Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

International Securities Exchange, LLC v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBM2013-00049, CBM2013-00050, CBM2013-00051)

Representative Claim

  1. A method for electronically transferring units of exchange between a first module and a second module, comprising the steps of:
    1.  initiating communication between said first module and an electronic device;
    2. passing a first value datum from said first module to said electronic device;
    3. passing said first value datum from said electronic device to said second module;
    4. performing a mathematical calculation on said first value datum thereby creating a second value datum;
    5. passing said second value datum from said second module to said electronic device;
    6. passing said second value datum from said electronic device to said first module;
    7. storing said second value datum in said first module; and
    8. discontinuing communication between said first module and said electronic device.

Posture:

CBM final decisions.

Abstract Idea: Yes

“Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s claims are directed to the abstract concept of “managing trading risk – expressed in the claims as automatically modifying pending quotes so that market makers do not accumulate unacceptable amounts of risk,” similar to the “hedging risk” claims in Bilski. Pet. 24; Pet. Reply 1, 3-4. Patent Owner does not dispute that the ‘044 patent claims are directed to an abstract idea.”

Something More: No

“The issue is whether the claims preempt the abstract idea of risk management that is claimed. The abstract idea of the challenged claims is not only risk management in general, but also the specific type of risk management claimed in each claim. Furthermore, limiting an abstract idea to a specific field of use or adding token post-solution activity does not make an abstract idea patentable. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978)… We agree with Petitioner that the dependent claims do not include meaningful limitations that make them patent eligible subject matter under Alice.”