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

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.