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 12, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the defendants’ expert reports and related deposition testimony. Although the defendants’ invalidity contentions did not state the specific theories of invalidity upon which the expert opined, the court found that none of the Pennypack factors supported excluding that expert testimony.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2026

The Western District of Texas recently vacated a preliminary injunction after the USPTO issued a non-final rejection in a reexamination proceeding of all claims of the asserted patent directed to magnetic data cables. Although not final, the rejection was based on a substantial question of validity that made vulnerable the counter-plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 30, 2026

A Northern District of Florida court denied a motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ outside counsel based on an alleged violation of a prosecution bar because, although the issue was “not free of doubt,” the court did not find a “clear violation” of the protective order. In reaching its decision, the court explained that disqualification is a “high bar” requiring compelling reasons and that motions to disqualify based on violating a prosecution bar, therefore, should only be granted “if the violation was clear.” Here, the court found it was unclear whether outside counsel prosecuted patents “related to” the asserted patent, in violation of the order, because the scope of “related to” was not clearly defined.

...

Read More

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

© 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.