By Dennis Crouch Chicago Board of Options Exchange v. International Securities Exchange (Fed. Cir. March 25, 2016)[1] and International Securities Exchange v. Chicago Board of Options Exchange (Fed. Cir. March 25, 2016) (Appeal No. 2015-1743)[2] These appeals involve three CBOE patents directed to automated trading exchange systems. All three patents (all claims) were challenged in covered business method reviews and found by the PTAB to be ineligible under Section 101 (abstract ideas). In addition, two of the same patents (a subset of claims) were challenged in inter partes review proceedings, but in those cases the PTAB sided with the patentee and found the ISE had failed to prove invalidity (either obvious or anticipated). The CBOE appealed the 101 invalidations, and ISE separately appealed the inter partes review denials. In an odd set of judgments, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB 101 rejections in a Rule 36 Judgment (no opinion…
↧