DCT

2:24-cv-00976

Intercurrency Software LLC v. Wise PLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00976, E.D. Tex., 03/31/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district through its business transactions and alleged acts of infringement, and because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s currency conversion and money transfer services infringe four patents related to a consolidated financial trading platform that displays and executes transactions in a user's preferred currency.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves online financial platforms that integrate real-time currency exchange rates to allow users to trade or transact in assets using a preferred currency, even when the asset is natively priced in a different market currency.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint, indicating that an Original Complaint was previously filed and served on the Defendant. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative patent reviews, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-18 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2018-08-28 U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107 Issued
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,776,863 Issued
2022-09-20 U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930 Issued
2023-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Issued
2025-03-31 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 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 a trader wishing to transact in an asset priced in a foreign currency (e.g., a Chinese investor buying a U.S. stock) lacked "certain knowledge of what profit or loss he was going to get." This uncertainty arose because currency conversion was a separate step performed at a different time from the asset transaction, exposing the trader to risks from fluctuating exchange rates (Compl. ¶15; ’107 Patent, col. 1:53-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a consolidated trading platform, described as a "three-tier architecture," that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (Compl. ¶18; ’107 Patent, col. 2:24-33). This platform performs currency conversion "at a transactional level," allowing it to present all prices, data, and settlements in the trader’s preferred currency, thereby giving the trader immediate and exact knowledge of the transaction's value (Compl. ¶16, ¶19; ’107 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution aimed to eliminate the risk and delay associated with discrete, multi-step cross-currency financial transactions by integrating real-time exchange rate data directly into the trading process (Compl. ¶35; ’107 Patent, col. 2:33-38).

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 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, which involves determining a prevailing exchange rate and dynamically changing all costs and fees in accordance with that rate.
    • Conducting a transaction of the asset by transmitting a request to a market exchange server.
    • Receiving a settlement notification and calculating the prevailing exchange rate right before the transaction.
    • Performing a currency conversion of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency.

U.S. Patent No. 10,776,863 - “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING TRADING ASSETS IN A PREFERRED CURRENCY,” Issued September 15, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’863 patent addresses the inability of prior systems to perform currency conversion "at a transactional level," which created uncertainty for investors transacting in assets denominated in a foreign currency (Compl. ¶16; ’863 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for displaying trading assets where the "valuation of the asset 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, cl. 1). The system couples a trading server to currency and market exchanges to display all costs and fees dynamically in the user's chosen currency ('863 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:25-34).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides transactional certainty by ensuring the price displayed to the user reflects a real-time, integrated valuation that accounts for both the asset’s market price and the current currency exchange rate (Compl. ¶19; ’863 Patent, col. 1:63-65).

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.
    • Causing a client computer to display the asset in the preferred currency, where the valuation changes constantly with the exchange rate even if the market value of the asset does not.
    • Displaying all costs and fees, which are dynamically changed with the exchange rate.
    • Conducting a transaction of the asset.
    • Receiving a settlement notification.

U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930 - “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES,” Issued September 20, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for trading assets across different currencies, addressing transactional uncertainty. The invention focuses on a trading server that causes a display of an asset's market value in a second (preferred) currency and highlights that the "costs and fees in the settlement are not identical to the displayed costs and fees before the transaction of the asset took place," accounting for exchange rate changes at the moment of execution (Compl. ¶13; ’930 Patent, Abstract, cl. 12).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶75).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's platform infringes by coupling trading servers with currency and market exchanges to facilitate cross-currency transactions where displayed pre-transaction costs differ from final settlement costs (Compl. ¶13, ¶75).

U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - “PLATFORM FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES,” Issued April 4, 2023

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a platform for cross-currency asset trading featuring a trading server that calculates costs and fees based on a first prevailing exchange rate for display purposes. It then executes the transaction and settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate calculated at the time of the transaction, resulting in executed costs that are not identical to the displayed costs (’701 Patent, Abstract, cl. 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 8 are asserted (Compl. ¶91).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement based on Defendant's provision of a trading platform that utilizes coupled servers to manage and execute cross-currency transactions (Compl. ¶91).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant’s "Xe Personal and Business platforms and systems," its website (www.xe.com), and its mobile "Xe app" (Compl. ¶38).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products provide a "consolidated trading platform" for "international money currency conversions and transfers" (Compl. ¶3, ¶38). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a user interface for converting a specific amount from a source currency (USD) to a target currency (EUR) before executing a transfer. (Compl. p. 11). The complaint further alleges that the underlying system architecture involves "trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, and one or more market exchange servers" (Compl. ¶43(i)). Defendant is described as a leader in "currency information and global transfers" (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,062,107 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 trading servers that are coupled to one or more currency exchange servers and one or more market exchange servers. ¶43(i) col. 2:24-33
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, for example, through the "From" and "To" currency selection fields in its user interface. ¶43(ii) col. 5:30-34
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, wherein said causing a client computer ... comprises... displaying all costs and fees in the preferred currency ... dynamically changed in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly... Defendant's platform causes a client computer to display an asset (currency) in the preferred currency, with associated costs and fees that are dynamically calculated based on a prevailing exchange rate. ¶22, ¶43(iii) col. 8:57-65
conducting in the trading server a transaction of the asset by transmitting a transaction request from the trading server to a market exchange server when the trader decides to proceed with trading the asset; Defendant's system conducts a transaction when a user decides to proceed, for instance by clicking the "Convert" button. ¶43(iv) col. 9:5-9
receiving a settlement notification in the trading server when the transaction of the asset is performed by the market exchange server in accordance with conditions set by the user, wherein ... the trading server is 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... The complaint alleges the trading server receives a settlement notification and is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate right before the transaction takes place to prevent uncertainty. ¶43(v) col. 9:10-22
performing a currency conversion of some portion or all of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency when the preferred currency is not identical to the market currency, the conversion being performed with the calculated prevailing exchange rate. The accused platform performs a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency using the calculated prevailing exchange rate. ¶43(vi) col. 9:23-28
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether Defendant's currency conversion and money transfer service constitutes a "trading platform" for an "asset" as contemplated by the patent. The patent's specification heavily focuses on trading securities like stocks, whereas the accused product transacts in currency itself (Compl. ¶15; ’107 Patent, col. 1:38-54). The case may hinge on whether "currency" can be interpreted as the claimed "asset."
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, on "information and belief," that the accused system uses a specific three-tier server architecture (Compl. ¶43). A key factual dispute will likely concern whether Defendant's actual system architecture includes the distinct "trading server", "market exchange server", and "currency exchange server" components as required by the claims.

10,776,863 Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement breakdown for the '863 patent. The overarching infringement theory is that Defendant's platform, by providing a service for cross-currency transfers, necessarily performs the claimed method (Compl. ¶59-60). The complaint alleges Defendant provides a "trading server" coupled to currency and market exchange servers (Compl. ¶59) and that the system dynamically changes costs and fees based on a constantly updated exchange rate (Compl. ¶22), which maps to key limitations of claim 1 of the '863 patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the ’863 Patent recites displaying an asset whose "valuation ... changes in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate ... even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged." This language raises the question of whether it can read on a pure currency conversion, where the exchange rate is the asset's value relative to another currency, rather than a separate factor applied to an asset with an independent market price (e.g., a stock).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not detail how Defendant's system meets the "updated constantly" limitation for the exchange rate. The specific frequency and mechanism of these updates in the accused system will be a point of factual inquiry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "trading server"

    • Context and Importance: The complaint characterizes this as an "unconventional specialty trading server," not a generic computer, to support its argument of patent eligibility and technical inventiveness (Compl. ¶23, ¶28). The definition of this term is critical because if it is construed narrowly to mean a server for trading securities on a formal exchange, it may not read on Defendant's currency transfer platform.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the server's function as facilitating a "transaction decided by a trader," which could be argued to cover any user-initiated financial transaction ('107 Patent, col. 5:3-4).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of a "three-tier architecture" including a brokerage and a market exchange (e.g., NYSE) for trading "securities" and "stocks," suggesting the "trading server" is a component specific to that environment ('107 Patent, col. 2:24-28, col. 1:38-54).

  • The Term: "asset"

    • Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s infringement theory appears to depend on construing "currency" as the claimed "asset." The patent's examples, however, focus on assets like stocks and oil, which have a market value independent of the currency in which they are priced ('107 Patent, col. 1:41-45, col. 6:15-18). The construction of this term may be dispositive.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an exemplary list of assets that "include, but are not limited to, a wide array of electronically traded financial assets such as stocks, bonds, options," etc. ('107 Patent, col. 2:18-24). Plaintiff may argue that currency is a financial instrument and that this "not limited to" language supports a broad construction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The problem solved by the patent—calculating profit/loss on a foreign security—implies the "asset" is the underlying security, not the currency itself. The patent distinguishes between the "market currency" and the "asset," which may support a narrower reading where the two cannot be the same thing ('107 Patent, col. 1:66-col. 2:2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant took "active steps" such as "advertising an infringing use" and providing its platform with the knowledge and intent that its customers would use it in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶51, ¶67, ¶83, ¶99).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories. First, the complaint pleads post-suit willfulness, asserting that Defendant gained actual knowledge of the patents upon service of the complaint and continued to infringe (Compl. ¶47, ¶63, ¶79, ¶95). Second, it alleges pre-suit willful blindness, claiming Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching its services (Compl. ¶52, ¶68, ¶84, ¶100).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asset", which is rooted in the patent's disclosure of trading securities like stocks, be construed to cover currency itself as transacted on Defendant's currency conversion and money transfer platform?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: does Defendant's system technically embody the specific "three-tier architecture" of distinct "trading", "market exchange", and "currency exchange" servers recited in the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical implementation?
  • A central point of contention will be one of functional mapping: do the patent claims, which describe displaying a dynamically converted price for an "asset" whose underlying "market value" can remain unchanged, accurately describe the operation of a currency conversion service where the exchange rate is the measure of value, not a separate variable applied to an independent asset price?