Intercurrency Software LLC v. Bingx SG Pte Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Bingx SG Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00217, E.D. Tex., 03/28/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States and has conducted business and committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cryptocurrency trading platform infringes three U.S. patents related to systems and methods for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves financial trading platforms that allow users to view prices and settle transactions in a local or preferred currency, even when the underlying asset is traded in a different market currency, by applying real-time currency exchange rates at the point of transaction.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff is the sole owner of the patents-in-suit by assignment. It also notes the patents have been cited in the prosecution of patents issued to other entities, including Bank of America.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent 10,062,107, “CONSOLIDATED TRADING PLATFORM,” Issued Aug. 28, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art financial systems where an investor trading assets in a foreign market (e.g., a Chinese investor buying U.S. stocks) had to perform separate, bulk currency conversions before and after trading (Compl. ¶15; ’107 Patent, col. 1:41-55). This created uncertainty regarding the ultimate profit or loss, as the exchange rate could fluctuate between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion, meaning the conversion was not performed at a "transactional level" (Compl. ¶16; ’107 Patent, col. 1:60-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this with a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a "three-tier architecture" (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-28, Fig. 2B). This platform presents all prices, data, and transaction results to the user in their "preferred currency" by applying a prevailing exchange rate at the time of the transaction, thereby allowing a trader to "always know exactly what he/she may end up with" (Compl. ¶18-19; ’107 Patent, col. 2:28-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to eliminate the risk and uncertainty associated with exchange rate fluctuations that occur after a trade is executed but before the funds are converted back to an investor's home currency (’107 Patent, col. 2:33-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Providing a trading server coupled to currency and 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 it is traded in a market currency, which involves determining a prevailing exchange rate and displaying all costs and fees in the preferred currency.
  • Conducting a transaction by transmitting a request to the market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and performing a currency conversion of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency. This conversion uses a calculated prevailing exchange rate obtained "right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent 10,776,863, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING TRADING ASSETS IN A PREFERRED CURRENCY,” Issued Sep. 15, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’107 Patent, the ’863 Patent addresses the same problem: the lack of transactional-level currency conversion in financial trading, leading to investor uncertainty about profit and loss (Compl. ¶15-16; ’863 Patent, col. 1:56-65).
• The Patented Solution: This patent also describes a method for trading an asset using a "three-tier architecture" (’863 Patent, col. 2:25-28). It specifically claims a method where a trading server displays an asset's value in a user's preferred currency, with the displayed value dynamically changing in accordance with constantly updated exchange rates, even when the asset's market value remains unchanged (’863 Patent, col. 9:1-5). The method involves executing the transaction and settlement using a prevailing exchange rate calculated just before the transaction occurs (’863 Patent, col. 9:10-21).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a system where a trader can see the real-time value of a foreign asset in their home currency, accounting for both market price and currency exchange rate fluctuations simultaneously (’863 Patent, col. 10:1-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Coupling a trading server to one or more 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 while it is traded in a market currency, where the valuation changes with the prevailing exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction and executing it with a calculated prevailing exchange rate to prevent uncertainty.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent 11,449,930, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES,” Issued Sep. 20, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: Continuing from the same patent family, the ’930 Patent describes a system for trading assets across different currencies. The technology focuses on a trading server that calculates and displays the costs to own or sell an asset in a trader's preferred (first) currency, even though the asset is traded in a different (second) market currency, with the displayed costs dynamically changing based on a first prevailing exchange rate (’930 Patent, Abstract, Claim 12). When a transaction is executed, the settlement is based on a second prevailing exchange rate calculated immediately before the transaction, resulting in settlement costs that are not identical to the initially displayed costs (’930 Patent, Claim 12).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 12 (Compl. ¶67).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the BingX platform, by providing a trading server that facilitates cryptocurrency trades across different currencies, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "BingX trading platforms and systems" and all augmentations, collectively referred to as the "Accused instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶30).
• Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Instrumentalities constitute a cryptocurrency trading platform (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges the platform is operated by Defendant and used by citizens in the United States (Compl. ¶4). The complaint provides a screenshot of the BingX P2P trading interface, showing offers to sell the USDT stablecoin for USD (Compl. p. 8). Functionally, the complaint alleges the platform comprises a trading server connected to both currency and market exchange servers, which allows users to select a preferred currency and view and transact assets based on that preference (Compl. ¶35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,062,107 Infringement Allegations

10,776,863 Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis of the ’863 Patent. It alleges infringement of Claim 1 and states in a conclusory manner that Defendant "practices and provides 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). This allegation appears to map only to the first element of Claim 1, without providing specific factual allegations for the other claim elements concerning displaying asset values and conducting transactions.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patents-in-suit, with a 2007 priority date, describe the invention in the context of traditional financial "securities" and "assets" like stocks, bonds, and oil (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23). A central question may be whether the scope of "asset" as used in the claims can be construed to read on the cryptocurrencies (e.g., USDT) traded on the accused BingX platform.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require a specific "three-tier architecture" and interactions, such as a "trading server" calculating a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" (’107 Patent, Claim 1). An evidentiary question will be whether the BingX platform's architecture functions in the manner claimed, or if it uses a different technical approach, such as relying on third-party price feeds or APIs in a way that does not meet the claim limitations for an integrated "trading server" coupled to distinct "currency exchange" and "market exchange" servers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "asset"

  • Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical because the patents were drafted before the widespread adoption of cryptocurrency. The specification's examples are traditional financial instruments. The infringement case depends on whether this term can encompass the cryptocurrencies traded on the accused platform.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that securities "include, but are not limited to, a wide array of electronically traded financial assets such as stocks, bonds, options, commodities..." (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23). Plaintiff may argue that "include, but are not limited to" indicates the list is merely exemplary and the term "asset" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which is broad enough to cover digital assets.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the examples provided in the specification consists of conventional financial instruments (’107 Patent, col. 2:22-23). Defendant may argue that the context of the invention limits the scope of "asset" to the types of instruments contemplated by a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2007, which would not have included cryptocurrencies.

• The Term: "trading server"

  • Context and Importance: The asserted independent claims are centered on actions performed by or within a "trading server." The degree of integration and control required by this term will be a key point of dispute, as the complaint alleges the accused platform "provides a trading server" that performs the claimed functions (Compl. ¶35(i)).
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent. Plaintiff may argue it should be construed functionally to mean any server or system of servers that performs the recited steps of receiving currency preferences, displaying prices, and executing transactions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a "three-tier architecture" comprising a "brokerage," a "market exchange," and a "currency exchange," which are depicted as distinct servers (208, 210, and 206, respectively) in Figure 2A (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-28, Fig. 2A). Defendant may argue that the "trading server" corresponds to the "brokerage" server (208) and must be a component within this specific architecture, and that infringement requires proof that the accused system embodies this same structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that with notice from the complaint, Defendant's continued actions, such as "advertising an infringing use," will induce its users to directly infringe (Compl. ¶41, ¶43, ¶57).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving notice of the patents via the complaint (Compl. ¶39, ¶55, ¶71). The complaint also pleads willful blindness, alleging that Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (Compl. ¶44, ¶60, ¶76).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asset," which is described in the 2007-priority patents with examples from traditional finance like stocks and commodities, be construed to cover the modern cryptocurrencies traded on Defendant's platform? The outcome of this question may significantly influence the entire infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused BingX platform operate using the specific "three-tier" server architecture (brokerage, market exchange, currency exchange) described and claimed in the patents, or is its technical implementation sufficiently different to fall outside the scope of the claims?
• A potential procedural question is one of pleading sufficiency: while the infringement allegations for the ’107 Patent are detailed on an element-by-element basis, the allegations for the ’863 and ’930 Patents are substantially more conclusory. This raises the question of whether the allegations for the latter two patents meet the plausibility threshold required to survive a motion to dismiss.