{"id":3790,"date":"2016-07-29T08:35:35","date_gmt":"2016-07-29T12:35:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cpip.gmu.edu\/?p=3790"},"modified":"2026-05-13T19:36:32","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T19:36:32","slug":"cpip-scholars-file-amicus-brief-in-trading-technologies-v-cqg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/2016\/07\/29\/cpip-scholars-file-amicus-brief-in-trading-technologies-v-cqg\/","title":{"rendered":"[Archived Post] CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief in Trading Technologies v. CQG"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center\"><em>By Bhamati Viswanathan<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Earlier this month, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff penned an <a href=\"http:\/\/sls.gmu.edu\/cpip\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/31\/2016\/07\/Amicus-Brief-Ten-Law-Professors-Trading-Tech-v-CQG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>amicus<\/em> brief<\/a> in <em>Trading Technologies v. CQG<\/em>, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The brief was joined by nine other IP scholars, including CPIP Senior Scholars Mark Schultz and Kristen Osenga.<\/p>\n<p>The <em>amici<\/em> argue that Trading Technologies\u2019 graphical user interface (GUI) constitutes patentable subject matter under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/17\/101\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 101<\/a> of the Patent Act. Noting the Supreme Court\u2019s holding in <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=2277797231762274855\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Bilski v. Kappos<\/em><\/a> that \u201cSection 101 is a dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions,\u201d the <em>amici<\/em> urge the Federal Circuit not to interpret Section 101 so narrowly as to \u201cimpede the process of future innovation\u201d by \u201ccreating unnecessary and innovation-killing \u2018uncertainty as to the patentability of software.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The recognition that specific computer-implemented technologies are not \u201cabstract\u201d is wholly consistent with the <em>Mayo-Alice<\/em> test set forth by the Supreme Court in its recent Section 101 decisions, <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=505607866460473908\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Mayo v. Prometheus Labs<\/em><\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=7784134755284986738\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Alice v. CLS Bank<\/em><\/a>. Under the <em>Mayo-Alice<\/em> framework, Trading Technologies\u2019 GUI is not merely an \u201cabstract idea\u201d incorporating conventional and automatic processes, but rather it exemplifies the technical innovation and \u201cprogress of . . . useful Arts\u201d that the patent system is intended to promote.<\/p>\n<p>The Summary of Argument section of the brief is copied below:<\/p>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><strong>SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>The trial court\u2019s decision represents a proper application of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101. <em>See Trading Technologies Int\u2019l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.<\/em>, No. 05-4811, 2015 WL 774655 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015). Because the parties address the relevant innovation covered by Trading Technologies&#8217; patents, as well as the application of the Supreme Court\u2019s recent \u00a7 101 jurisprudence, <em>amici <\/em>offer an additional insight that supports the trial court\u2019s decision: the invention of computer-mediated processes is exactly the kind of innovation that the patent system is designed to promote.<\/p>\n<p>As the Supreme Court recognized in <em>Bilski v. Kappos<\/em>, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), \u201cSection 101 is a dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> at 605 (internal quotations omitted). Thus, this Court should decline the invitation by Appellant to construe \u00a7 101 in a crabbed and antiquarian fashion that would limit patent eligibility only to \u201cprocesses similar to those in the Industrial Age\u2014for example, inventions grounded in a physical or tangible form.\u201d <em>Id.<\/em> To do so would contravene the <em>Bilski <\/em>Court\u2019s warning against limiting \u00a7 101 to only non-digital inventions, creating thereby unnecessary and innovation-killing \u201cuncertainty as to the patentability of software,\u201d such as Appellee\u2019s graphical-user-interface invention.<em>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>To read the full <em>amicus<\/em> brief, <a href=\"http:\/\/sls.gmu.edu\/cpip\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/31\/2016\/07\/Amicus-Brief-Ten-Law-Professors-Trading-Tech-v-CQG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>please click here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Bhamati Viswanathan Earlier this month, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff penned an amicus brief in Trading Technologies v. CQG, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The brief was [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3627,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,30,35,48,1],"tags":[75,83,112,198,551,633,642,855,922,939,1104,1304,1477],"class_list":["post-3790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-innovation-2","category-inventors","category-patent-law","category-software-patent-high-tech-industry","category-uncategorized","tag-abstract-idea","tag-adam-mossoff","tag-alice","tag-bilski","tag-federal-circuit","tag-graphical-user-interface","tag-gui","tag-kristen-osenga","tag-mark-schultz","tag-mayo","tag-patentability","tag-section-101","tag-trading-technologies"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3790","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3627"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3790"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3790\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16867,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3790\/revisions\/16867"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}