DCT
2:24-cv-00381
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Wirex Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Bitsgap Holding OU (Estonia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00381, E.D. Tex., 09/13/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a non-U.S. resident, is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district through substantial business contacts and acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automated cryptocurrency trading platform infringes four patents related to a consolidated financial trading system that enables transactions in a user’s preferred currency.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates cross-currency financial transactions by integrating real-time currency conversion, allowing traders to view and execute trades in a single preferred currency, irrespective of the asset's native market currency.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint asserts that Defendant received actual notice of the patents-in-suit upon service of the original complaint in this litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2018-08-28 | U.S. Patent 10,062,107 Issues |
| 2020-09-15 | U.S. Patent 10,776,863 Issues |
| 2022-09-20 | U.S. Patent 11,449,930 Issues |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent 11,620,701 Issues |
| 2024-09-13 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent 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 cross-currency transactions required separate currency conversion steps either before or after the asset trade. This created uncertainty for the trader, who had "no certain knowledge of what profit or loss he was going to get" due to exchange rate fluctuations between the time of the trade and the time of currency conversion (Compl. ¶15; ’107 Patent, col. 1:52-60).
- 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. 2:24-33). This system allows a trader to view prices and execute transactions entirely in a preferred "home" currency, with the platform performing the necessary currency conversion "at a transactional level" to provide certainty on the final cost or profit (’107 Patent, col. 1:61-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to remove a key point of friction and risk in international securities trading by providing real-time, integrated price certainty for cross-currency transactions (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- 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.
- Displaying an asset in the preferred currency by determining a prevailing exchange rate and dynamically changing displayed costs and fees based on that rate.
- Conducting a transaction by sending a request to the market exchange server.
- Receiving a settlement notification and executing the transaction with a newly calculated prevailing exchange rate obtained "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 for this patent.
U.S. Patent 10,776,863, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING TRADING ASSETS IN A PREFERRED CURRENCY,” issued September 15, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same deficiencies as the parent ’107 Patent: prior art systems did not allow traders to "knows exactly what profit or loss may occur with a transaction" because currency conversion was not performed at the transactional level (’863 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a trading server, coupled to market and currency exchanges, determines a prevailing exchange rate to display an asset's valuation and associated costs in a trader's preferred currency (’863 Patent, col. 10:1-15). The platform is configured to execute the trade and settlement using an exchange rate calculated immediately prior to the transaction to "prevent uncertainty in currency exchanges in another time" (’863 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for a trading system to present a persistent, real-time view of asset values in a user's chosen currency, abstracting away the complexities of the underlying market and currency exchanges (Compl. ¶17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- Coupling a trading server to currency and market exchange servers.
- Receiving an indicator of a preferred currency.
- Displaying the asset in the preferred currency, where the valuation changes in accordance with a constantly updated prevailing exchange rate.
- Displaying dynamically changing costs and fees.
- Conducting a transaction by transmitting a request.
- Receiving a settlement notification and executing the transaction using a prevailing exchange rate calculated "right before the transaction takes place."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent 11,449,930, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES,” issued September 20, 2022
- Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same theme, this patent describes a system for trading assets across different currencies. Its claims focus on a trading server that displays dynamically updated costs and fees in a preferred currency and, upon execution, concludes a settlement where the final costs and fees are "not identical to the displayed costs and fees before the transaction of the asset took place" (’930 Patent, cl. 12; Compl. ¶13).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶75).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendant’s trading server, which it claims is coupled to one or more currency and market exchange servers (Compl. ¶75).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent 11,620,701, “PLATFORM FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES,” issued April 4, 2023
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a platform for trading an asset from a client machine, where a trading server calculates and displays costs and fees in a first (preferred) currency while the asset is traded in a second (market) currency. The costs are dynamically changed based on a first prevailing exchange rate, and the final transaction is executed using a second, newly calculated prevailing exchange rate (’701 Patent, cl. 8).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 8 are asserted (Compl. ¶91).
- Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against Defendant’s trading server, which is claimed to be coupled to currency and market exchange servers (Compl. ¶91).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Bitsgap platforms and systems," which provide "automated digital crypto currency trading" (Compl. ¶3, ¶38).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentality is a cryptocurrency trading automation platform that permits users to create "automated trading rules and strategies for major crypto exchanges" (Compl. ¶38). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the Bitsgap homepage advertising a "Smarter way to automate your crypto trading," which includes features like "crypto trading bots, algorithmic orders, portfolio management and free Demo mode" (Compl. p. 11). The complaint alleges that Defendant "generates substantial financial revenues and benefits" from the sale and operation of these instrumentalities (Compl. ¶42).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’107 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a trading server coupled to one or more currency exchange servers and one or more market exchange servers; | Defendant provides "its trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, and one or more market exchange servers." | ¶43(i) | col. 4:65-10 |
| receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader; | Defendant's system receives "an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader." | ¶43(ii) | col. 3:1-3 |
| causing a client computer associated with the trader to display at least an asset in the preferred currency while the asset is being traded in a market currency... | Defendant's system causes a client computer "to display at least an asset in the preferred currency while the asset is being traded in a market currency." | ¶43(iii) | col. 6:53-56 |
| conducting in the trading server a transaction of the asset by transmitting a transaction request from the trading server to a market exchange server... | Defendant's system conducts a transaction "by transmitting a transaction request from the trading server to a market exchange server." | ¶43(iv) | col. 6:7-10 |
| receiving a settlement notification in the trading server when the transaction...is performed..., wherein the...trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate from all exchange rates obtained...right before the transaction takes place...and executes the transaction with the calculated prevailing exchange rate... | Defendant's server receives a settlement notification and is "configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction takes place...and executes the transaction with the calculated prevailing exchange rate." | ¶43(v) | col. 9:10-23 |
| performing a currency conversion of some portion or all of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency... | Defendant's system performs "a currency conversion...with the calculated prevailing exchange rate." | ¶43(vi) | col. 9:24-28 |
’863 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| coupling a trading server to one or more currency exchange servers and one or more market exchange servers; | Defendant 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." | ¶59 | col. 3:1-4 |
| receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader; | Defendant's platform receives a preferred currency indicator from a user, as the platform operates based on user-selected trading pairs and rules. | ¶59 | col. 9:1-3 |
| causing a client computer associated with the trader to display the asset in the preferred currency while the asset is being traded in a market currency... | Defendant's platform displays crypto asset values, which are necessarily in a preferred currency (e.g., USDT) while being traded on various market exchanges. | ¶59 | col. 9:4-8 |
| conducting in the trading server a transaction of the asset by transmitting a transaction request... | The platform conducts trades by sending transaction requests to market exchange servers on behalf of the user. | ¶59 | col. 9:36-40 |
| receiving a settlement notification..., wherein the trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate from all exchange rates obtained...right before the transaction takes place... | The complaint alleges Defendant’s servers perform the claimed function of calculating and executing with a prevailing exchange rate. | ¶59 | col. 9:43-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "currency", as used in a patent family with a 2007 priority date and examples of fiat currencies (e.g., USD, Yen), can be construed to encompass the "cryptocurrency" traded by the accused platform. Similarly, it raises the question of whether a "cryptocurrency exchange" constitutes a "currency exchange server" or "market exchange server" within the patent’s meaning.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by repeating the claim language, such as the server being "configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate from all exchange rates obtained from the one or more currency exchange servers right before the transaction takes place" (Compl. ¶43(v)). A key factual question will be what evidence the complaint or discovery provides that the accused platform performs this specific multi-source, just-in-time calculation, as opposed to using a simpler price feed from a single source or at different intervals.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "trading server"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff argues this is an "unconventional specialty trading server" and not a generic computer, which is central to its arguments on patent eligibility and inventiveness (Compl. ¶23, ¶28). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the claims are directed to a specific, tangible improvement in computing or a more abstract process implemented on generic hardware.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification depicts the server as a component within a networked system (e.g., ’107 Patent, FIG. 2A, item 208) and does not describe its internal hardware, which may support an interpretation that it is any computer programmed to perform the claimed functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require the server to be "configured to" perform a specific combination of functions, such as calculating a prevailing rate "from all exchange rates obtained" and executing transactions "right before" they occur (’107 Patent, cl. 1). This recited functionality, which the patent contends was a "specific technological solution" (Compl. ¶14), may support an interpretation that the server is a specialized machine adapted for this purpose.
The Term: "currency"
- Context and Importance: The patents-in-suit originate from a 2007 application, a time when "currency" in finance referred to sovereign-issued fiat money. The accused product, however, operates exclusively with "digital crypto currency" (Compl. ¶3). The viability of the entire infringement case may hinge on whether this term can be interpreted to cover cryptocurrencies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not contain an explicit definition limiting the term "currency." The specification refers broadly to "electronically traded financial assets" (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-21), which could be argued to encompass modern digital assets not contemplated in 2007.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All specific examples of currencies in the specification are fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar, Euro, and Japanese Yen (’107 Patent, col. 5:36-40, col. 6:50-53). A party could argue that the term's meaning should be limited to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood it to mean at the time of the invention.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "advertising an infringing use, which supports a finding of an intention for the accused product to be used in an infringing manner" (e.g., Compl. ¶51, ¶67). The allegations are not supported by specific examples of advertisements or user manuals that instruct infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is primarily alleged based on post-suit notice, stating that infringement "will now be willful through the filing and service of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶47, ¶63). The complaint also makes a conclusory allegation of willful blindness, asserting Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (e.g., Compl. ¶52, ¶84).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "currency," rooted in the 2007 context of traditional financial markets and fiat money, be construed to cover the "cryptocurrencies" that are the exclusive subject of the accused trading platform? The resolution of this question may be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Bitsgap platform actually perform the specific, multi-step calculation recited in the claims (e.g., deriving a "prevailing exchange rate" from all connected exchange servers immediately before a transaction), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent’s detailed method and the accused system’s actual operation? The complaint's reliance on parroting claim language suggests this will be a central point of discovery and dispute.