NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, 

INC.,

Appellant

v.

IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,

Appellees

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2018-1105

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-

00009.

------------------------------------------------------------

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, 

INC.,

Appellant

v.

IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,

Appellees
2 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2018-1302

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-

00054.

------------------------------------------------------------

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, 

INC.,

Appellant

v.

IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,

Appellees

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2018-1438

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-

00087.

------------------------------------------------------------

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, 

INC.,
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC 3

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, ANDREI IANCU, UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF 

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE,

Intervenors

______________________ 

2018-1443

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-

00086.

______________________ 

Decided: May 21, 2019

______________________ 

 MICHAEL DAVID GANNON, Baker & Hostetler LLP, 

Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by LEIF 

R. SIGMOND, JR., JENNIFER KURCZ; ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ, 

Philadelphia, PA; STEVEN BORSAND, JAY QUENTIN 

KNOBLOCH, Trading Technologies International, Inc., Chicago, IL. 

 BYRON LEROY PICKARD, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & 

Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellees in 2018-

1105, 2018-1302, 2018-1438. Also represented by ROBERT 

EVAN SOKOHL, RICHARD M. BEMBEN, JON WRIGHT. 

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

DC, argued for intervenor United States. Also represented 
4 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC

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. 

 AMY J. NELSON, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for 

intervenor Andrei Iancu in 2018-1443. Also represented by

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN 

RASHEED. 

 ______________________ 

Before HUGHES, MAYER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

Trading Technologies International, Inc., appeals four

Covered Business Method Review decisions of the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board finding Trading Technologies’ 

patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Recently, this 

Court issued two precedential opinions affirming Board

decisions finding several of Trading Technologies related 

patents unpatentable under § 101. Trading Techs. Int’l, 

Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (IBG I);

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. 

Cir. 2019) (IBG II). The parties submitted supplemental 

briefing on whether IBG I dictated the outcome of the 

present appeals. The parties also discussed the effect of 

IBG I and IBG II at oral argument.

We are not persuaded by Trading Technologies’ 

arguments that the patents at issue here, U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,412,416 B2; 7,818,247 B2; 7,685,055 B2; and 7,693,768

B2, are distinguishable from the patents invalidated in 

IBG I and IBG II. Like IBG I and IBG II, the challenged 

patents “focus[] on improving the trader, not the 

functioning of the computer.” IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1383; see 

also IBG I, 921 F.3d at 1091. Although these patents may 

provide different information than the patents in IBG I and 
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC 5

IBG II, information is “intangible” and its “particular 

content . . . does not change its character as information.” 

Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). We therefore hold that IBG I and IBG II

control and affirm the Board’s decisions. 

We also find Trading Technologies waived its constitutional arguments. See IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1385. 

AFFIRMED