by Dennis Crouch
Trading Technologies (TT) has petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision raising three significant questions about patent law and civil procedure. The case stems from TT’s patent infringement suit against IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC over patents related to electronic trading user interfaces. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304, 6,772,132, 7,676,411, and 7,813,996. (I have mentioned this previously, but TT is a former client and I was involved with enforcing the ‘304 and ‘132 patents in the past).
The case caption now lists Harris Brumfield as trustee following TT’s 2021 sale, though the litigation began and was primarily conducted by Trading Technologies. 20250103171844464_2025-01-02 No 24- Petition.
First Question Presented: Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud Standards
TT challenges the denial of its Rule 60(b)(3) motion seeking relief from judgment based on alleged fraud by IBG regarding damages calculations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) allows courts to grant relief from judgments obtained through “fraud,” “misrepresentation,” or “misconduct by an opposing party.” TT argues the lower courts improperly required it to also show diligence in uncovering IBG’s alleged misrepresentations about how it tracked trading data – a requirement found nowhere in Rule 60(b)(3)’s text. The petition notes a circuit split. The Seventh Circuit previously held that Rule 60(b)(3) “does not refer to timeliness in discovering the fraud.” Lonsdorf v. Seefeldt, 47 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1995). In contrast, the Ninth Circuit requires moving parties to show the fraud was not discoverable through “reasonable diligence.” Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United Computer Sys., Inc., 5 F.3d 534 (9th Cir. 1993). The Federal Circuit has also criticized the 9th Circuit approach, finding it “contrary to the text of Rule 60(b)(3).” Cap Express, LLC v. Zinus, Inc., 996 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
TT originally sought $962 million in damages but the jury awarded only $6.6 million, following IBG’s proposed damages model. This context understand the significance of the Rule 60(b)(3) fraud claim.
Second Question Presented: Patent Eligibility Under § 101
TT challenges the invalidation of two patents (the ‘411 and ‘996 patents) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. TT argues the Federal Circuit’s application of Alice Corp. improperly expanded judicial exceptions beyond the statutory text. The patents claim graphical user interfaces for electronic trading that display market depth aligned with price levels. TT contends these are “new and useful” innovations meeting § 101’s plain text requirements by solving a specific technical problem – preventing accidental order entry due to price changes during click delays in conventional market grid interfaces. The petition notes that Federal Circuit contradicted its own prior ruling which found the same patent claims solved technical problems with prior art interfaces. IBG LLC v. Trading Technologies International, Inc., 757 F. App’x 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Third Question Presented: Federal Circuit Procedural Issues
TT raises concerns about the Federal Circuit’s handling of patent cases at summary judgment despite disputed factual issues. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party at summary judgment. TT argues the Federal Circuit ignored over 800 pages of evidence creating factual disputes about patent eligibility. This issue is similar to that raised in ParkerVision, a case also pending on its petition for writ of certiorari. Additionally, TT challenges the Federal Circuit’s practice of deciding issues never briefed by parties. After ruling for TT on the availability of foreign damages under WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. 407 (2018), the court sua sponte found TT failed to show causation – an issue neither party briefed nor argued below.
= = =
The petition was filed by Michael Gannon of Baker Hostetler representing Trading Technologies and Blumfield. IBG is represented by Steffen Johnson of Wilson Sonsini. The Federal Circuit panel that issued the underlying decision consisted of Judges Prost, Taranto, and Hughes, with Judge Taranto writing for the court.