N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant

v.

IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BR OKERS 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, AppelleesTRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT ' L v. IBG LLC 2

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 COMMERC E FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y 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

______________________

M ICHAEL D AVID G ANNON , Baker & Hostetler LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by L EIF R. S IGMOND , J R ., J ENNIFER K URCZ ; A LAINA J. L AKAWICZ , Philadelphia, PA; S TEVEN B ORSAND , J AY Q UENTIN K NOBLOCH , Trading Technologies International, Inc., Chicago, IL.

B YRON L EROY P ICKARD , Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellees in 2018

- 1105, 2018

- 1302, 2018

- 1438 . Also represented by R OBERT E VAN S OKOHL , R ICHARD M. B EMBEN , J ON W RIGHT

.

K

ATHERINE T WOMEY A LLEN , Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for intervenor United States. Also representedTRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT ' L v. IBG LLC 4

by M ARK R. F REEMAN , S COTT R. M C I NTOSH , J OSEPH H. H UNT ; T HOMAS W. K RAUSE , J OSEPH M ATAL , F ARHEENA Y

ASMEEN R ASHEED , Of fice of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.

A MY J. N ELSON , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Andrei Iancu in 2018

- 1443. Also represente d by T HOMAS W. K RAUSE , J OSEPH M ATAL , F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

.

______________________

Before H UGHES , M AYER , and L INN , Circuit Judges.

H UGHES , Circuit Judge.
Trading Technologies International, Inc., appeal s 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 Tradi ng 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 br iefing 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 th e patents invalidated in IBG I and IBG II

. Like IBG I and IBG II

, t he challenged patents “ focus [] on improving the trader, not the functioning of the compu ter .” IBG II

, 921 F.3d at 1383; see also IBG I , 921 F.3d at 1091

. Although the se patents may provide different information than the patents in IBG I andTRADING 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.

W e also find Trading Technologies waived its constitutional arguments. See IBG II

, 921 F.3d at 1385

. AFFIRMED