Case identifications: Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Trading Technologies” or “TT”) Case No. I6-0I20; and, PTAB: Instituted CBM2015-00161against the ’304 patent (owned by Trading Technologies International, Inc.)

On February 24, 2015 a federal district Court issued its final decision that Trading Technologies patents were not invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015).

After prevailing in federal district an alleged infringer filed the Petition that commenced CBM2015-00161. Notwithstanding the fact that Trading Technologies informed the PTAB of the decision of the district court; the PTAB panel instituted trial on the § 101 issue.

THE PTAB DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO INSTITUTE A CBM REVIEW ON A NON-BUSINESS METHOD PATENT

The America Invents Act (AIA) Section 18, proscribes that the USPTO may institute a CBM proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent. A covered business method patent is defined as a patent that claims a method for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. The claims in Trading Technologies’ ’304 patent are not, in any way whatsoever, directed to a business method or to a method for data processing. Trading Technologies patent claims the structure, makeup, and features of an improved graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool that can be used for electronic trading.

Trading Technologies hit the proverbial nails on the head in the following statements from its Petition

• The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is needed to correct a recurring jurisdictional error by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”): it improperly instituted a covered business method review (“CBMR”) under § 18 of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) against a patent that is clearly and indisputably not a CBM patent.

• The ’304 patent is clearly and indisputably not a CBM patent within the PTAB’s jurisdiction under § 18 because (1) it claims a GUI tool, not a “data processing” or business method, and (2) it claims a technological invention. By instituting CBM2015-00161, the PTAB has exceeded its lawful jurisdiction, which should be corrected by mandamus. The PTAB has repeated this error and will likely continue to do so. TT has no other adequate means of relief and will be irreparably harmed if the jurisdictional error is not immediately corrected. Accordingly, this Court should grant this petition for mandamus and order the PTAB to vacate its institution decision in CBM2015-00161 and terminate that proceeding.
Trading Technologies ‘304 patent has been the subject of serial CBM petitions, which one could argue reaches the point of harassment.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TT-Mandamus-3-8-2016.pdf