Intercurrency Software LLC v. Gate Technology Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Gate Technology Incorporated, d/b/a Gate.io (Cayman Islands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00254, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and conducts regular business in the district, acts of infringement occurred there, and Defendant is not a resident of the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cryptocurrency exchange platform infringes a patent related to a consolidated financial trading system that allows transactions to be conducted in a user's preferred currency.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves financial trading platforms designed to eliminate currency exchange risk for investors by displaying asset prices and settling transactions in a user-selected currency, distinct from the asset's primary market currency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, indicating it follows an Original Complaint previously filed in the litigation. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - "PLATFORM FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701, "PLATFORM FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES", issued April 4, 2023.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulties faced by international investors who wished to trade assets listed on foreign exchanges (e.g., a Chinese investor trading on NASDAQ) (U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701, Fig. 1). Such investors were required to conduct transactions in the market’s local currency (e.g., U.S. dollars), which involved converting a bulk amount of their home currency before trading and converting it back afterward. This process created uncertainty regarding the ultimate profit or loss on a transaction due to fluctuating exchange rates between the time of the bulk conversion and the actual trade (’701 Patent, col. 1:53-60). The patent characterizes this as a system where "currency conversion is not at a transactional level" (’701 Patent, col. 1:61-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem with a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a "three-tier architecture" consisting of a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’701 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2B). This system allows a trader to select a "preferred currency" and then presents all prices, market data, and transaction settlements in that currency by performing currency conversions in real-time at the moment of the transaction (’701 Patent, col. 2:29-35). This integration ensures that "a trader always knows exactly what he/she may end up with a transaction of an asset" (’701 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
• Technical Importance: The described technical approach aimed to provide transactional certainty and mitigate currency fluctuation risk for participants in global financial markets (Compl. ¶¶15-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (’701 Patent, col. 8:46-col. 10:18; Compl. ¶35).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a platform for trading an asset, comprising essential elements including:
  • A trading server coupled to a client machine that receives an indicator of a "first currency" (the preferred currency).
  • The trading server is configured to couple to at least one "currency exchange server" and at least one "market exchange server."
  • The server calculates and displays costs and fees for an asset (traded in a "second currency") in the user's "first currency."
  • The displayed costs are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
  • The server conducts a transaction by sending a request to the market exchange server.
  • The server reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated at the time of the transaction.
• Independent Claim 8 recites a similar platform for trading an asset, with elements including:
  • A client machine executing software to send an indicator of a "first currency" to a trading server.
  • The server is coupled to at least one currency and market exchange server and calculates costs/fees in the "first currency" for an asset traded in a "second currency."
  • The client machine displays dynamically changing costs based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
  • A transaction is conducted in the trading server.
  • The client machine receives a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate."
• The complaint notes that these claims are asserted "As exemplary," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Gate US trading platforms and systems," which are part of the Gate.io global brand, are identified as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶¶3-4, 30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a "crypto exchange platform" that provides trade, investment, and digital wallet services for over 1300 cryptocurrencies (Compl. ¶3). It is alleged to be a "consolidated trading platform" that operates in the United States and serves U.S. customers (Compl. ¶¶4, 30).
• A screenshot in the complaint depicts the Gate.io user interface for trading the Bitcoin/Tether (BTC/USDT) pair, showing real-time price charts, an order book, and buy/sell functions (Compl. p. 8). This interface is alleged to embody the infringing system (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

• Claim Chart Summary: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s trading servers, currency exchange servers, and market exchange servers collectively form the infringing system (Compl. ¶35). The screenshot of the BTC/USDT trading interface provides a visual basis for the allegation that the platform displays an asset (BTC) in a preferred currency (USDT) (Compl. p. 8).

U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the patent's claims, which arise from the context of traditional securities and foreign exchange (forex) markets, can be construed to cover cryptocurrency transactions. This raises the question of whether a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin qualifies as an "asset" and whether a stablecoin like USDT functions as a "currency" within the meaning of the claims as understood at the time of the invention.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused platform uses a multi-server architecture (trading, currency exchange, market exchange servers) (Compl. ¶35). A point of contention may be whether the Gate.io platform, which facilitates trading of a cryptocurrency pair like BTC/USDT, actually implements the distinct "three-tier architecture" described in the patent (’701 Patent, Fig. 2B), or if it utilizes a more integrated system where pricing and exchange are not functionally or architecturally separate in the manner claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "currency exchange server"

• Context and Importance: The patent’s claimed architecture requires coupling a trading server to both a "market exchange server" and a "currency exchange server." The viability of the infringement theory may depend on whether the functionality of pricing one cryptocurrency in terms of another (e.g., BTC in USDT) on a single platform constitutes the use of a distinct "currency exchange server."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, describing the server as representing "a bank, an exchange agency, a multibank portal or a matching service providing a currency exchange rate to buy or sell a type of currency for another" (’701 Patent, col. 5:1-4). Plaintiff could argue this broad language covers any system component, internal or external, that provides exchange rate data.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2A of the patent depicts the currency exchange server (206), asset/market exchange server (210), and brokerage server (208) as architecturally separate components communicating over a network. Defendant could argue this requires physically or logically distinct systems, not the integrated functions of a single cryptocurrency exchange platform.

• The Term: "asset"

• Context and Importance: The claims cover a platform for trading an "asset." Whether cryptocurrencies, which were nascent at the patent’s 2007 priority date, fall within this term's scope is fundamental to the infringement case.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of asset types, including "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts," among others (’701 Patent, col. 2:19-23). Plaintiff may argue this list is merely exemplary and that "asset" should be interpreted broadly to include any electronically tradable instrument of value, including cryptocurrencies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and examples are rooted in traditional financial markets, referencing entities like Charles Schwab and instruments like stocks and oil contracts on the NYMEX (’701 Patent, col. 1:27-44; col. 6:16-20). Defendant may argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2007 would have understood "asset" in this traditional financial context, which did not include cryptocurrencies.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant took active steps such as "advertising an infringing use" that would lead users to infringe the patent (Compl. ¶¶41, 43).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent gained from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶39). It further alleges willful blindness based on a purported "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others first for clearance" before launching products (Compl. ¶44).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological translation: can the patent’s claim limitations, drafted with reference to the architecture of traditional finance (separate brokerages, market exchanges, and forex dealers), be mapped onto the functionally different and more integrated architecture of a modern cryptocurrency exchange? The case may turn on whether trading a cryptocurrency pair is equivalent to trading an asset while simultaneously performing a currency conversion as contemplated by the patent.
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: does the term "asset," as used in the patent with a 2007 priority date, encompass cryptocurrencies? The court's construction of this term, based on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time, could be dispositive.
• Finally, a central evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: beyond the user interface, what evidence can Plaintiff provide that the back-end system of the Gate.io platform actually operates using the distinct server components (market exchange vs. currency exchange) required by the claims?