直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Trading Screen Displaying “Profits & Loss” Data Not Eligible for Patenting

May 13, 2019

Authored and Edited by Marcus A.R. Childress; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, No. 2017-2323 (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that Trading Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 7,783,556 was eligible for CBM review and the challenged claims were not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The ’556 patent relates to displaying market information on a screen and generating values that are derivatives of price, including profit and loss information, and then displaying these values along an axis on the display. IBG and others filed for CBM review of the ’556 patent. The Board issued a final written decision finding the challenged claims are not patent eligible under § 101. Trading Technologies appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that the ’556 patent was eligible for CBM review. The Court explained that the challenged claims were directed to a “business problem” to provide traders additional information, such as profit and loss data, on an existing trading screen. The Court held that this was not a technological solution because it “improv[ed] the trader, not the functioning of the computer.”

The Court also affirmed the Board’s conclusion that the claims were directed to an unpatentable abstract idea of calculating and displaying information that “is nothing more than ‘mere automation of manual processes using computers.’” The Court also held that the claims failed to recite an inventive concept because the claimed trading screen simply took the prior art trading screen and added profit and loss values along the axis. Accordingly, the Court concluded the claims were ineligible under § 101.

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), patentable subject matter, 35 U.S.C. § 101

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

IAM Live: Trade Secret Strategy USA

November 1, 2026

San Jose

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP