       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

  TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
                 INC.,
                Appellant

                                 v.

     IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
                   Appellees

                    UNITED STATES,
                        Intervenor
                  ______________________

                        2018-1105
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-
00009.
        ------------------------------------------------------------

  TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
                 INC.,
                Appellant

                                 v.

     IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
                   Appellees
2                        TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC




                    UNITED STATES,
                        Intervenor
                  ______________________

                        2018-1302
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-
00054.
        ------------------------------------------------------------

    TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
                   INC.,
                  Appellant

                                 v.

      IBG LLC, INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
                    Appellees

                    UNITED STATES,
                        Intervenor
                  ______________________

                        2018-1438
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-
00087.
        ------------------------------------------------------------

    TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
                   INC.,
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC                    3



                        Appellant

                            v.

   UNITED STATES, ANDREI IANCU, UNDER
      SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF
THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
                   OFFICE,
                  Intervenors
            ______________________

                       2018-1443
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-
00086.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: May 21, 2019
                 ______________________

     MICHAEL DAVID GANNON, Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by LEIF
R. SIGMOND, JR., JENNIFER KURCZ; ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ,
Philadelphia, PA; STEVEN BORSAND, JAY QUENTIN
KNOBLOCH, Trading Technologies International, Inc., Chi-
cago, IL.

   BYRON LEROY PICKARD, Sterne Kessler Goldstein &
Fox, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellees in 2018-
1105, 2018-1302, 2018-1438. Also represented by ROBERT
EVAN SOKOHL, RICHARD M. BEMBEN, JON WRIGHT.

    KATHERINE TWOMEY ALLEN, Appellate Staff, Civil Divi-
sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
DC, argued for intervenor United States. Also represented
4                     TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC




by MARK R. FREEMAN, SCOTT R. MCINTOSH, JOSEPH H.
HUNT; THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA
YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA.

    AMY J. NELSON, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for
intervenor Andrei Iancu in 2018-1443. Also represented by
THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, FARHEENA YASMEEN
RASHEED.
                ______________________

    Before HUGHES, MAYER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
    Trading Technologies International, Inc., appeals four
Covered Business Method Review decisions of the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board finding Trading Technologies’
patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Recently, this
Court issued two precedential opinions affirming Board
decisions finding several of Trading Technologies related
patents unpatentable under § 101. Trading Techs. Int’l,
Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (IBG I);
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (IBG II). The parties submitted supplemental
briefing on whether IBG I dictated the outcome of the
present appeals. The parties also discussed the effect of
IBG I and IBG II at oral argument.
    We are not persuaded by Trading Technologies’
arguments that the patents at issue here, U.S. Patent Nos.
7,412,416 B2; 7,818,247 B2; 7,685,055 B2; and 7,693,768
B2, are distinguishable from the patents invalidated in
IBG I and IBG II. Like IBG I and IBG II, the challenged
patents “focus[] on improving the trader, not the
functioning of the computer.” IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1383; see
also IBG I, 921 F.3d at 1091. Although these patents may
provide different information than the patents in IBG I and
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INT'L v. IBG LLC                     5



IBG II, information is “intangible” and its “particular
content . . . does not change its character as information.”
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353
(Fed. Cir. 2016). We therefore hold that IBG I and IBG II
control and affirm the Board’s decisions.
    We also find Trading Technologies waived its constitu-
tional arguments. See IBG II, 921 F.3d at 1385.
                       AFFIRMED
