Intercurrency Software LLC v. BVNK Services Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: BVNK Services Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00382, E.D. Tex., 05/23/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, conducts business in the district, and the acts complained of occurred in the district. As a non-U.S. resident, Defendant may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital and cryptocurrency exchange platform infringes patents related to consolidated financial trading systems that display asset prices and settle transactions in a user’s preferred currency.
• Technical Context: The technology involves financial platforms that integrate asset trading with real-time currency conversion, aiming to provide traders with certainty regarding the cost and proceeds of transactions involving different currencies.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents are part of a family and were allowed by patent examiners over prior art. It also notes that the patents have cited patents issued to Bank of America. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

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 investors trading assets in a foreign market (e.g., a Chinese investor buying U.S. stocks) had to perform currency conversions separately from the asset transaction. 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 bulk currency conversion (’107 Patent, col. 1:38-60). The patent identifies a need for a system that performs currency conversion "at a transactional level" (Compl. ¶16; ’107 Patent, col. 1:61-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" utilizing a "three-tier architecture" composed of a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-33). This system displays asset prices and settles transactions in a trader’s "preferred currency," regardless of the asset's native market currency, by using a "prevailing exchange rate" to perform the conversion as part of the transaction itself (’107 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:29-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to eliminate the risk and uncertainty associated with currency fluctuations in international securities trading by integrating the currency exchange function directly with the asset transaction.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of independent 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 while it is being traded in a different market currency, which involves determining a prevailing exchange rate and displaying all costs and fees in the preferred currency.
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset by transmitting a request to a market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification from the market exchange server.
  • Performing a currency conversion of the transaction proceeds from the market currency to the preferred currency.
• 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, this patent addresses the same problem: the lack of transactional-level currency conversion in prior art systems, which created financial uncertainty for traders operating across different currency zones (’863 Patent, col. 1:59-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and apparatus where a trading server, coupled to currency and market exchanges, receives a trader's preferred currency and then displays asset prices in that currency (’863 Patent, col. 3:1-15). By calculating a prevailing exchange rate and dynamically updating the displayed price and associated costs, the system ensures the trader knows the precise value of a potential transaction in their own currency at the moment of execution (’863 Patent, col. 9:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This patent emphasizes the user-facing aspect of the integrated system, focusing on providing real-time, actionable pricing information in a user's local currency to facilitate informed trading decisions.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• The essential elements of independent 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 while it is traded in a market currency, which includes determining a prevailing exchange rate and dynamically changing the display of costs and fees.
  • Conducting a transaction.
  • Receiving a settlement notification.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent 11,449,930 - "Method and Apparatus for Trading Assets in Different Currencies" (Issued Sep. 20, 2022)

Technology Synopsis

• This patent, also in the same family, describes a system and method for trading assets across different currencies. The technology focuses on a trading server that calculates and displays costs and fees for an asset in a trader's preferred (first) currency, even when the asset is traded in a second currency, by using a dynamically updated prevailing exchange rate to provide transactional price certainty (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-28).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 12, a system claim (Compl. ¶67).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s trading server, coupled to currency and market exchange servers, infringes by providing the functionalities outlined in the patent (Compl. ¶67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "BVNK platforms and systems," referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶30).
• Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Instrumentalities constitute a "digital and cryptocurrency exchange platform" that enables users to "trade any fiat or digital currency, accept payments in any fiat or digital currency, store any fiat or digital currency, or exchange any fiat or digital currency" (Compl. ¶¶3-4). The complaint includes a screenshot describing the platform's ability to "Store and convert currencies," allowing users to "Move between fiat currencies, crypto and stablecoins" (Compl. p. 8). Another visual describes a service to "Receive settlements globally," which involves collecting payments and exchanging between various currency types like fiat-to-crypto and crypto-to-crypto (Compl. p. 8). The platform is presented as "enterprise-grade infrastructure" for building "next-generation payments" (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint outlines its infringement theory in prose, referencing an "Exhibit A" that was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶35, ¶51, ¶67). The following summary for the ’107 Patent is based on the specific element-by-element allegations provided in the body of the complaint.

’107 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s allegations for the ’863 and ’930 Patents are more general. For the ’863 Patent, the complaint alleges infringement of claim 1 and describes the accused system as a "trading server... coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers," but does not provide a limitation-by-limitation breakdown in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶51). The infringement allegations for all three patents rely on the same general architecture and functionality of the Accused Instrumentalities.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patents-in-suit, with a 2007 priority date, describe "assets" such as stocks, bonds, and commodities (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-24). The accused platform primarily trades "cryptocurrencies" and "stablecoins" (Compl. ¶3). A central dispute may be whether the term "asset" as defined and used in the patents can be construed to read on these newer forms of digital instruments.
• Technical Questions: The claims require obtaining a "prevailing exchange rate" from "currency exchange servers" to perform conversions (’107 Patent, cl. 1). A screenshot in the complaint shows the platform facilitates currency conversion, for example between EUR and USDC (Compl. p. 8). This raises the question of what evidence will demonstrate that the accused platform’s internal pricing and conversion mechanism for fiat-to-crypto or crypto-to-crypto transactions functions as a "currency exchange server" that provides a "prevailing exchange rate" in the manner required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "asset"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the patents’ examples are traditional financial instruments, while the accused platform operates in the cryptocurrency space. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether "asset" is interpreted broadly enough to cover cryptocurrencies.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list, stating that securities include, "but are not limited to, a wide array of electronically traded financial assets such as stocks, bonds, options, commodities... futures/derivatives contracts, funds..." (’107 Patent, col. 2:19-24). Plaintiff may argue that the "not limited to" and "such as" language supports a broad construction covering any electronically traded financial instrument.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the context of the invention, originating in 2007, and the exclusive use of traditional securities as examples limits the scope of "asset" to instruments understood at that time, which would not include cryptocurrencies as they exist today.

• The Term: "currency exchange server"

• Context and Importance: The claims require a system architecture where a "trading server" is coupled to distinct "currency exchange" and "market exchange" servers. The nature of the accused platform's conversion functionality—whether it relies on a component that meets the definition of a "currency exchange server"—will be a key point of dispute.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the "currency exchange server" as representing "a bank, an exchange agency, a multibank portal or a matching service" (’107 Patent, col. 5:1-4). Plaintiff could argue this broad, functional description covers any server or service that provides exchange rates, including an integrated component within the BVNK platform.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description of a "three-tier architecture" (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-25, Fig. 2B) may support an interpretation that the "currency exchange server" must be a logically or physically separate entity from the "brokerage" and "market exchange" servers. Defendant may argue its integrated system does not map to this claimed tiered structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, stating that Defendant has taken "active steps... such as advertising an infringing use" and providing a platform that it knew or should have known would be used to infringe (Compl. ¶¶41, 43, 57, 59).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge ("infringement... will now be willful through the filing and service of this Complaint") (Compl. ¶¶39, 55, 71). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting 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 exemplified in the 2007-priority-date patents with traditional securities like stocks and oil contracts, be construed to cover the "cryptocurrencies" and "stablecoins" traded on the accused platform?
• A second central question will concern architectural equivalence: does the accused BVNK platform, which appears to offer integrated currency and crypto conversion, embody the specific "three-tier architecture" of distinct brokerage, market exchange, and currency exchange servers as described and claimed in the patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical design?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused platform’s method for pricing conversions between fiat and crypto, or between two cryptocurrencies, is functionally the same as receiving a "prevailing exchange rate" from a "currency exchange server," as mandated by the asserted claims?