This decision concerns an invention that relates to an electronic trading system.
Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0374/21 (User interface for option trading/INTERACTIVE BROKERS) October 11th, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.
Key takeaways
The user interacts with data relating to the price of an asset i.e. cognitive data which lacks technical function and character.
The invention
1. The invention concerns a computer-implemented trading tool for generating and displaying trading information and trading strategies for an option.
The trading tool (Figures 2-5) calculates and displays, in a graphical user interface, the probability distribution of prices of the underlying asset for the option based on market data (Market Implied Probability Distribution MIPD). The MIPD is "trimmed" to include only some strike prices (the price at which the underlying asset can be bought or sold by the option holder). The user may customise the probability distribution based on their own estimates (Customized Probability Distribution CPD). Also the CPD is displayed. The tool presents a number of trading strategies for the option based on the CPD, and the user can select a trading strategy to initiate an order.
Fig. 2 of EP 3 063 724 A1
Claim 1 of the main request
"A computer-implemented method for applying implied probability distributions to generate user customizable electronic orders, the method comprising:
electronically receiving prices of options on an underlying asset from one or more electronic data providers;
computing, using one or more processors and based on the option prices, a market implied probability distribution MIPD of the price for the underlying asset as of a future date, wherein computing the MIPD comprises (a) converting the quotes of options into a set of implied volatilities, one per listed strike price; (b) smoothing the set of implied volatilities to reduce noise; and (c) converting the set of implied volatilities into the market implied probability distribution;
trimming the market implied probability distribution to only certain strike prices and displaying the trimmed market implied probability distribution (MIPD) on a graphical user interface of a user computing device, wherein displaying the MIPD comprises displaying the MIPD as a bar graph comprising a plurality of bars, each bar having a width defined by two prices of the asset, and a height representing the probability the price of the asset falling into the two prices, wherein the height of one or more bars is adjustable by the user;
receiving a user input from the graphical user interface, the user input modifying at least one probability for a given price interval of the MIPD in a first direction, wherein the user input is received via a user activation of a preset control element on the graphical user interface;
generating, using one or more processors, a customized probability distribution (CPD) based on the user input, wherein generating the CPD comprises automatically adjusting probabilities other than the modified probability to maintain a total probability of 1.0 and a reasonable curve, including by (a) automatically adjusting probabilities for prices intervals nearby the given price interval in the first direction and (b) automatically adjusting probabilities for prices intervals other than nearby prices intervals in a second direction, opposite the first direction;
displaying the CPD;
generating, using one or more processors, one or more trading strategies based on the CPD, the trading strategies including multiple component trades;
presenting the one or more trading strategies to the user; receiving a selection of one of the trading strategies; and
initiating electronic orders to one or more electronic marketplaces for the component trades of the selected strategy."
Is it technical?
The examining division considered that the subject-matter of claim 1 was an obvious implementation of a (non-technical) business method on a notoriously known general purpose networked computer system.
The appellant argued that:
1.4 [...] the examining division had overlooked interactions between the technical and non-technical features of the claims. In the appellant's view, the invention was a "technical tool" in the form of a graphical user interface providing a continued and guided human-machine interaction process assisting the user in performing the technical task of adapting a probability distribution of a continuous random variable in a manner which maintained normalisation. The potential for user interfaces providing such functionality to be technical had previously been acknowledged by the Boards of Appeal in, for example, T 336/14 – Presentation of operating instructions/GAMBRO, T 1802/13 – Brain stimulation/CLEVELAND, and T 1185/13.
The Board was not convinced by the argumentation. In particular, the claimed invention assists the user in customising a probability distribution of prices in order to find a trading strategy, which, in the Board's view, is a non-technical task.
In T 336/14 (at point 1.2.4), a distinction was made between information indicating:
- an operation state, a condition, or an event internal to the underlying technical system, prompting the system user to interact with it in a continued and/or guided way for enabling its proper functioning (technical),
- information representing a state of a non-technical application run on that technical system on the other hand (non-technical).
In the context of the invention, the underlying technical system would be the computer system. However, the user rather interacts with data relating to the price of an asset i.e. cognitive data which lacks technical function and character. Thus, the Board judges that the present invention rather falls in the second, non-technical category of information mentioned in T 336/14.
The Board does not not see any technical effect of the claimed invention other than the implementation (in very general terms) of a set of non-technical requirements related to the presentation of information. This implementation would have been obvious to the skilled person.
As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The same applies to the remaining requests. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
