7 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 7, 15, 27
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network. Inc.
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 10, 11
`
`LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.
`__ F. App’x __, 2016 WL 3974203 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) .................... 5, 6, 12
`
`Mayo Collaborative Svs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ................................................................................. 22, 23
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc.
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................... 7
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................ 5, 6, 15, 20
`
`Parker v. Flook
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ..................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`635 F. App’x 914 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 20
`
`TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. v. AKM Enterprise, Inc.
`__Fed. App’x __, 2016 WL 4271975 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2016) .................. 14, 29
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 16, 21
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................ 6, 20, 24, 27
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 9, 25, 26
`
`Videoshare, LLC v. Google, Inc.
`No. 13-cv-990, 2016 WL 4137524 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2016) ........................... 10, 19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 7 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 8 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`TT’s claims are directed to displaying and updating commodities market
`
`information and placing an order based on that information. They cover any
`
`method of facilitating commodities trading using any GUI that displays market
`
`information organized in a particular manner and sends a trade order to an
`
`exchange. That is nothing more than an abstract idea for organizing information.
`
`In response, TT attempts to recast its claims as being directed to a “GUI tool,”
`
`building a false analogy to a mechanical device. Such a description is not a
`
`talisman, but a masquerade: it is neither accurate, nor is it relevant to patent-
`
`eligibility. The GUI used by the claimed methods could be developed or coded in
`
`any way, and deployed on any kind of device. The claimed methods do not
`
`improve a computer or address a technological problem—at most, they solve a
`
`business problem, far different from claims this Court has held patent-eligible.
`
`Nor do the claims add an inventive concept to this abstract idea. Both on an
`
`individual basis and as ordered combinations, the claim elements merely instruct a
`
`user of the methods to apply the abstract idea on a computer. TT confuses the
`
`alleged novelty of what the claimed methods instruct a computer to display—an
`
`arrangement of commodities market information—with an inventive concept. The
`
`claims lack an inventive concept because they do not provide any technological
`
`details about how the computer is to create the display.
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 9 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TT’S CLAIMS DO NOT CLAIM A “GUI TOOL.”
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`In an attempt to recast its claims into something that sounds less abstract, TT
`
`states repeatedly that its claims are directed to a “GUI tool.” E.g., RedBr. at 8, 15-
`
`16, 24, 42, 47, 60, 65; see generally AmiciBr. This description is both inaccurate
`
`and an overgeneralization, “untethered from the language of the claims.” Cf.
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice
`
`Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)). It cannot salvage
`
`TT’s claims.
`
`A. TT Claims A Method Of Using A GUI, It Does Not Claim A “GUI
`Tool.”
`
`TT’s claims are not directed to a “GUI tool,” but rather to methods of
`
`facilitating commodities trading, using a GUI that visually organizes information
`
`in a certain layout. Appx207 at claim 1 (“method of placing a trade order for a
`
`commodity . . . using a [GUI]”), Appx223-224 at claim 1 (“method for displaying
`
`market information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity . . . on a
`
`[GUI]”); see also Appx194, Appx210 (“[a] method and system for reducing the
`
`time it takes for a trader to place a trade when electronically trading on an
`
`exchange”). The steps of the claims are performed using a GUI that could be
`
`coded by any means and operate on any generic computer. See Appx207 at claim
`
`1, Appx223 at claim 1, Appx203-204 at 4:61-5:3, Appx219-220 at 4:65-5:7
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 10 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`(display created using “any technique”), Appx203 at 4:4-9, Appx219 at 4:8-13
`
`(“invention can be implemented on any existing or future terminal or device”).
`
`TT’s claims use a GUI to facilitate the trading of commodities, but they do not
`
`claim a GUI, much less a GUI developed or coded in any particular manner. See
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(physical components used to perform claimed method “merely provide a generic
`
`environment in which to carry out the abstract idea”).
`
`All TT’s claims require is that commodities market information be
`
`organized a certain way, as it could be on a spreadsheet or bulletin board, for
`
`placing a commodities order. The claims follow a formula frequently found
`
`patent-ineligible: they use a computer and GUI as “a conduit for the abstract idea”
`
`of displaying and updating market information and placing an order based on that
`
`information. See TLI, 823 F.3d at 612. This is illustrated by simply recasting the
`
`claims to use a spreadsheet or bulletin board.
`
`For example, with minor revision the claims could be rewritten to have the
`
`same steps executed using a common spreadsheet. A user would create a “static
`
`price axis” by typing a list of prices for a commodity into one column in a
`
`spreadsheet. That list of numbers would not change as the market changed, unless
`
`the user decided to remake the static price axis. See Appx223-224 at claim 1,
`
`Appx207 at claim 1 (“static display of prices”). The user would dynamically
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 11 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`display bid and ask market information by: (1) creating “bid” and “ask” columns in
`
`the spreadsheet; (2) populating the bid and ask columns with bid and ask quantities
`
`aligned in the row with their corresponding price; and (3) updating the information
`
`in the bid and ask columns as the market information changed. See id. The user
`
`would display an order entry region by creating an “order entry” column, aligned
`
`with the static price axis, for entering order information. See id.
`
`Similarly, the claims could be rewritten to use a bulletin board.1 The
`
`bulletin board would have a static price axis in the form of a list of prices. The
`
`user of the bulletin board would dynamically display bids and asks relative to the
`
`static price axis by writing, erasing, and updating the bids and asks associated with
`
`each price on the static price axis. The far side of the bulletin board would have an
`
`“order entry region” aligned with the static price axis for entering order
`
`information.
`
`TT’s claimed methods do not claim a “GUI tool” any more than the above
`
`examples would claim the spreadsheet or the bulletin board. As these examples
`
`demonstrate, the claims are directed to an abstract idea for organizing and
`
`displaying information that could be done with any known tool, be it a GUI, a
`
`
`1 TT declares that its invention “did not, and could not exist on a bulletin
`board,” but does not explain why that is so. See RedBr. at 56.
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 12 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`spreadsheet, or a bulletin board. They provide no limitations on how the tool used
`
`is developed or implemented, and are thus not directed to a tool itself.
`
`B.
`
`TT’s Method Claims Merely Automate An Abstract Idea.
`
`The principal difference between the spreadsheet or bulletin board examples
`
`and TT’s claims is that in the examples, a user manually enters information into the
`
`columns and places an order, while in the claims, a generic computer populates the
`
`fields and places an order (at the user’s direction) using any technique known in
`
`the art. See Appx203-204 at 4:61-5:3, Appx219-220 at 4:65-5:7. TT’s automation
`
`of the claimed method (without improving the automated steps) is a distinction
`
`without a difference for purposes of patent-eligibility. As this Court has made
`
`clear, automating an abstract idea is not sufficient to render an otherwise abstract
`
`concept patent-eligible. See LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., __ F. App’x __,
`
`2016 WL 3974203, at *5 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that “at best”
`
`describe automating an abstract idea found patent-ineligible).
`
`The other difference is that the examples do not capture the claim element of
`
`setting the parameters for a commodities trade and sending the trade order to an
`
`electronic exchange with a single click of a user input device. See Appx207 at
`
`claim 1, Appx223-224 at claim 1. All electronic exchanges require the same
`
`information in every order, however. Appx202 at 2:16-17, Appx218 at 2:21-22.
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 13 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`Setting parameters for a commodities trade order and sending the trade order to an
`
`electronic exchange is one of those “‘fundamental economic concepts’ found to be
`
`abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and this court.” OIP, 788 F.3d at 1362
`
`(citations omitted); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
`
`593, 611 (2010); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`
`776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Automating this fundamental economic
`
`practice using a computer, GUI, and an input device does not create claims
`
`directed to a “GUI tool,” much less to patent-eligible subject matter. See
`
`LendingTree, 2016 WL 3974203, at *3 (fundamental economic practices “often
`
`found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer”); Enfish, 822 F.3d at
`
`1335; OIP, 788 F.3d at 1362-63.
`
`C. TT’s Method Claims Are Not Analogous To A Mechanical Device.
`
`TT’s suggestion that its claimed method “is as tangible as a mechanical
`
`device” is both baseless and irrelevant.
`
`TT analogizes its claims to a mechanical device, but this analogy relies on
`
`TT’s inaccurate recasting of its claims as directed to a “GUI tool.”2 See RedBr. at
`
`45. It does not matter if the claimed methods use a GUI or a mechanical device to
`
`perform the steps of displaying and updating market information, and placing an
`
`
`2 TT also presents a picture, but does not explain its relevance. RedBr. at 45.
`
`6
`
`Page 13 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 14 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`order based on that information. Regardless of the tool used to perform them, TT’s
`
`claimed methods are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Nor does it matter if TT’s claims use a “specific” or a “generic” GUI (a
`
`distinction TT does not explain). See RedBr. at 34-35, 52-53. TT’s attempt to
`
`distinguish its claims from those at issue in Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice
`
`Loan Services Inc. and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), on
`
`the ground that the system claims in those cases used “generic” computer
`
`components, is unavailing. RedBr. at 52-53.
`
`In Mortgage Grader, the representative claim included a “second interface”
`
`that included a prompt to enter information, a way to invoke a borrower grading
`
`module, and a search and compare functionality. 811 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). In Capital One, the claim included “an interactive interface” that
`
`comprised “a display depicting portions of the web site visited by the user” as a
`
`function of both “the web site navigation data” and “the user’s personal
`
`characteristics.” 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In both cases, the claim
`
`identified what information the interface was to display or functionality the
`
`interface was to include, but did not specify how the computer was to create the
`
`interface. In both cases, the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324; Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1369.
`
`7
`
`Page 14 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 15 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`So too here. TT’s claims comprise steps identifying what information is to
`
`be displayed and functionality is to be included, but they never specify how those
`
`steps are to be carried out by a computer to create a display. Appx207 at claim 1,
`
`Appx223-224 at claim 1, Appx203-204 at 4:61-5:3, Appx219-220 at 4:65-5:7
`
`(display created using “any technique known to those skilled in the art.”). The
`
`GUI used to carry out the steps of TT’s claims is just as generic as the “interface”
`
`in Mortgage Grader and Capital One. As this Court recently explained, even
`
`lengthy claims that “do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and
`
`display of available information in a particular field, stating those functions in
`
`general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the
`
`functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network
`
`technology,” are not patent-eligible. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., __
`
`F.3d __, 2016 WL 4073318, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016).
`
`TT’s analogy to a mechanical device is also premised on the notion that
`
`there is a distinction between system and method claims, but patent-eligibility does
`
`not depend on “the draftsman’s art.” See Alice, 134 S.Ct at 2360 (quotation
`
`omitted). Even if TT’s claims were for a system that performed the same steps as
`
`its method claims, they would remain directed to the abstract idea of displaying
`
`and updating market information, and placing an order based on that information.
`
`The claims in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, for
`
`8
`
`Page 15 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 16 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`example, were for a “content filtering system” and “[a]n ISP server for filtering
`
`content.” __F.3d __, 2016 WL 3514158, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 27, 2016). Yet this
`
`Court found that they were “directed to filtering content on the Internet,” an
`
`abstract idea because filtering content “is a long-standing, well-known method of
`
`organizing human behavior.” Id. at *5. Distilling what the claims are directed to
`
`was not dependent on whether the claims were system or method claims.
`
`For the same reasons, TT and its amici are wrong when they suggest that
`
`anything that can be “touched, viewed and interacted with” is patent-eligible, or
`
`that CQG is arguing that all GUIs are patent-ineligible. RedBr. at 8, 11, 34, 46; see
`
`generally AmiciBr. There are no such absolute rules, and CQG is not seeking to
`
`establish any. Each set of claims must be considered on their own merits. See
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“each case stands on its own, and requires separate analysis by the judges who
`
`must make the decision”). But where, as here, the claims merely “defin[e] a
`
`desirable information-based result and [are] not limited to inventive means of
`
`achieving the result, [they] fail under § 101.” Electric Power, 2016 WL 4073318,
`
`at *1.
`
`9
`
`Page 16 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 17 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`II. THE CLAIMED METHODS ARE DIRECTED TO AN ABSTRACT
`IDEA FOR ORGANIZING BASIC INFORMATION.
`
`A. TT’s Method Claims Are Directed To The Abstract Idea Of
`Organizing Information For Commodities Trading.
`
`Rather than a “GUI tool,” TT’s claims are directed to displaying and
`
`updating commodities market information and placing an order based on that
`
`information. That is a quintessentially abstract idea.
`
`1.
`
`CQG Does Not Oversimplify The Claims.
`
`TT complains that CQG’s identification of the abstract idea to which the
`
`claims are directed—displaying and updating market
`
`information for a
`
`commodities exchange, and placing an order based on that market information—is
`
`an oversimplification of the claims. RedBr. at 40. In purported support of that
`
`argument, TT presents a redacted claim “illustrating” CQG’s statement of the
`
`abstract idea. RedBr. at 41. Step one of the Alice analysis, however, is to look “at
`
`the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole,’” not perform a word-for-
`
`word comparison of the claim language to the idea to which the claims are
`
`directed. Electric Power, 2016 WL 4073318, at *3 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at
`
`1335-36 and Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Videoshare, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 13-cv-990, 2016
`
`WL 4137524, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2016) (including every step of the claims
`
`“defeat[s] the distillative purpose of the ‘directed to’ inquiry”). Only at step two
`
`10
`
`Page 17 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 18 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`should the court look “more precisely at what the claim elements add.” Electric
`
`Power, 2016 WL 4073318, at *3.
`
`Not only is TT’s “redacted” claim the incorrect analysis to undertake at
`
`Alice step one, it is inaccurate and misleading.3 CQG’s statement of the abstract
`
`idea to which TT’s claims are directed fully captures the “character as a whole” of
`
`the claims. See Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1346. By stating that the claims are
`
`directed to “displaying and updating” information, CQG captures that the claimed
`
`method dynamically displays information. See Appx207 at claim 1, Appx223-224
`
`at claim 1. By stating that the information displayed is “commodities market
`
`information,” CQG captures that the claimed method displays bids and asks
`
`correlated to prices. See id., Appx203 at 4:54-58, Appx219 at 4:58-62 (bids and
`
`asks are quantities tied to a specific price). By stating that the claims are directed
`
`to “placing an order based on that market information,” CQG captures that the
`
`claimed method includes an order entry region (a way to place an order), setting
`
`parameters for a trade order (because all orders must include the same
`
`information), and sending the trade order. See Appx207 at claim 1, Appx223-224
`
`at claim 1, Appx202 at 2:16-17, Appx218 at 2:21-22.
`
`
`3 CQG also notes that the claims TT presents for comparison are not the same
`claims. Compare RedBr. at 41 with id. at 43.
`
`11
`
`Page 18 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 19 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`This Court’s recent decisions confirm that CQG’s distillation of TT’s claims
`
`is accurate and appropriate. In Electric Power, the representative claim had eight
`
`detailed claim elements. 2016 WL 4073318, at *1-2. “Though lengthy and
`
`numerous, the claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and
`
`display of available information in a particular field.” Id. at *1. This Court
`
`summarized the six elements of the representative claim in TLI as “drawn to the
`
`concept of classifying an image and storing the image based on its classification.”
`
`823 F.3d at 611. In LendingTree, this Court stated that the eleven claim elements
`
`of
`
`the representative method claim are directed
`
`to “a
`
`loan-application
`
`clearinghouse or, more simply, coordinating loans.” 2016 WL 3974203, at *2, 4.
`
`CQG’s statement of the abstract idea to which TT’s claims are directed is
`
`appropriate and correct.
`
`2.
`
`TT’s Specification Confirms Its Claims Are Directed To An
`Abstract Idea.
`
`This Court also recently instructed that claims should be considered “in light
`
`of the specification” to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see also TLI, 823 F.3d at 611. The common
`
`specification of TT’s patents supports that the claims are directed to the abstract
`
`idea of displaying and updating commodities market information, and placing an
`
`order based on that information:
`
`12
`
`Page 19 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 20 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`[T]he present invention provides a display and trading method to
`ensure fast and accurate execution of trades by displaying market
`depth on a vertical or horizontal plane, which fluctuates logically up
`or down, left or right across the plane as the market prices fluctuate[].
`
`Appx203 at 3:53-58, Appx219 at 3:57-62; see also Appx194 at Abstract, Appx210
`
`at Abstract, Appx202 at 1:12-18, Appx218 at 1:17-23 (invention “facilitates the
`
`display of and the rapid placement of trade orders within the market trading depth
`
`of a commodity”).
`
`TT claims methods of facilitating commodities trading, a well-known
`
`method of organizing human behavior. Appx207 at claim 1, Appx223-224 at
`
`claim 1, Appx203 at 3:21-24, Appx219 at 3:25-28 (claimed inventions improve
`
`trader’s efficiency and versatility in commodities trading). This Court recently
`
`held that claims for filtering content over an Internet computer network were
`
`directed to “an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of
`
`organizing human behavior.” Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5. “An abstract
`
`idea on ‘an Internet computer network’ or on a generic computer is still an abstract
`
`idea.” Id.
`
`Although TT’s claims require a certain visual display of market information,
`
`the steps of TT’s claimed method “can be implemented on any existing or future
`
`terminal or device with the processing capability to perform the functions
`
`described herein,” and use “any technique known to those skilled in the art” to map
`
`the information received from the exchange to a computer display. Appx203 at
`
`13
`
`Page 20 of 38
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1616 Document: 42 Page: 21 Filed: 08/24/2016
`
`
`
`4:4-9, Appx219 at 4:8-13, Appx203-204 at 4:61-5:3, Appx219-220 at 4:65-5:7.
`
`They do not recite “any particular assertedly inventive technology” for presenting
`
`that display. See Electric Power, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4. As this Court recently
`
`held, “merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
`
`analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
`
`presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id. at
`
`*3; see also TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. v. AKM Enterprise, Inc., __Fed.
`
`App’x __, 2016 WL 4271975, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2016).
`
`Like the claims in Electric Power and Bascom, TT’s claims focus “on
`
`certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” See Electric
`
`Power, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4; Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5 (abstract idea
`
`implemented on a computer “is still an abstract idea”). And like the claims in
`
`those cases, TT’s claims should be found to include an abstract idea.
`
`3.
`
`Use Of A Computer For Improved Speed Does Not Confer
`Patent-Eligibility.
`
`N