I'll research this entity before writing the profile.
Let me verify ownership details and the entity's background.
Chart Trading Development, LLC ("CTD") is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business at 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 609, Tyler, Texas — an address in the Eastern District of Texas's Tyler Division. It was formed as a patent-holding vehicle: in a November 23, 2015 assignment recorded with the USPTO, BGC Partners, Inc. transferred a portfolio of electronic-trading patents to CTD, and CTD filed suit against four groups of brokerage defendants ten days later. CTD is not publicly traded and files no financials; no employee count or revenue is verifiable, and sources describe it as a subsidiary-affiliated entity of BGC Partners (the entity's PTAB mandatory notices identify Chart Trading Development, LLC, BGC Partners, L.P., BGC Partners, Inc., and Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. as real parties-in-interest). Unified Patents classifies the owner as an NPE/patent assertion entity.
Operations. CTD has no operating business, products, or services. Its assets are US patents covering graphical trading interfaces and chart-based order entry — including Nos. 7,113,190; 7,890,416; 8,041,626; 8,060,435; 8,380,611; 7,696,997; and 9,875,507 — originally assigned to eSpeed, Inc. / BGC Partners and naming inventor Timothy H. Heaton. The claims recite user interfaces for displaying market graphs, trading dialog boxes, and configurable order-entry screens.
Litigation posture. CTD is a one-directional plaintiff: all four district-court cases are suits it filed (Dec. 3, 2015, E.D. Tex., Tyler Division) against CQG, NinjaTrader, Interactive Brokers, and TradeStation, consolidated into lead case 6:15-cv-1136 and reportedly asserting five patents against roughly 32 defendants. Its five "defendant" entries are not infringement suits but Covered Business Method reviews the accused brokers filed against it at the PTAB in February–March 2016.
Notable cases. The CBM petitions (CBM2016-00038, -00039, -00046, -00047, -00048) were all instituted, and the PTAB's August–September 2017 final written decisions held the challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and/or § 103. The Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 in December 2018. BGC and Cantor separately filed an amicus brief urging Supreme Court review of the PTAB's CBM "technological invention" exception, using this litigation as the illustration.