Intercurrency Software LLC v. Blockchain GB Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Blockchain (Gb) Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00369, E.D. Tex., 08/16/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has conducted business there, and is not a resident of the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Blockchain.com cryptocurrency trading platforms and systems infringe three patents related to consolidated financial trading platforms that perform real-time currency conversions.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves financial trading systems designed to allow users to view pricing for and transact in assets using a preferred currency, even when the asset is natively traded in a different market currency.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a family originating from a 2007 application. The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit have been cited by patents issued to Bank of America. The complaint also makes several arguments anticipating a patent eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101, asserting that the patent claims are not abstract and were found allowable by multiple patent examiners over relevant prior art.

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 investors trading foreign assets had to conduct transactions in the asset's native currency (e.g., U.S. Dollars) (Compl. ¶15). This required separate bulk currency conversions before and after trading, creating significant uncertainty about the final profit or loss due to exchange rate fluctuations between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’107 Patent, col. 1:53-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-33). This system allows a trader to select a "preferred currency" and then presents all prices, transaction data, and settlements in that currency, performing the necessary currency conversion "at a transactional level" to eliminate uncertainty (’107 Patent, col. 1:63-65; col. 2:33-38).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to remove the risk and ambiguity associated with currency fluctuations from international financial transactions by integrating the currency conversion directly into the trading workflow (’107 Patent, col. 2:1-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 as exemplary (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • 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, with costs and fees dynamically changed in accordance with a constantly updated prevailing exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction by transmitting a request to the market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and, critically, configuring the trading server to calculate the prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" and executing the transaction with that calculated rate "to prevent uncertainty in currency exchanges in another time."
  • Performing a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency using the calculated prevailing exchange rate.

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: Similar to the ’107 Patent, this patent addresses the problem of traders facing financial uncertainty and risk when trading assets priced in a foreign currency due to the need for separate currency conversion steps (’863 Patent, col. 1:50-col. 2:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a trading server displays an asset to a user in their preferred currency. A key aspect 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 ensures the trader has a real-time, accurate understanding of the asset's value in their own currency.
• Technical Importance: The invention emphasizes the user-facing display, providing a dynamic valuation that reflects not only asset price changes but also real-time currency exchange rate fluctuations (’863 Patent, col. 8:1-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 as exemplary (Compl. ¶51).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Coupling a trading server to currency and market exchange servers.
  • Receiving an indicator of a preferred currency.
  • Causing a client computer to display the asset in the preferred currency, where the asset's valuation dynamically changes with the exchange rate, even if the asset's market price remains unchanged.
  • Displaying dynamically changing costs and fees.
  • Conducting a transaction upon the trader's instruction.
  • Receiving a settlement notification, where the trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty.

U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930 - “Method and Apparatus for Trading Assets in Different Currencies,” issued September 20, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’930 Patent describes a system for trading assets across different currencies. The invention focuses on calculating and displaying costs and fees in a user's selected first currency, dynamically updating them based on a prevailing exchange rate, and then conducting the transaction using a second, re-calculated exchange rate obtained immediately before execution to ensure accuracy and prevent uncertainty (’930 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system Claim 12 as exemplary (Compl. ¶67).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's trading servers, coupled with currency and market exchange servers, provide the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the "Blockchain.com trading platforms and systems," which include associated websites and software applications (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these platforms provide an apparatus and method for a "consolidated trading platform" allowing users to buy, sell, and swap cryptocurrency assets (Compl. ¶¶30, 35). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Blockchain.com mobile app interface, illustrating a user flow for purchasing Bitcoin (Compl. p. 8). Another visual shows the web-based exchange interface for trading a BTC-USD pair (Compl. p. 9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "generates substantial financial revenues and benefits" from these platforms (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’107 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "asset," as described in a 2007-priority patent with examples like "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold)" (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23), can be construed to cover cryptocurrencies, which are the subject of the accused platform.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused platform performs the specific function of calculating a "prevailing exchange rate... right before the transaction takes place" and then uses that distinct, just-in-time rate to execute the transaction, as required by the claim? The complaint alleges this functionality but does not detail how the accused system technically achieves it (Compl. ¶35(v)).

’863 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a limitation-by-limitation breakdown of infringement for the ’863 Patent. It makes a general allegation that Claim 1 is infringed by Defendant's provision of "a trading server, such as the Defendant trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers" (Compl. ¶51). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a tabular analysis of the infringement allegations against the specific elements of Claim 1 of the ’863 Patent.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A key limitation in Claim 1 of the ’863 Patent requires that the "valuation of the asset in the preferred currency changes in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate... even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged." The complaint does not allege facts demonstrating that the accused platform performs this specific function. The dispute may focus on whether there is evidence that a change in a fiat currency exchange rate (e.g., USD to EUR) causes a corresponding, real-time change in the displayed price of a cryptocurrency on the platform, independent of that cryptocurrency's own market price movements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "asset"

  • Context and Importance: The patents were filed in 2007 and describe traditional financial instruments, while the accused products involve cryptocurrencies. The construction of "asset" is critical to determining if the patent's scope covers the accused technology. Practitioners may focus on this term as its scope could be case-dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that securities include "a wide array of electronically traded financial assets such as stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts, funds, index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds" (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23). The use of "such as" and the open-ended nature of the list may support a broad definition not limited to the enumerated examples.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the specific examples provided in the patent relates to traditional, centralized financial instruments (’107 Patent, col. 1:40-44, col. 9:49-65). A party could argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2007 would have understood "asset" only within this traditional financial context, not encompassing decentralized digital currencies which were not widely known or traded at the time.

• The Term: "prevailing exchange rate ... right before the transaction takes place"

  • Context and Importance: This temporal and functional language appears in the asserted claims of both lead patents and is central to the "problem solved" by the invention—preventing uncertainty. The definition is critical for determining whether the accused system's method of handling exchange rates meets the specific requirements of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be interpreted to mean a generally available market rate at or near the time of the transaction. The patent refers to a "published exchange rate" which could support a less restrictive definition (’107 Patent, col. 9:52-53).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language ties the rate to a specific action ("calculate") and a specific time ("right before the transaction takes place") for a specific purpose ("to prevent uncertainty") (’107 Patent, col. 9:16-22). This suggests a specific, discrete technical step of obtaining a new, executable rate for the individual transaction, rather than simply using a continuously updating, but not necessarily transaction-specific, price feed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For all three patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The allegations are based on Defendant making the infringing systems available and on "advertising an infringing use, which supports a finding of an intention for the accused product to be used in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶¶43, 59, 75).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on post-suit knowledge, with the complaint asserting that infringement "will now be willful through the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶39, 55, 71). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, based on an asserted "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others first for clearance" before product launch (Compl. ¶¶44, 60, 76).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the term "asset", which is described in the 2007-priority patents using examples from traditional finance like stocks and oil contracts, be construed to cover modern, decentralized cryptocurrencies? This question will likely be central to both claim construction and potential patent eligibility disputes.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the accused Blockchain.com platform perform the specific, time-sensitive function of calculating a new "prevailing exchange rate right before the transaction takes place" and using that unique rate to execute the trade, as explicitly required by the claims to "prevent uncertainty"? The case may turn on whether the accused system’s operation can be proven to match this precise technical mechanism or if it employs a more conventional transaction model.