On Thursday, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision
in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG
Interactive Brokers, LLC, No. 17-2257 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18,
2019), that provides another data point on how CBM review works.
Perhaps more importantly, the way Trading Technologies
analyzes Section 101 eligibility suggests a paradigm shift is
coming.1
Trading Technologies owns a number of patents on graphical user
interfaces ("GUIs") for electronic trading. IBG LLC and
Interactive Brokers LLC ("petitioners") sought CBM review
of the patents. The PTAB instituted review and found the claims
ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CBM Eligibility
By statute, CBM review is unavailable for "patents for
technological inventions." AIA § 18(a)(1)(E), (d)(1). The
PTO has promulgated regulations that explain that a
"technological invention" must (1) contain a "novel
and unobvious" feature and (2) "solve a technical problem
using a technical solution." 37 C.F.R. §