Intercurrency Software LLC v. IG Group

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: IG Group (England)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00234, E.D. Tex., 05/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant, a non-resident of the U.S., is subject to personal jurisdiction and has regularly conducted business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s foreign exchange (forex) trading platforms infringe three patents related to systems and methods for conducting financial transactions in a user’s preferred currency.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrated financial trading platforms that perform real-time currency conversions, allowing users to view and transact foreign assets in their local or preferred currency, thereby mitigating exchange rate uncertainty.
• Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit belong to the same family; U.S. Patent 10,776,863 is a continuation of U.S. Patent 10,062,107, and U.S. Patent 11,449,930 is a continuation of the ’863 patent. The complaint asserts that the patents were allowed over relevant prior art during prosecution.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107 - "Consolidated Trading Platform", Issued August 28, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art financial systems where an investor trading securities in a foreign currency had to perform currency conversions as a separate, bulk transaction. This created uncertainty, as the investor had "no certain knowledge of what profit or loss he was going to get because the currency exchange rate must be obtained for a bulk amount at another time, which may fluctuate significantly." (’107 Patent, col. 1:55-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "three-tier architecture" comprising a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange, integrated into a single platform (’107 Patent, Fig. 2B). This consolidated platform conducts currency conversions "at a transactional level," allowing it to present all prices, data, and settlements in the trader's preferred currency, thereby providing immediate knowledge of the transaction's value and potential profit or loss (’107 Patent, col. 1:61-67; col. 2:25-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to remove the risk and uncertainty associated with currency fluctuations in international securities trading by embedding the currency conversion process directly into the asset transaction workflow (’107 Patent, col. 2:15-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the following key elements:
  • Providing a trading server coupled to one or more currency exchange servers and one or more market exchange servers.
  • Receiving an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader.
  • Causing a client computer to display an asset in the preferred currency while the asset is traded in a market currency, which involves determining a prevailing exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset by transmitting a request to a market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification when the transaction is performed, which includes calculating a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty.
  • Performing a currency conversion of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,776,863 - "Method And Apparatus For Displaying Trading Assets In A Preferred Currency", Issued September 15, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the '863 Patent addresses the problem of transactional uncertainty caused by fluctuating exchange rates in international trading (’863 Patent, col. 1:53-62).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a trading platform displays an asset's value in a user's preferred currency. A key aspect of this solution is that the displayed "valuation of the asset in the preferred currency changes in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged" (’863 Patent, Claim 1). This provides the trader with a dynamic, real-time view of their position's value in their own currency, reflecting both asset price and foreign exchange movements (’863 Patent, col. 10:8-12).
• Technical Importance: The invention claims to provide a more accurate and real-time financial picture to international traders by ensuring the displayed value reflects the constant flux of currency markets, not just the asset's price changes.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
• Claim 1 recites a method with the following key elements:
  • Coupling a trading server to currency and market exchange servers.
  • Receiving an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader.
  • Causing a client computer to display the asset in the preferred currency.
  • Crucially, the "valuation of the asset in the preferred currency changes in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged."
  • Conducting a transaction and receiving a settlement notification.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930 - "Method And Apparatus For Trading Assets In Different Currencies", Issued September 20, 2022 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent further refines the consolidated trading platform concept. The invention describes a system for trading an asset, where the costs and fees for a transaction are calculated and displayed in a first (preferred) currency based on a first prevailing exchange rate. The final settlement, however, is executed using a second prevailing exchange rate calculated at the moment of the transaction, ensuring the final costs are not identical to the initially displayed costs but are locked in at the time of execution to prevent future fluctuation risk (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-11).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (a system claim) (Compl. ¶68).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's trading servers, which are coupled to currency and market exchange servers, infringe by providing a platform for trading in a preferred currency (Compl. ¶68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as Defendant's "apparatus and method for a consolidated trading platform, including its forex trading platforms and systems" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a screenshot referencing an "award-winning platform" for forex trading (Compl. ¶31, p. 8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentalities enable clients to "trade the global currency markets via spot forex trading" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant operates trading servers in multiple locations, such as London, New York, and Amsterdam, which are coupled to currency and market exchange servers (Compl. ¶36(i)). A screenshot from a third-party source is provided to support the allegation regarding server locations (Compl. p. 10). The platform provides a user interface for viewing markets and executing trades (Compl. p. 11). The complaint asserts Defendant is a "leading forex provider" with "313,000+ clients worldwide" (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’107 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: The patent's specification repeatedly uses "securities" and "stocks" as examples of the traded "asset" (’107 Patent, col. 5:45-48). This raises the question of whether the claims can be construed to read on the accused forex trading platform, where the "assets" being traded are themselves currencies (e.g., EUR/USD).
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system calculates the "prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction takes place" as required by claim 1. What evidence demonstrates that the accused platform performs this specific just-in-time calculation, as opposed to using a continuously streamed or periodically updated rate?
  The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown for the claims of the '863 Patent. The allegations in Count II incorporate the general infringement theories from Count I (Compl. ¶¶48, 52). The following chart is constructed based on those general allegations.

’863 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused platform performs the specific dynamic updating required by Claim 1. The claim requires that the displayed value of an asset in the preferred currency fluctuates due to exchange rate changes, even if the asset's price in its native market currency is static. The complaint's visual evidence does not demonstrate this specific functionality.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "asset"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of "asset" is critical to the scope of all three patents. The patents' examples focus on trading non-currency instruments like stocks, which are priced in a "market currency" different from the trader's "preferred currency" (’107 Patent, col. 5:45-52). The accused platform is for forex trading, where currencies themselves are traded in pairs. Practitioners may focus on whether a currency pair (e.g., EUR/USD) qualifies as an "asset" being traded in a "market currency" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad, non-limiting list of what securities may include: "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts, funds, index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds" (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-24). Plaintiff may argue this expansive list supports interpreting "asset" to include currency pairs.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples consistently describe a scenario where a discrete good (e.g., a stock) is priced in one currency (USD) and viewed by the trader in another (Yen or RMB) (’107 Patent, col. 5:45-52). Defendant may argue that this context limits the term "asset" to a non-currency instrument, distinguishing it from the act of trading currencies themselves.

• The Term: "prevailing exchange rate"

  • Context and Importance: The claims of the '107 and '930 patents require a "prevailing exchange rate" to be calculated at a specific moment in time (e.g., "right before the transaction takes place") to execute the settlement (’107 Patent, Claim 1). The definition of this term will be central to determining if the accused system’s method of obtaining and applying exchange rates infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself, in isolation, could be argued to mean any generally accepted, current exchange rate available to the platform at the time of the transaction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims add significant limiting language, such as being "derived from all exchange rates obtained from the one or more currency exchange servers" (’107 Patent, Claim 1). The specification also refers to this rate being provided by a "participating financial agency" (’107 Patent, col. 5:50-52). This language suggests a specific, potentially multi-source, just-in-time calculation rather than simply using a generic, continuous data feed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant advertises an infringing use and provides user manuals and a platform that instruct and encourage users to perform the infringing methods (Compl. ¶¶41-44, 57-60, 73-76).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶40). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (Compl. ¶45).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asset", which is contextualized in the patents through examples of trading corporate stocks, be construed broadly enough to cover the currency pairs that are the subject of the accused forex trading platform? The resolution of this question may determine whether the patents apply to Defendant's business at all.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused IG platform performs the specific, dynamic functionalities required by the claims? In particular, the case may turn on evidence proving the platform's valuation display changes with exchange rates even when the underlying market price is static (for the ’863 patent) and that it calculates a "prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction" for settlement (for the ’107 and ’930 patents).