United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, 

INC.,

Appellant

v.

IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,

Appellees

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________

2017-2323

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. CBM2015-

00172, CBM2016-00040.

______________________

Decided: April 30, 2019

______________________

JENNIFER KURCZ, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Chicago, IL, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by LEIF R.

SIGMOND, JR., MICHAEL DAVID GANNON; ALAINA J.

LAKAWICZ, Philadelphia, PA; COLE BRADLEY RICHTER, 

McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff, LLP, Chicago, 

IL; STEVEN BORSAND, JAY QUENTIN KNOBLOCH, Trading 

Technologies International, Inc., Chicago, IL. 
2 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC

 RICHARD M. BEMBEN, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, 

PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by ROBERT EVAN SOKOHL; MICHAEL T. ROSATO, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Seattle, WA. 

 KATHERINE TWOMEY ALLEN, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, argued for intervenor. Also represented by MARK R.

FREEMAN, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H. HUNT; THOMAS 

W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, 

Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. 

 ______________________

Before MOORE, CLEVENGER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Trading Technologies International, Inc., (“TT”) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 ineligible 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because we agree that the patent 

is a covered business method patent and the claims are ineligible, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

TT is the owner of the ’556 patent, which “relates to 

displaying market information on a screen.” ’556 patent at 

1:7–9. The specification states that the invention works 

“particularly well” with the trading screen shown in Figure 

2. Id. at 3:8–11. Figure 2 is a prior art trading screen disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, which displays bids 

and offers in association with price values along an axis. 

Id. at 2:9–14, 3:12–16, Fig. 2. According to the specification, “traders are often interested in analyzing other pieces 

of highly relevant information that are not normally provided in an electronic exchange’s data feed nor displayed 

by a trading screen.” Id. at 2:18–22. Traders may “make 

quick mental calculations, use charting software, or look to 
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC 3

other sources to provide additional insight beyond what is 

normally provided.” Id. at 2:22–25.

The specification discloses “generating values that are 

derivatives of price and then displaying these values along 

an axis on a screen.” Id. at 3:22–25. The claims focus on a 

particular price derivative, profit and loss (“P&L”). The 

specification acknowledges that “there are numerous ways 

to calculate P&L and one of ordinary skill in the art would 

recognize the many different possibilities.” Id. at 13:61–

63. Claim 1 recites:

1. A method for displaying market information on 

a graphical user interface, the method comprising:

receiving by a computing device a current 

highest bid price and a current lowest ask 

price for a tradeable object from an electronic exchange;

identifying by the computing device a long 

or short position taken by a user with respect to the tradeable object, wherein the 

long position is associated with a quantity 

of the tradeable object that has been 

bought by the user at a price, and wherein 

the short position is associated with a 

quantity of the tradeable object that has 

been sold by the user at a price;

computing by the computing device a plurality of values based on the long or short 

position, wherein each of the plurality of 

values represents a profit or loss if the long 

or short position is closed at a price level 

among a range of price levels for the tradeable object;

displaying via the computing device the 

plurality of values along a value axis;
4 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC

displaying via the computing device a first 

indicator at a first location corresponding 

to a first value along the value axis, 

wherein the first indicator represents a 

particular price based on any of the following prices: current best bid, current best 

ask, and a last traded price, and wherein 

the first value represents a profit or loss incurred by the user if the long or short position is closed at the particular price; and

moving the first indicator relative to the 

value axis to a second location corresponding to a second value along the value axis 

responsive to receipt of an update to the 

particular price, wherein the second value 

represents a profit or loss incurred by the 

user if the position is closed at the update 

to the particular price.

IBG LLC and Interactive Brokers LLC (collectively, 

“Petitioners”) petitioned for review of claims 1–22 of the 

’556 patent pursuant to the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (“CBM review”). LeahySmith Am. Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 18(a), 125 

Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011) (“AIA”). The Board instituted 

CBM review and issued a final written decision holding 

that the patent meets the criteria to be eligible for CBM 

review and the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

It additionally held that claims 12–22 cover transitory signals and are therefore not directed to statutory subject 

matter under § 101.

TT appeals from the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC 5

DISCUSSION

I. CBM Eligibility

Pursuant to § 18(a)(1)(E) of the AIA, the Board may 

only institute CBM review for a patent that is a CBM patent. A CBM patent is “a patent that claims a method or 

corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or 

other operations used in the practice, administration, or 

management of a financial product or service, except that 

the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” Id. § 18(d)(1) (emphasis added). Pursuant to its authority under § 18(d)(2), the Patent and Trademark Office 

promulgated 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), which requires the 

Board to consider the following on a case-by-case basis in 

determining whether a patent is for a technological invention: “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious 

over the prior art” and whether it “solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” We review the Board’s reasoning “under the arbitrary and capricious standard and 

its factual determinations under the substantial evidence 

standard.” SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 

1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The only issue of CBM eligibility that TT contests is whether its patents are for technological inventions.

The Board relied on claim 1 to determine that the ’556 

patent is directed to a covered business method patent. It 

determined that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art because 

the patent indicates that the claimed technological features are known technologies. It determined that claim 1 

does not recite a technical solution to a technical problem 

because the problem disclosed in the patent is that traders 

need additional information on a trading screen to effectively analyze the market, which is business problem, not 

a technical one.
6 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC

TT argues the Board erred in applying the first consideration of § 42.301(b) based on our decision in Versata Development Group Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 

(Fed. Cir. 2015). According to TT, Versata set aside the 

novelty and nonobviousness language of the regulation, 

leaving the definition of a technological invention as one 

having a technological feature that solves a technical problem using a technical solution. Appellant Br. 28–29 (citing 

793 F.3d at 1326). We need not decide this issue because 

we agree with the Board that the claims do not solve a technical problem using a technical solution. See Apple, Inc. v. 

Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We 

need not address this argument regarding whether the 

first prong of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) was met, as we affirm 

the Board’s determination on the second prong of the regulation . . . .”).

The problem that the patent seeks to solve is providing 

“highly relevant information” that is “not normally provided in an electronic exchange’s data feed nor displayed 

by a trading screen” to a trader. ’556 patent at 2:18–37. 

The specification does not identify any technical problems 

associated with obtaining or displaying this information. 

Rather, it states that traders “might make quick mental 

calculations, use charting software, or look to other sources 

to provide additional insight beyond what is normally provided.” Id. at 2:22–25. The use of multiple sources of information made it difficult for traders to quickly process 

information to make informed trades. Id. at 2:26–30. 

The “highly relevant information” in the context of the 

claims is the P&L associated with making a trade at a specific price. The specification acknowledges that a skilled 

artisan would recognize the numerous ways to calculate 

this information. Id. at 13:60–63. Claim 1 essentially

takes the prior art trading screen of Figure 2, calculates 

P&L for “a range of price levels,” and displays the P&L values along an axis. Compare id. at Fig. 2 with id. at Fig. 9. 

TT argues this improves the usability, visualization, and 
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC 7

efficiency of prior art trading screens. But merely providing a trader with new or different information in an existing trading screen is not a technical solution to a technical 

problem. Instead, it focuses on improving the trader, not 

the functioning of the computer. We conclude the Board’s 

reasoning that the ’556 patent is a CBM patent was not 

arbitrary and capricious.

II. PATENT ELIGIBILITY

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its 

factual findings for substantial evidence. Ameranth, 842 

F.3d at 1236. “Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law, based on underlying facts.” SAP Am., Inc. v. 

InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or 

any new and useful improvement thereof,” may obtain a 

patent. 35 U.S.C. § 101. As a judicially created exception 

to this provision, “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, 

and abstract ideas are not patent eligible.” Alice Corp. Pty.

Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting

Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 

U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). All inventions at some level “embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply” these concepts, but 

if an invention applies these concepts to a new and useful 

end, it is patent eligible. Id. at 217. The Supreme Court 

has established a two-step framework for “distinguishing 

patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and 

abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. “First, we determine 

whether the claims at issue are directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. Id. If so, “we consider the elements of each 

claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to 

determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the 

nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.

(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 

Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)).
8 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC

A

At Alice step one, we must “determine whether the 

claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” 

Alice, 573 U.S. at 218. Under this inquiry, we evaluate “the 

focus of the claimed advance over the prior art” to determine if the character of the claim as a whole, considered in 

light of the specification, is directed to excluded subject 

matter. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. 

Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 

1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 

F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

The claims considered in light of the specification make 

clear that “the focus of the claimed advance over the prior 

art” is providing a trader with additional financial information to facilitate market trades, an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1338 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The specification states that the invention 

may be used “in any electronic trading screen” and identifies the prior art trading screen of Figure 2 as one in which 

the invention would “work particularly well.” ’556 patent 

at 3:8–12. The only difference between the trading screen 

of Figure 2 and the one claimed is that the axis in Figure 2 

displays price values, and the claimed axis displays P&L 

values. This includes the additional limitations of dependent claims 2 and 3, which are the only dependent claims 

that TT mentions on appeal. See ’132 patent at 10:4–17. 

Information, whether displayed in the form of price values 

or P&L values, is abstract. SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167. Likewise, the claimed steps for calculating the P&L values—

“identifying a long or short position taken by a user” and 

“computing by the computing device a plurality of values” 

representing “a profit or loss if the long or short position is 

closed at a price level”—is nothing more than “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers,” 

which “does not constitute a patentable improvement in 
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC 9

computer technology.” Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake 

Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

TT asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they provide a particular graphical user 

interface that improves usability, visualization, and efficiency. It argues the claims combine a value axis with values associated with price levels, each value representing 

P&L if the position is closed at a particular price; a first 

indicator representing a particular price; and functionality 

to move the indicator relative to the value axis in response 

to an updated price. It argues prior art trading screens

lacked a value axis that showed P&L for a trade. Relying 

on Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 

1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016), it argues we have suggested that 

“identifying a particular tool for presentation” was enough 

to confer eligibility. TT’s contentions are unavailing.

The claims are focused on providing information to 

traders in a way that helps them process information more 

quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26–39, not on improving computers or technology. The claims require displaying P&L values along an axis, displaying an indicator representing 

market information at a location on the axis, and moving 

the indicator to a second location. The “tool for presentation” here, Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, is simply a generic computer. ’556 patent at 14:66–15:2 (“Various types 

of general purpose or specialized computer apparatus or 

computing device may be used with or perform operations 

in accordance with the teachings described herein.”). 

While the fact that an invention is run on a generic computer does not, by itself, “doom the claims,” Core Wireless 

Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 

(Fed. Cir. 2018), the claims here fail because arranging information along an axis does not improve the functioning 

of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve 

any technological problem. Like Electric Power, the purported advance “is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the 
10 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC

results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions.” 830 F.3d at 1354. 

We thus conclude that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.

B

At step two, we “consider the elements of each claim 

both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent eligible application.” Alice, 

573 U.S. at 218 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). Step 

two “looks more precisely at what the claim elements add” 

to determine if “they identify an inventive concept in the 

application of the ineligible matter to which . . . the claim 

is directed.” SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The abstract idea itself cannot supply the 

inventive concept, “no matter how groundbreaking the advance.” Id. at 1171.

The elements of the claims, considered individually 

and as an ordered combination, fail to recite an inventive 

concept. The claimed trading screen simply takes the prior 

art trading screen of Figure 2 and adds P&L values along 

the axis. ’556 patent at 3:8–12, 8:50–54. The specification 

acknowledges that “there are numerous ways to calculate 

P&L and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize 

the many different possibilities.” Id. at 13:61–63. Even if 

no trading screen had previously displayed P&L values, “a 

claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it 

is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible 

concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 

1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We see nothing in the combination of these elements that supply an inventive concept.

We conclude that claims 1–22 are ineligible under § 101.
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. IBG LLC 11

III. Constitutionality of CBM Review

TT argues the Board’s decision should be vacated because CBM review is unconstitutional. In a total of four 

sentences in its opening brief, TT raises challenges based 

on a right to a jury under the Seventh Amendment, separation of powers under Article III, the Due Process Clause, 

and the Taking Clause. Such a conclusory assertion with 

no analysis is insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. 

See United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 738 F.3d 

1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“It is well established that arguments that are not appropriately developed in a party’s 

briefing may be deemed waived.”); SmithKline Beecham 

Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(holding that “mere statements of disagreement . . . do not 

amount to a developed argument” sufficient to preserve the 

issue). We decline to address TT’s constitutional challenges.

CONCLUSION

We have considered TT’s other arguments and find 

them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude 

that the ’556 patent is CBM eligible and that claims 1–22 

are ineligible. In light of this conclusion, we need not address Petitioners’ separate ground that claims 12–22 are 

directed to non-statutory subject matter.

AFFIRMED