Intercurrency Software LLC v. BG Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: BG Limited (Republic of Seychelles) and Singapore Bitget Pte Ltd (Singapore)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00256, E.D. Tex., 04/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has regularly conducted business there, the alleged acts of infringement occurred in the district, and Defendant is not a resident of the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cryptocurrency trading platform infringes three patents related to systems and methods for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency by integrating real-time currency exchange data.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses integrated financial trading platforms that display and execute trades in a user-selected currency, even when the underlying asset is priced and traded in a different market currency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents claim priority to 2007 and alleges that the inventions were novel and non-routine at the time. It also states that patent examiners considered and rejected arguments against patent eligibility during prosecution.

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 a foreign investor trading assets in a different country (e.g., a Chinese investor trading U.S. stocks) had to perform separate, bulk currency conversions before and after trading. This created uncertainty about the actual profit or loss of a transaction because the exchange rate could fluctuate between the time of the trade and the time of the bulk conversion (’107 Patent, col. 1:36-60). The patent characterizes this as the lack of "currency conversion at a transactional level" (’107 Patent, col. 1:61-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "three-tier architecture" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a single consolidated platform (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-28). This system allows a trader to view all prices and conduct all transactions in a "preferred currency." It does so by using prevailing exchange rates to convert prices from the market currency in real-time, so a trader "always knows exactly what he/she may end up with" (’107 Patent, col. 2:31-36).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to remove the risk and complexity of currency fluctuations from international trading by embedding the conversion process directly into the transaction workflow (’107 Patent, col. 2:1-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 as exemplary (Compl. ¶38).
• The 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.
  • Conducting a transaction by transmitting a request to the market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and, critically, calculating the prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to execute the transaction and "prevent uncertainty in currency exchanges in another time."
  • Performing a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency using the calculated rate.
• The complaint suggests other claims may be asserted later by noting that "No single claim is representative" (Compl. ¶16).

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: Similar to its parent patent, the ’863 Patent addresses the uncertainty investors face when trading assets denominated in a foreign currency, where the ultimate profit or loss is subject to exchange rate risk managed through separate, non-transactional conversions (’863 Patent, col. 1:55-63).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for trading where a trading server, coupled to external exchanges, displays an asset's price in a trader’s preferred currency by applying a prevailing exchange rate. A key feature is that the asset's valuation 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 the asset's cost or value in their own currency (’863 Patent, col. 2:30-38).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a technical method to give traders continuous, real-time pricing in their home currency, aiming to simplify cross-border investment decisions and risk management (’863 Patent, col.2:53-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 as exemplary (Compl. ¶54).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Coupling a trading server to currency and market exchange servers.
  • Receiving an indicator of a trader's preferred currency.
  • Displaying the asset in the preferred currency by determining a prevailing exchange rate between the preferred and market currencies.
  • The valuation of the asset in the preferred currency changes dynamically with the exchange rate, even if the market value of the asset is static.
  • Conducting a transaction and receiving a settlement notification.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent 11,449,930

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 11,449,930, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES, Issued Sep. 20, 2022.
• Technology Synopsis: Continuing the theme of the patent family, the ’930 patent discloses a method for trading assets across different currencies. The system calculates and displays costs for an asset in a trader's selected "first currency" while the asset is traded in a "second currency," using a dynamically updated "first prevailing exchange rate." A key aspect is the calculation of a "second prevailing exchange rate" immediately before the transaction executes, ensuring the final settlement reflects the most current rate to avoid uncertainty from currency fluctuations during the trading process. (’930 Patent, Claim 1, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 12 as exemplary (Compl. ¶70).
• Accused Features: The infringement allegations target the Defendant's trading platform, specifically its use of a trading server coupled with currency and market exchange servers to facilitate cross-currency transactions (Compl. ¶70).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the "Bitget trading platforms and systems" (Compl. ¶33).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The Bitget platform is a cryptocurrency exchange that enables users to trade digital assets, such as Bitcoin (BTC) against Tether (USDT) (Compl. ¶¶5, 33). A screenshot of the Bitget BTC/USDT spot trading interface is provided, showing a price chart, order book, and trading controls (Compl. ¶33, p. 8).
  • The complaint alleges that Bitget is a "leading cryptocurrency exchange" serving over 20 million users worldwide and that it has obtained a U.S. MSB (Money Services Business) License from FinCEN, which Plaintiff asserts demonstrates an intent to serve the U.S. market (Compl. ¶¶5, 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’107 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain or attach a formal claim chart exhibit. The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 1 based on the narrative descriptions provided in the complaint.

'863 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an Exhibit A for its detailed infringement allegations concerning the ’863 Patent, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶54). The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that the Bitget platform infringes Claim 1 by providing a trading server coupled to currency and market exchange servers, which operates to display and transact assets in a preferred currency (Compl. ¶54). The allegations for the ’863 Patent appear to track the general theory asserted for the '107 Patent.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patents were filed in 2007, with a specification focused on traditional financial instruments like stocks and established exchanges ('107 Patent, col. 5:4-6; '863 Patent, col. 5:4-6). A central dispute may arise over whether claim terms such as "market exchange server" and "currency exchange server" can be interpreted to cover the integrated architecture of a modern cryptocurrency platform, which did not exist in the same form at the time of invention.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 of the ’107 Patent requires a specific function: calculating an exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" for the express purpose of preventing "uncertainty." A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused platform performs this just-in-time calculation for each transaction, as opposed to merely displaying a price based on a periodically refreshed (but not transaction-specific) exchange rate.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "currency exchange server"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed "three-tier architecture." The patent depicts it as a distinct component from the "market exchange server" ('107 Patent, FIG. 2A). In modern cryptocurrency exchanges, the functions of asset trading and currency/token swapping are often deeply integrated. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether an integrated crypto platform, which may not have a separately identifiable "currency exchange server," falls within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating it can be a "bank, an exchange agency, a multibank portal or a matching service providing a currency exchange rate" (’107 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:2). This functional language may support an interpretation that covers any system component providing the necessary rate data, regardless of its specific implementation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: FIG. 2A and the accompanying description depict the "currency exchange" (206), "brokerage" (208), and "asset exchange" (210) as distinct entities communicating over a network (’107 Patent, col. 4:40-65). This could support a narrower construction requiring structurally or logically separate components, which may not be present in the accused platform.

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

  • Context and Importance: This temporal limitation in Claim 1 of the '107 Patent is tied to the invention's stated goal of preventing uncertainty. The dispute will likely center on the meaning of "right before."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the term should be interpreted functionally in light of the problem solved—moving from bulk, delayed conversions to transactional ones. From this perspective, any rate obtained close enough in time to the transaction to provide substantial certainty could be considered "right before."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's linkage of this step to the purpose of preventing "uncertainty" and the specification's promise that a trader "always knows exactly" the outcome suggests a strict temporal requirement (’107 Patent, col. 2:34-36, col. 9:20-22). This could support a construction requiring a just-in-time rate query performed specifically for that transaction, not simply the use of a recently cached rate.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement, particularly after receiving notice of the patents via the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶43-44, 59-60, 75-76). The basis for inducement includes "advertising an infringing use" and providing a product that necessarily infringes when used as intended (Compl. ¶¶46, 62, 78).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories. First, the complaint pleads that infringement will be willful from the date of service of the complaint forward (Compl. ¶¶42, 58, 74). Second, it alleges pre-suit willful blindness, asserting that Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (Compl. ¶¶47, 63, 79).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological scope: Can claim terms such as "market exchange server" and "currency exchange server", which were defined in the 2007 context of segregated, traditional financial institutions, be construed to read on the highly integrated, and often decentralized, architecture of a modern cryptocurrency trading platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional precision: Does the accused Bitget platform perform the specific, time-sensitive function of calculating a "prevailing exchange rate right before the transaction takes place" to "prevent uncertainty" as required by Claim 1 of the ’107 patent, or does it utilize a more general, periodically-refreshed pricing display that falls short of this limitation?
• A central legal question may revolve around patent eligibility: Given that the patents claim methods for conducting financial transactions on a computer system, the case may turn on whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, if so, whether they contain a sufficient "inventive concept" to transform that idea into a patent-eligible application.