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

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

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.