Plaintiff

TradeStation Group, Inc.

3 cases as plaintiff.

Cases
3
Active
0
3 closed
Filed
2016
Top venue
PTAB
1 case
Also appears as a defendant in 1 case → View as defendant

Company profile

TradeStation Group, Inc. ("TradeStation") — Headquarters: 8050 SW 10th Street, Plantation, Florida. Founded 1982 as Omega Research, Inc. by brothers William and Ralph Cruz. It traded on Nasdaq (TRAD) from 1997 until Monex Group, Inc. (TSE: 8698), a Japanese online financial services group, acquired it in June 2011 for roughly $411 million. TradeStation is now a wholly owned subsidiary and intermediate holding company of Monex Group. A proposed 2021 De-SPAC with Quantum FinTech Acquisition Corp. that would have listed it on the NYSE (pre-money equity value cited at $1.3 billion) was terminated in August 2022. Monex's own filings put TradeStation headcount at 714 full-time employees as of December 31, 2021.

Operations. TradeStation is an operating fintech/brokerage group, not an NPE. Principal subsidiary TradeStation Securities, Inc. is a self-clearing broker-dealer and futures commission merchant offering equities, ETFs, equity and index options, commodity/financial futures, and futures options. The TradeStation analysis and trading platform (with the EasyLanguage strategy language) is delivered via desktop, web, mobile, and API integrations, and TradeStation Technologies, Inc. holds the company's intellectual property and licenses the platform to brokers in Japan, China, and Korea. Former affiliates include TradeStation Crypto, Inc. and London-based TradeStation Europe Limited.

Litigation posture. Predominantly a defendant-side operating company. Of four tracked matters, one is a defense: Chart Trading Development, LLC v. TradeStation Group, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01136-JDL (E.D. Tex., Tyler Division, filed December 3, 2015) — a non-practicing entity asserting trading-interface patents in a plaintiff-friendly venue. The three "plaintiff" entries are TradeStation's participation, alongside Interactive Brokers, CQG, and NinjaTrader, as petitioner in PTAB covered-business-method reviews of Chart Trading's patents (e.g., CBM2016-00038/'190 and CBM2016-00039/'611). The Federal Circuit affirmed the adverse PTAB rulings by Rule 36 in December 2018.

Context. The patents at issue cover graphical/electronic trading interfaces — the same technology area as TradeStation's core platform. PTAB records also show TradeStation participating in CBM2015-00161 concerning a Trading Technologies display patent. No ownership, funding, or revenue figures beyond those cited above were verified.

Watchlist

Get alerted when TradeStation Group, Inc. sues again.

Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when TradeStation Group, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.

CQG, Inc. et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC

final written decision; claims invalidated
Docket:
CBM2016-00046
Filed:
2016-03-18
Terminated:
2017-09-01
Patents:7890416

Covered business method review of U.S. Patent No. 7,890,416 brought by CQG, Inc. and other petitioners against patent owner Chart Trading Development, LLC. The PTAB instituted review on September 13, 2016, and issued a final written decision on September 1, 2017, invalidating the claims.

Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC

final written decision; all claims unpatentable; affirmed on appeal
Docket:
CBM2016-00038
Filed:
2016-02-19
Terminated:
2017-08-18
Patents:7113190

Covered Business Method review petition challenging all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,113,190. Instituted August 23, 2016; final written decision August 18, 2017 held all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 103(a) and denied Patent Owner's motion to amend.

Interactive Brokers LLC et al. v. Chart Trading Development, LLC

final written decision; claims unpatentable
Docket:
CBM2016-00039
Filed:
2016-02-19
Terminated:
2017-08-18
Patents:8380611

Covered business method review of U.S. Patent No. 8,380,611. The Board instituted review of claims 1-22 and issued a Final Written Decision on August 18, 2017, holding all claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103(a); the contingent motion to amend was denied.