Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. Ibg LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. CBM2016-
00009.
------------------------------------------------------------
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,
Appellant
v.
IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
Appellees

-- 1 of 5 --

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT ' L v. IBG LLC 2
UNITED STATES,
Intervenor
______________________
2018-1302
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-
00054.
------------------------------------------------------------
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. CBM2016-
00087.
------------------------------------------------------------
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,

-- 2 of 5 --

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. CBM2016-
00086.
______________________
Decided: May 21, 2019
______________________
MICHAEL D AVID G ANNON, Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by L EIF
R. SIGMOND, J R., J ENNIFER K URCZ; ALAINA J. L AKAWICZ,
Philadelphia, PA; S TEVEN B ORSAND, J AY Q UENTIN
K NOBLOCH , Trading Technologies International, Inc., Chi-
cago, IL.
BYRON L EROY P ICKARD, Sterne Kessler Goldstein &
Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellees in 2018-
1105, 2018-1302, 2018-1438. Also represented by ROBERT
EVAN S OKOHL , RICHARD M. BEMBEN, J ON W RIGHT .
K ATHERINE T WOMEY ALLEN, Appellate Staff, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for intervenor United States. Also represented

-- 3 of 5 --

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT ' L v. IBG LLC 4
by MARK R. F REEMAN, SCOTT R. MCI NTOSH , J OSEPH H.
HUNT ; T HOMAS W. K RAUSE, J OSEPH MATAL , F ARHEENA
YASMEEN R ASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.
AMY J. N ELSON, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
intervenor Andrei Iancu in 2018-1443. Also represented by
T HOMAS W. K RAUSE, J OSEPH MATAL , F ARHEENA YASMEEN
RASHEED.
______________________
Before H UGHES , MAYER , and L INN, 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

-- 4 of 5 --

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 constitu-
tional arguments. See IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1385.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --