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

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

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.