Court Affirms Trading Technologies International Ruling, Upholding GUI Patent

Jan 19, 2017

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Lance Han, law clerk (not admitted to practice)

In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Trading Technologies International charged CQG with infringement of two patents. The patents generally describe and claim a method and system for the electronic trading of stocks, bonds, futures, options and similar products. In particular, the patents describe a trading system in which a GUI “display[s] the market depth of a commodity traded in a market.”

During the district court proceedings, CQG moved for judgment as a matter of law, asserting that the claims of the patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The district court denied the motion, holding that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and also that they recite an inventive concept. Regarding the GUI, the district court stated that the specific structure and associated functionality of the GUI, which improves speed, accuracy, usability and function, provided a level of concreteness such that the patent claimed more than abstract ideas. Additionally, the court stated that “[t]he claims require a specific structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.”

The court of appeals agreed with the district court, observing that the patents do not simply claim displaying information on a GUI. Rather, the court of appeals cited to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, and held that specific technological modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter. By contrast, ineligible claims generally lack steps or limitations specific to the solution of a problem or improvement in the functioning of technology.

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05-cv-4811 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2017).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.