Intercurrency Software LLC v. Cryptense SAS

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: *Intercurrency Software LLC v. Cryptense SAS* (France)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00395, E.D. Tex., 05/30/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has regularly conducted business there, and is not a resident of the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cryptocurrency trading platform infringes patents related to a consolidated system that allows financial assets to be priced, traded, and settled in a user’s preferred currency, even when the asset’s primary market uses a different currency.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of currency exchange rate risk in financial transactions by integrating real-time conversion into the trading process, aiming to provide traders with price certainty.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a common priority date. The complaint preemptively argues for the patents’ eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, noting that the Patent Examiners considered relevant fields of art and allowed the claims over prior art.

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’s background describes a problem where investors trading assets in a foreign market (e.g., a Chinese investor trading U.S. securities) faced uncertainty regarding their ultimate profit or loss. This was because currency conversions were performed on bulk amounts at different times from the asset transactions, exposing the investor to fluctuating exchange rates (Compl. ¶15; ’107 Patent, col. 1:38-60). The prior art lacked a system that performed "currency conversion on a transactional level" (’107 Patent, col. 1:62-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this by providing a "consolidated trading platform" based on a "three-tier architecture" that includes a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-33). This integrated system presents all prices, data, and settlements in the trader's "preferred currency," thereby allowing the trader to know "exactly what he/she may end up with" for any given transaction (’107 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to remove the risk and complexity of separate foreign exchange operations from individual securities trades, a significant issue in increasingly globalized financial markets (’107 Patent, col. 1:50-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method for providing a consolidated trading platform.
  • Providing a trading server coupled to one or more currency exchange servers and one or more market exchange servers.
  • Receiving in the trading server 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 market currency.
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset by transmitting a request to a market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification in the trading server.
  • Performing a currency conversion of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency.

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, the ’863 Patent addresses the inability of prior art systems to provide traders with real-time knowledge of their financial position when trading assets denominated in a foreign currency (’863 Patent, col. 1:50-65).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a trading server determines a "prevailing exchange rate" to dynamically display asset prices, costs, and fees in a user's selected preferred currency (’863 Patent, col. 10:4-15). A key aspect is that the displayed value of an asset changes as the exchange rate fluctuates, even if the asset's market price remains unchanged, giving the trader a continuously updated, all-inclusive view of the transaction's value (’863 Patent, col. 9:1-5).
• Technical Importance: The invention sought to provide traders with transparent, real-time cost information in their native currency, abstracting away the complexity of manual exchange rate calculations and risk assessment (’863 Patent, col. 1:60-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method for trading an asset.
  • Coupling a trading server to 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 by determining a prevailing exchange rate.
  • Displaying all costs and fees in the preferred currency, with the value dynamically changing with the exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and executing the transaction with a calculated exchange rate to prevent uncertainty.

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 family, the ’930 Patent describes a system for trading assets across different currencies. It focuses on a trading server that calculates and displays costs and fees in a user’s first (preferred) currency for an asset traded in a second (market) currency, and upon execution, calculates a second, final exchange rate to settle the transaction, ensuring the trader has price certainty before and during the trade (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-28).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶67).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s provision of a "trading server" coupled to currency and market exchange servers infringes this patent (Compl. ¶67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s "Kryll platforms and systems," referred to collectively as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint specifically identifies the "Kryll Trading Terminal" (Compl. p. 8).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Kryll platform provides "automated digital crypto currency trading," allowing users to "create automated trading rules and strategies for major crypto exchanges" (Compl. ¶3, ¶30). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the Kryll Trading Terminal interface, which allows users to configure complex trade triggers for "Entry," "Take Profit," and "Stop Loss" actions (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant generates "substantial financial revenues and benefits" from the operation of this platform (Compl. ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’107 Patent Infringement Allegations

’863 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the architecture of modern cryptocurrency exchanges, which often combine asset trading and token swapping into a single platform, meets the patents' description of a "three-tier architecture" with distinct "market exchange servers" and "currency exchange servers" (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-28). The defense may argue that the accused system is fundamentally different from the traditional finance model contemplated by the patents.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused platform performs "currency conversion" as claimed, but a key factual question will be how the Kryll platform technically operates. It raises the question of whether denominating trades in a stablecoin (e.g., USDT) or a major cryptocurrency (e.g., BTC) constitutes the claimed "currency conversion," or if it is merely a different form of asset-pair trading that falls outside the claims' scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "preferred currency"

• Context and Importance: This term is the linchpin of the invention. The dispute may turn on whether the base assets used for pricing and accounting on the Kryll platform (e.g., USDT, EUR, BTC) qualify as a "preferred currency." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patents, which describe solving fiat foreign exchange problems, can read on the functionalities of a cryptocurrency trading platform.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term broadly as the currency "chosen by the trader" (’107 Patent, col. 3:2) or a "home currency" (’107 Patent, col. 7:40-41), which could arguably encompass any unit of account selected by the user, including cryptocurrencies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background section frames the problem exclusively in the context of traditional, national fiat currencies like the U.S. Dollar and Chinese RMB, which could support an interpretation limiting the term to government-issued money (’107 Patent, col. 1:29-50).

The Term: "currency exchange server"

• Context and Importance: Infringement requires the accused platform to be coupled to such a server. The structure of cryptocurrency platforms, where a single entity (e.g., Binance) can act as both the market for trading asset pairs and the "currency" exchange for swapping tokens, creates ambiguity. The court’s interpretation will be critical to the architectural mapping.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the server's function as providing "a currency exchange rate to buy or sell a type of currency for another," a core function of any modern crypto exchange (’107 Patent, col. 5:1-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts the "currency exchange" as a distinct tier from the "asset exchange" (see ’107 Patent, Fig. 2B) and provides a "multibank portal" as an example (’107 Patent, col. 5:1). This may support an argument that a single, integrated crypto exchange does not embody the claimed multi-tier architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating Defendant provides infringing services and takes active steps such as "advertising an infringing use" and providing user guides that instruct customers on how to use the platform in an allegedly infringing manner (Compl. ¶40, ¶43, ¶56).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit knowledge, with the complaint asserting that infringement "will now be willful through the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶39, ¶55, ¶71). The complaint also alleges willful blindness based on a purported "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" prior to launch (Compl. ¶44, ¶60, ¶76).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the patents’ "three-tier architecture," comprising distinct brokerage, market exchange, and currency exchange servers rooted in the 2007-era traditional finance model, be mapped onto the integrated, two-sided market structure of a modern cryptocurrency trading platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and definitional scope: does the accused platform’s function of denominating and settling trades in a base cryptocurrency (like USDT) constitute the "currency conversion" at a "transactional level" as required by the claims, or is this a fundamentally different technical operation that falls outside the patents' intended scope of solving fiat foreign-exchange risk?
• The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: can the term "currency", as used in the patents, be interpreted broadly enough to encompass cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, or is its meaning limited by the specification's explicit examples to traditional, government-issued fiat money?