AIA Challenges Pile On, but the Federal Circuit Deflects

By Dennis Crouch

As I write about this case, I should first note Trading Technologies (TT) is a former client of mine while I was in practice at the MBHB firm (2001-2007).  I was the person who actually signed the complaint against CQG noted below.  TT gave me permission to write on the case, but did not review this post.

TT makes and sells software systems used by stock-market-exchange traders.  TT’s U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 covers a graphical user interface (GUI) tool that served as the launching point for the company’s software and its design helps traders trade more quickly and more accurately – features demanded by folks in this hyper-industry.  The speed and accuracy improvements come from changes in how the software displays market price changes and how it responds to various user actions (usually ‘clicks’). The patent has been asserted against a number of competitors and has been repeatedly been found valid (or not invalid) on various grounds, including patent eligibility. That seemingly ended with the PTAB decision to grant a petition for Covered Business Method (CBM/PGR) Review of the ‘304 patent. (CBM2015-00161).

TT filed an emergency mandamus action asking the Federal Circuit to reject the institution decision as overstepping the limits on CBM review proceedings.  In response, the court provided a one paragraph denial:

Trading Technologies now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Board to vacate its institution decision and terminate proceedings. Having considered the papers, we deny the petition without prejudice to Trading Technologies raising its arguments on appeal after the Board issues its final written decision. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that this court has authority to address whether patent is a covered business method patent on appeal after issuance of final written decision).

Although it is not entirely clear, the point here appears to be that the Federal Circuit claims no authority to address whether a patent is a covered business method patent until a final written decision is issued.  This decision here by Judge Moore should likely be linked to the recently decided Shaw Industries case as well.

Under the statute, “the term ‘covered business method patent’ means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for “performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.”  AIA Section 18. TT has argued that its GUI tool is neither a “data processing method” or “other operation” as designated by the statute – and that a district court had previously held that the patent claims a specific technological GUI tool. See Trading Techs. Int’l v. CQG, Inc., No. 05-cv- 4811, 2015 WL 774655 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015).

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

95 thoughts on “AIA Challenges Pile On, but the Federal Circuit Deflects

  1. I guess this will sort itself out as appeals from final decisions will determine whether instituting the CBM was correct. The PTO isn’t going to use grounds for instituting the CBM if they have been overturned by the Fed. Cir.

    I see the paid blogger has spammed another post.

    1. The educated will see that business methods integrate human information processing (mental labor) with computers like the iron age technology integrate iron machines with physical labor. The ossified ones that wear black robes should be removed.

      1. Interesting. Like a new improved interface for controlling a steam locomotive. Of course, under KSR, since it was well known that steam locomotives were blowing up due to a poor user interface – having instruments, dials and levers for the improved user interface – was obvious.

        1. having instruments, dials and levers for the improved user interface – was obvious.

          Depends on the prior art and exactly how the structures of those instruments are described, doesn’t it?

          Of course it does.

          It’s a great mystery why some people insist on struggling with the basics. This stuff really isn’t that difficult.

  2. Dennis, it seems harsh to absurd that the patent owner has to be put through the expense of a CBM or IPR when the PTO incorrectly decides a preliminary issue, not related to the merit, that is intended by Congress to prevent the institution of the CBM or IPR in the first place so that the patent owner not be harassed.

    At some point, somebody has to take the PTO and the Feds to task by taking this to the Boss court.

    1. Booo hooo hooo hoooo!

      A rich entitled patent owner was treated unfairly! Let’s all have a sad and make a Constitutional issue out of it! Here’s a river of cr0c0dile tears, so pure and white!

      Meanwhile these same whining crybabies did everything in their power to create and protect massive bubble of ridiculous junk that they could use to screw everybody else.

      You really think nobody has been paying attention, Ned?

      Unbelievable.

      1. Malcolm’s ends – professed as they are soooo compelling in his (hamfisted) Sunday guarding the field of rye anti-G-g-g-grifters’ “best” simply do not justify his (ridiculing for anyone to dare say “unconstitutional”) LACK of proper means.

        The ends simply do not justify the means.

        It really is as simple as that – no matter how much dust Malcolm attempts to kick up.

        1. his (hamfisted) Sunday guarding the field of rye

          … says the super serious guy riding his white horse, insulting everyone who doesn’t l0ve his precious junk patents, and who habitually spews out vacuous self-serving h00ey like “the ends don’t justify the means” whenever he doesn’t get his way.

          Thank goodness he’s not a hypocrite!

            1. Nothing at all hypocritical about my legal positions

              ROTFLMAO!

              maybe you want to focus on that

              I just did and I’ve been doing that regularly for years. You and your patent maximalist cohorts are certainly among the biggest hypocrites parasitizing in US legal system right now, and possibly the biggest hypocrites in US legal history.

              It’s worthy of an entire book! The problem is that the most entertaining chapters are unfolding in real time. It’d be a shame to publish without them.

              Keep the hits coming, “anon”, and I’ll be right here documenting them.

              LOL

                1. “anon” your replies are devoid of law and legal analysis

                  And there you go again with that bizarre path 0l0gical l ying. It’s one of the weirdest and most amusing parts of the entire story (because you’re definitely not alone!).

                  The game that you and your cohorts love to play — and I’ve pointed this out with endless examples — is always pretending to be the sole arbiters of what the law “actually” is. And at the end of the line, of course, you have a big tub of lard named Justice Scalia and absolute knowledge of “the Framers” and their beautiful minds. Guess what? The dude is dead (hooray!) and a lot of your arguments died with him (double hooray!). But you’ll just keep on pretending because, golly, it makes you feel so darn smart and important. And we all take you very seriously, in your own mind.

                  The reality is that law and policy are always intertwined.

                  With respect to patent law, the reality is that Congress saw a problem with the reams of junk patents out there and the solution to the problem was to make it easier to tank those junk patents. The reality is that a tiny tiny tiny minority of patentees with junk patents was harassing and continues to harass everybody else. The reality is that everybody knew the AIA was going to impact patent owners across the board. The reality is that it was understood that it was a totally worthwhile tradeoff. The reality is that everybody knew that you and your cohorts would whine and complain about it. The reality is that patent maximalists are the most self-absorbed entitled people on the face of the earth.

                  So when some defender of “patentee’s rights” complains about these rich owners of junk patents being “harassed” it’s really just incredibly amusing. There’s no “legal analysis” necessary to respond to that complaint (but I provided plenty anyway). All that’s necessary is to point out that prior to the AIA you and your cohorts were out there 24-7 fighting for More Patents, All the Time and Easier to Enforce, doing everything in your power to make that happen and complaining that people who didn’t sign up for agenda were communists who should be busy getting defensive patents of their own if they wanted to join your awesome game.

                  All this was documented, “anon”. In real time.

                  But go ahead and pretend that you’re all about “legal analysis” and nobody else can top you. Please! It’s just more amusement for me.

                  1. There is no one more self-absorbed than you, Malcolm.

                    Your meme is legendary: AccuseOthersOfThatWhichMalcolmDoes

                    It really is as if you just cannot help yourself.

                  2. That would be your meme.

                    LOL – even here, you accuse others of that which you do.

                    You funny.

                    But predictable and sad too.

      2. MM – why are you even on this blog? Your comments are routinely so extreme that it’s surprising that you would gain anything from discussion of case law here. Maybe start your own blog?

        1. Your comments are routinely so extreme

          Is it “extreme” to suggest that software patents are junk, explain why, and then defend that reasoning against a bunch of invested sycophants who lose their minds and start screeching about “the end of propert rights!!!” at the mere suggestion that software patents are junk?

          I mean … software patents? Seriously?

          You guys never cease to amuse.

          Maybe start your own blog?

          Maybe go find a blog where patent maximalism is basically a religion and the only consistently promoted viewpoint is that More Patents = More Better because, hey, how could it possibly be otherwise?

          Those blogs are really easy to find, by the way. Check ’em out! You’d be happy there.

          it’s surprising that you would gain anything from discussion of case law

          I have idea why you’d think that. For starters, the case law is continually evolving. In addition, it’s always important to revisit earlier case law that is relied on by contemporary judges to make sure that the earlier case is (i) being interpreted reasonably or (ii) was reasonably decided to begin with or (iii) both.

          1. Yes, we know that you think patents are junk and that all patentees are rich and entitled. I am not a patent maximizer just because I believe that some patents are not junk. Note that I’ve been firmly in favor of rule changes requiring (1) a complete record of all applicant interactions with the Office, and (2) strict application of public disclosure baring events. By contrast, you are always opposed to the patentee regardless of the issue. That’s why I suggest that you might benefit from a different activity.

            1. Unless that issue involves the few art areas MM believes to be patentable, which I think are limited to chemicals and physical items like hammers, rotor blades, tools, and the like in MM’s mind.

              I think posting IS MM’s job. Anyone who regularly listens to oral arguments at the CAFC about “junk patents” just to be able to lambaste them here, doesn’t have a real job. When’s the last time you listened to an oral argument at the CAFC? When’s the last time you had the ability to review every CAFC outcome to determine whether it involved a “junk patent” and then can come running here to post over, and over, and over again on it?

            2. iit: we know that you think patents are junk

              Nope. Just some of them. There’s nothing controversial about that, unless you live in an echo chamber surrounded by bitter patent attorneys who thrive on junk.

              all patentees are rich and entitled.

              Nope. But the vast majority of them are far better off than the most people in this country, and there’s quite a few of them on the Internets who believe they should always get what they want. Or else we might as well be Amish! Yes, we’ve heard it a thousand times.

              I am not a patent maximizer just because I believe that some patents are not junk.

              Indeed. The same can be said of yours truly.

              Note that I’ve been firmly in favor of rule changes requiring (1) a complete record of all applicant interactions with the Office, and (2) strict application of public disclosure baring events.

              Me too!

              you are always opposed to the patentee regardless of the issue.

              Nope. It just seems that way to you because the system is in a necessary period of contraction, which I favor, and I am here responding to all the whining by the rich and entitled patent maximalists who want to keep the absurd bubble inflating regardless of the consequences to everyone else.

              The PTO and the courts definitely make mistakes that harm applicants and I don’t favor those mistakes. The problem for the folks who focus only on that side of the equation is that the overwhelming majority of the PTO’s and the court’s biggest mistakes are in favor of patent applicants to the detriment of everybody else. That’s been the case for decades now.

              Everybody knew these corrections were going to be painful for some folks. Thankfully those folks aren’t worth worrying about too much because, as everyone knows, they’ll quickly find some other system to grift off. They aren’t going to starve, that’s for sure!

              1. “Nope. It just seems that way to you because the system is in a necessary period of contraction, which I favor, and I am here responding to all the whining by the rich and entitled patent maximalists who want to keep the absurd bubble inflating regardless of the consequences to everyone else.”

                Indeed, it would not surprise me if at this very moment MM’s employers are paying a pretty penny to pay for the sins of the softiewafties/trolls because of IPR’s existing.

      3. MM really does use h@te speech like all propagandist eventually do. That’s the power of the anti-patent judicial activist lobbyist fueled by Google.

    2. the expense of a CBM or IPR

      As opposed to a jury trial over a junk patent which is pocket change. Sorry, folks: litigation is expensive and that’s just the way it is! If you don’t like it, just settle up on the junk patentee owner’s terms! That patent is “presumed valid” after all.

      Don’t like it? Then go to Congress!

      Oh wait … they already did.

      Welcome to the inner workings of the super serious people who just know that their patents have to be s00per d00per valuable and getting more valuable all the time! How could it be otherwise? These are The Most Important People Ever, after all. They told us so!

      1. MM, IPRs and CBM are expensive. To the extent that they do not prevent further litigation by anyone with respect to the same issues and art — in other words, work in favor of the patentee in some fashion, they simply add to the expense of the patentee in enforcing his or her patent.

        Junk patents?

        I sense here that you believe that the owners of “software” patents should be have no rights at all, no day in court, and no presumptions of validity.

        Now, I would just like to point out that courts are summarily holding junk patents invalid at the pleading stages saving everyone a lot of time and money. That is a lot faster and cheaper than an IPR, where 101 is not an issue, or a CBM.

        1. MM, IPRs and CBM are expensive.

          Okay. Let’s make them really really cheap.

          Then you’ll be happy, right?

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          As if.

          I sense here that you believe that the owners of “software” patents should be have no rights at all

          Of course they have “rights”. Until they don’t.

          It’s just like business owners who discriminated against blacks and gays had rights. Until they didn’t. They all lost a “stick”! And they loved that stick! Boo hoo hoo!

          Also, to the extent that the granting of patents on software was predicated solely on nonsensical judge-made bal0ney and all the patents are junk anyway, the owners of those patents have been reaping massive windfalls for years, at the expense of pretty much everybody else. When do we get our money back?

          no day in court

          Hahaha. The software patent lovers have already had countless years in court to make the case for their awesomeness.

          no presumptions of validity.

          You guys never let go of that script, do you? The presumption is an evidentiary burden. It means that the burden is on the challenger. Once the challenger demonstrates that the patent is impermissibly protecting information processing logic, then the presumption is met. Buh bye presumption! Nice knowing you.

          courts are summarily holding junk patents invalid at the pleading stages saving everyone a lot of time and money

          Except when they don’t. And then we have the problem of junk patent owners “voluntarily dismissing” the suits (against the defendants who didn’t cave) whenever it appears that their junk might be going down the tubes.

          1. Well, MM if they voluntarily dismiss in face of a response, the courts should hand it to them with sanctions on top of attorney fees.

            1. if they voluntarily dismiss in face of a response, the courts should hand it to them with sanctions on top of attorney fees.

              Well, that’s not what is happening.

              Maybe Congress should pass a law to encourage those fees. And then you can complain about it.

    3. Isn’t there a lower standard of review if a patent is deemed a BMP? That right there would appear of substantive due process right – that should be vindicated – and not subject to admin exhaustion.

  3. PURDUE PHARMA L..P. v. DEPOMED, INC.
    link to cafc.uscourts.gov

    In the IPR, the petitioner provided two references that disclosed all the limitations, recited the KSR mantra, and then rested its case. The PTAB held the petitioner had not proven obviousness. The Feds affirmed, stating the petitioner had not proven that one of ordinary skill in the art had any reason to combine the references in the way claimed. At one point, the Feds said this,

    “Moreover, to the extent that Purdue relies on the problem to be solved to supply the reason to combine the prior art, it failed to demonstrate to the Board that the problem was known in the art or that Purdue’s formulation of the problem was derived directly from the prior art, rather than from the challenged claims. The Board therefore did not err in finding that Purdue improperly relied on hindsight in formulating the problem to be solved. Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 783 F.3d 853, 859 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Defining the problem in terms of its solution reveals improper hindsight in the selection of the prior art relevant to obviousness.”)

    1. But “everything is obvious” and the PTAB is a “death panel”!

      The super serious people told us so!

      Maybe the CAFC didn’t read the script.

  4. a plurality of locations for receiving commands to send trade orders

    ROTFLMAO

    Input fields! S00per techno!

      1. Where is it written that an invention has to be “Sooper techno”?

        Where is it written that when you and your fellow junk patent lovers say “people who don’t love this claim don’t understand the techn0l0gy or teh lawz” that everyone is supposed to take you seriously?

        It must be written somewhere because you guys certainly take yourselves very seriously when it comes to ridiculous “do it on a computer” junk like this.

        Like most attorneys who understand what computers are and how they work, I’m not impressed by lawyerly scrivening that makes old techn0l0gy look “impressive” to juries and sycophants like yourself.

        Not only is an input field not “sooper techno” but it doesn’t represent a patentable technological solution to any problem and hasn’t been capable of doing so for a long long long long time. At the time of filing, it’s no more “techno” than “a chair” is “techno.”

        There’s literally zero techn0l0gy in this claim that wasn’t in the prior art.

        1. “Where is it written that when you and your fellow junk patent lovers say “people who don’t love this claim don’t understand the techn0l0gy or teh lawz”

          Well, I didn’t say that. And I don’t see any other posts that say that.

          The invention is a faster way to provide the information needed to place a trade order.

          If you think the claimed way is in the prior art, then cite the prior art.

          I’ll simplify it for you. Just show us a prior art document describing:

          displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis; and
          in response to a selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange.

          Your argument that a computer could always do this if it were programmed to do it is silly. Silicon could always be doped to make a transistor too. Lumber could always be bolted together in the shape of an airplane too.

          1. I don’t see any other posts that say that

            LOL Really? I just saw one this morning. Maybe you need to learn to read English.

            The invention is a faster way to provide the information needed to place a trade order.

            Yes, computers do make data processing faster, Les! Welcome to earth.

            displaying an order entry region … ; and
            in response to a selection … setting a plurality of parameters”

            This isn’t a “technological solution” to anything. The rest of the “limtations” are abstract information-content gxrbage that has no place in any patent system.

            This is why you guys are l0sing and you’re going to continue to lose.

            [shrugs]

          2. [reformatted below]

            Les: I don’t see any other posts that say that

            LOL Really? I just saw one this morning. Maybe you need to learn to read English.

            The invention is a faster way to provide the information needed to place a trade order.

            Yes, computers do make data processing faster, Les! Welcome to earth circa 1950. In twenty years we’ll be on the moon. I know: totally crazy!

            displaying an order entry region … ; and
            in response to a selection … setting a plurality of parameters”

            This isn’t a “technological solution” to anything. The rest of the “limtations” are abstract information-content gxrbage that has no place in any patent system.

            This is why you guys are l0sing and you’re going to continue to lose.

            [shrugs]

            1. Why do you ellipses out the important part?

              “displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis

              This IS a “technological solution” to the problem of slow order entry where time is of the essence. Not that there is a “technological” requirement for patentability….

              1. This IS a “technological solution” to the problem of slow order entry where time is of the essence.

                No, it’s not a “technological solution” because all the technology existed before the claim was written. You could put a b-tton anywhere on a computer screen. That’s been the case for a long time. You can put the b-tton on a computer screen in a convenient place, or you can put it in an inconvenient place. Putting it in a convenient place is not “inventing” because nobody ever suggested otherwise. Get it? No techno problem->no techno solution.

              2. The problem with your logic, Les, and the problem that “do it on a computer” implementers face generally, is that computers exist for communicating, storing, processing and receiving information. They are designed to be extremely (infinitely!) malleable in that regard. Changing the nature of the information or the manner in which the information is presented is not “technology” in the patent sense. It’s abstraction.

                “Trade orders”? “Price levels”? “Common static price axis”? This is pure g-rbxge from the lens of a non-br0ken patent system. And it has to be that way.

                1. The technological solution is interpreting the location on the screen where the order is entered AS the order price.

                  You deny arguing that no invention that uses a computer is ever patentable. But here you are doing it again.

                  Screws and nails are old to. But, they can be components of inventions.

                  If its such a stoopid “invention” then why are others bothering to infringe it?

                  The problem with YOUR logic is that you can’t accept that a computer can be a tool to implement and inventive, patentable PROCESS OR that a NEW USE FOR AN OLD MACHINE is patent eligible.

                  1. …or even a new machine as that term is used in patent law when the old machine is changed to include a new component called the manufacture of software.

                    Just have him take (or explain) the Grand Hall experiment – of course he won’t do anything but v0m1t ad hominem on that counter point…

  5. I have not read the written description, but you assert the specification states that:

    “the present invention is directed to a graphical user interface for displaying the market depth of a commodity traded in a market, including a dynamic display for a plurality of bids and for a plurality of asks in the market for the commodity and a static display of prices corresponding to the plurality of bids and asks.”

    In Java an Interface is an Object of the language and may represent a very extensive piece of software code.

    1. a plurality of asks in the market

      Deep techn0l0gy there!

      You gotta have a college degree to even understand what that means.

    2. a dynamic display

      Oh, I get it. These guys invented “dynamic displays” and this is just a dependent claim where they detailed one of the infinite uses for their invention.

      Right?

      LOL

      Wrong.

  6. Easy under my test. It’s a method, the result of completing the method is information, the information is consumed by human beings to create the infringement. Should be ineligble as abstract. If the information result of the method were used by a non human actor toward another purpose, it would be eligible but likely fail under 103 for producing no unexpected result from the use of elements known to the art.

    I could certainly see a copyright on the exact screen layouts…

    1. Martin – you are wrong on so many levels with this post.

      First of all, the result of preforming the method is:

      “… setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange

      Accordingly, by your test, it is clearly eligible.

      Second of all, it was not obvious to do or try, else someone else would have done it sooner given the millions, na billions that are being made using it.

      1. Les have you read KSR?

        The GUI is used so a human can make the trade. Without human consumption of the information, why have an interface at all?

        And lastly, I’m opining on a test I made up myself; QED I can’t be wrong about it.

        1. Your rule:

          ” If the information result of the method were used by a non human actor toward another purpose”

          The last step of claim: ” setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange

          You said: “I’m opining on a test I made up myself; QED I can’t be wrong about it.”

          I wouldn’t have thought so either, but there it is….

          Of course I’ve read KSR. According to KSR, everything is obvious. So, I take it with a grain of salt. Also, there is another case that talks about secondary considerations…. to which I was referring.

          1. Les: According to KSR, everything is obvious.

            Meet the very serious patent attorneys who never saw a junk patent they could wrap their slobering lips around!

            They’ve been spouting this nonsense for years. Nobody believes them except for a tiny tiny tiny minority of fellow k00l-aid drinkers.

            But they’re very serious! They must be heard!

          2. “I’m opining on a test I made up myself; QED I can’t be wrong about it.”

            That was what I was saying re the 101 test now in use before Bilski, Alice etc. happened lol. Of course it was based on Benson etc. tho.

        2. QED I can’t be wrong about it.

          Your logic is appalling.

          You very well could get your own test wrong.

          (and that’s quite apart from any comment about the test itself being wrong – you can have errors in both application, as well as errors in your evolving notions no longer fitting your original test)

          To say point blank, “it’s my test, therefore I cannot be wrong” is simply wrong itself.

        3. Here for example, if I recall correctly, your original test dealt only with an end result being “consumed for the human mind” and what Les points to is that the end result is NOT for the human mind, but instead does involve the human mind at a point in the process, with the process continuing in a “technical” manner.

          The two are NOT the same, so you would be better off (perhaps) to say that you are NOW changing your original “theory” such that at ANY point in the process, something is for consumption of the human mind…

          1. If the method is not meant for human consumption, why have an interface at all?

            I wasn’t aware that a secondary consideration of obviousness was the amount of money transacted by a system. Y’all think that all high-frequency trading is preempted by this patent?

            1. I can think of several reasons why an interface for a human would be needed for a machine. Example 1: a steering wheel for a vehicle. Example 2: a speedometer for that vehicle.

              1. I can think of several reasons why an interface for a human would be needed for a machine.

                So can a five year old.

                But what on earth does that have to do with anything?

                You guys really are a crack-up. S00per deep thinkers!

                1. But what on earth does that have to do with anything?

                  Clearly, the conversation is about Mr. Snyder’s (evolving) test.

                  If you cannot be bothered to keep up, the least you can do is kindly shut the F up.

                  1. Clearly,

                    There’s nothing “clear” about “iit’s” comment or your comment as it relates to Martin’s point at 4.1.1.3.1.1. Graphical user interfaces present information for users to consume. Those users are human.

                    I know it’s really hard for you guys to follow a discussion but try not to make complete f0 0ls out of yourselves every five minutes, mkay? Try really hard.

            2. “Y’all think that all high-frequency trading is preempted by this patent?”

              No. If you are referring to post 2.2, I was being sarcastic/ironic.

                  1. If I say it, but it sounds like you, its irony.

                    Except I never speak of preemption in that fashion and I make a point of correcting people who do.

                    Try harder, Les.

                  2. March 24, 2016 at 4:24 pm

                    Well, you called it abstract gxrbage at 61112, for example. Whats your reasoning if not preemption, law of nature?

      1. Are you defending this jxnk, “anon”?

        Please let me know.

        In the meantime, I’ve got errands. And you’ve got your psychiatry appointment.

        1. More mindless as hominem.

          I was “defending” nothing.

          Clearly instead I was “exalting” your ever-so-detailed critical minded legal analysis.

          I need not defend anything to point out your (oh so typical) LACK of meaningfulness.

            1. Your reply is a non-sequitur.

              You would be better off just admitting that my reply defeats the dust kicking attempt of your short script “defending this claim” all the while you ignore the actual point made that I pointed out your post completely lacks any logic or legal thinking.

              But hey, keep on posting and saying your usual nothing – Yay ecosystem !

    1. Yes, because providing a plurality of positions on a display where a trade can be ordered, with the position in which an order is entered indicating information about what the order that would otherwise have to be manually entered is clearly a fundamental building block of economics and granting a patent to it would preempt all trading of any kind.

      Furthermore, even though in this area, traders fight to gain nanoseconds of advantage and those nanoseconds can amount to billions of dollars, and no one had thought to save the time of a price entry step in this way before, this method clearly would have been obvious to even those of ordinary skill in the art.

      1. preempt all trading of any kind

        Stunning legal analysis!

        LOL

        But “anon” is all right with this. Because he’s a super serious person. Sure he is!

          1. since its yours….

            Sure it is! And you’re a convicted ped0phile because I say so!

            So much fun.

            Hey, l0okie, we can all make stuff up about other pe0ple when it serves our purposes! Welcome to the world of civilized discourse with the worst attorneys who ever practiced any law on the face of the earth.

            But they’re super serious! We must pay attention to them or …. China!

              1. Dennis, anytime you want to get eliminate the path0l0gical l i ars like Les and “anon” from your forum, I’m all for that.

                We’ve discussed this before and I’m happy to have the discussion again. If you’ve got a great reason for keeping the habitual l i ars around, I’m all ears. I understand, of course, that those reasons may be purely emotional or purely political.

                But as I’ve told you: there’s no way that you can expect me or anyone else to sit and listen to a soci0path spew personally directed fabricated horsesh*t day in and day out.

                  1. Les,

                    The posting “rules” are the “rules” you see enforced.

                    Please don’t act surprised that Malcolm continues his Decade of Decadence in the manner that marks his existence here.

                    It’s an obvious fallacy that anything else is “really” wanted.

      2. This is why it amuses me when judges and examiners make broad proclamations about art that they have never been involved with before. If you don’t understand the state of the art, you can’t possibly understand what an improvement in that art would look like; you have no frame of reference by which you judge the improvement.

        It’s like the rubes that look at an invention and yell “it’s so obvious, why didn’t I think of that”. This is the hindsight bias that pervades the patent legal community. If it’s simple it must not be worthy of patent protection…If only there were good case law and citations in the MPEP that precluded against being biased against the manner in which an invention was conceived…

        1. If you don’t understand the state of the art, you can’t possibly understand what an improvement in that art would look like

          Tell everyone what the “state of the art” was when this junk was filed, Bluto.

          C’mon. You’re a very serious person! Let’s hear it.

          1. I do not work in the area and would not be arrogant enough to assume that I would know. You know what’s the difference between God and MM? God knows he isn’t MM.

            What a burden it must be for you to have all this knowledge in so many various arts in which you profess not to practice.

            1. I do not work in the area

              What “area” would that be?

              I live on earth where computers and stock markets have existed for my entire life. Like many educated adults, I’ve been forced to understand both. How did you manage to avoid it?

              What a burden it must be for you to have all this knowledge

              Getting the Ph.D. wasn’t easy. Same with the law degree (although it was much faster). Remembering everything can be a challenge sometimes. But really there’s all that much knowledge necessary to plow through the legal bal0ney and see that there’s no “there” there when it comes to most “do it on a computer” junk.

  7. Claim 1:

    1. A method for displaying market information relating to and facilitating trading of a commodity being traded in an electronic exchange having an inside market with a highest bid price and a lowest ask price on a graphical user interface, the method comprising:
    dynamically displaying a first indicator in one of a plurality of locations in a bid display region, each location in the bid display region corresponding to a price level along a common static price axis, the first indicator representing quantity associated with at least one order to buy the commodity at the highest bid price currently available in the market;
    dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality of locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask display region corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis, the second indicator representing quantity associated with at least one order to sell the commodity at the lowest ask price currently available in the market;
    displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to fixed price levels positioned along the common static price axis such that when the inside market changes, the price levels along the common static price axis do not move and at least one of the first and second indicators moves in the bid or ask display regions relative to the common static price axis;
    displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis; and
    in response to a selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange.

    1. The specification states [note the words “the present invention”] that:
      “the present invention is directed to a graphical user interface for displaying the market depth of a commodity traded in a market, including a dynamic display for a plurality of bids and for a plurality of asks in the market for the commodity and a static display of prices corresponding to the plurality of bids and asks.”
      I.e., this is on a GUI display not a “software” invention. [Nor is any novel software detailed.]

      1. I’m not sure what your point is Paul. 1.0 is claim 1 from the patent. I’m guessing this bit provides the novelty:

        displaying an order entry region comprising a plurality of locations for receiving commands to send trade orders, each location corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis; and
        in response to a selection of a particular location of the order entry region by a single action of a user input device, setting a plurality of parameters for a trade order relating to the commodity and sending the trade order to the electronic exchange.

        The other independent claim (27) is to a computer readable medium…

        link to google.com

Comments are closed.