DCT

2:24-cv-01011

Intercurrency Software LLC v. Airwallex Singapore Pty Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01011, E.D. Tex., 04/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is not a U.S. resident and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, thereby permitting suit in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges Defendant regularly conducts business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s international money transfer platform infringes four patents related to systems and methods for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency with real-time exchange rate calculations.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses currency exchange risk in cross-border transactions by integrating real-time conversion and pricing into a single platform, a key function for global e-commerce and financial services.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint, indicating an Original Complaint was previously filed and served. The complaint includes extensive pre-emptive arguments regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, suggesting Plaintiff anticipates a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the patents claim an abstract idea.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-18 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2015-01-01 Defendant Airwallex Founded (approximate)
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
2025-04-18 First Amended Complaint Filed

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 the problem of investors trading assets in foreign markets, where they traditionally had to perform currency conversions separately from the asset transaction itself (’107 Patent, col. 1:40-54). This created uncertainty about the final profit or loss, as the exchange rate could fluctuate between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’107 Patent, col. 1:54-60). The patent characterizes this as a system where "the currency conversion is not at a transactional level" (’107 Patent, col. 1:61-63).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "three-tier architecture" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a single platform (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-33; Fig. 2B). This consolidated system presents all prices, transaction data, and settlements to the user in their "preferred currency," performing the currency conversion automatically as part of the transaction. This allows a trader to know "exactly what he/she may end up with" at the time of the trade (’107 Patent, col. 2:31-33).
    • Technical Importance: By integrating real-time currency conversion with asset trading, the invention aimed to remove exchange rate uncertainty and risk, thereby making global financial markets more transparent and accessible to international investors (’107 Patent, col. 2:31-38).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
    • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • Providing a trading server coupled to currency and market exchange servers.
      • Receiving an indicator of a trader's preferred currency.
      • Causing a client computer to display an asset in the preferred currency.
      • Conducting a transaction of the asset by transmitting a request to a market exchange server.
      • Receiving a settlement notification, wherein the trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate from exchange servers "right before the transaction takes place."
      • Performing a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency using the calculated rate.

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 with its parent, the ’863 patent addresses the "cost and risk" incurred when a currency conversion is performed separately from an international asset trade, which creates uncertainty for the investor (’863 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent details a method where a trading server, connected to both market and currency exchanges, causes a client computer to display an asset's price in the trader's preferred currency (’863 Patent, col. 7:55-65). This is achieved by determining a "prevailing exchange rate" and using it to constantly update the asset's valuation, so that "a value of the asset being displayed changes as the prevailing exchange rate changes, even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged" (’863 Patent, col. 10:9-14).
    • Technical Importance: This technology provides real-time price transparency in a user's local currency, a foundational element for enabling confident cross-border e-commerce and investment by displaying a "live" price that accounts for currency fluctuations (’863 Patent, col. 2:31-33).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
    • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • A method for trading an asset comprising coupling a trading server to currency and market exchange servers.
      • Receiving an indicator of a trader's preferred currency.
      • Causing a client computer to display the asset in the preferred currency, wherein the asset's valuation changes in accordance with a "constantly updated" prevailing exchange rate.
      • Conducting a transaction of the asset.
      • Receiving a settlement notification based on a prevailing exchange rate calculated "right before the transaction takes place."

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: This patent continues the theme of reducing currency exchange uncertainty. It describes a system that displays transaction costs in a trader's preferred currency based on a first prevailing exchange rate. Upon execution, the final settlement is based on a second, newly calculated exchange rate determined at the moment of the transaction, ensuring the final cleared price is precise and not subject to prior rate fluctuations (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-11).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "trading server, such as the Defendant trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers" of infringement (Compl. ¶79).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent 11,620,701

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 11,620,701, “Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies,” issued Apr. 4, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a platform where a client machine displays asset costs in a user's preferred currency, with the price being dynamically calculated by a server using real-time exchange rates. When a user initiates a transaction, the platform finalizes the settlement using a new prevailing exchange rate calculated at that instant, ensuring the final executed cost is accurate and transparent (’701 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-11).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 8 are asserted (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant provides an infringing platform through its "trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers" (Compl. ¶95).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant Airwallex's "FX & Transfers platforms and systems" (Compl. ¶42).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused platform provides "fast, cost-effective international money transfer services" that allow users to send payments abroad and access "market-leading international FX rates" (Compl. ¶7, p. 12). A screenshot included in the complaint shows a user interface for converting 10,000 USD to 9,424.70 EUR, explicitly displaying the "Interbank rate" and an "FX fee," which demonstrates the core functionality of performing currency conversions for users (Compl. p. 12). The complaint positions Airwallex as a major player in the global payments market, citing its large fundraising totals and integrations with platforms like Amazon and Shopify (Compl. ¶¶5, 7).

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 "a trading server, such as its trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, and one or more market exchange servers." ¶47(i) col. 8:46-51
receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader; Defendant's platform receives an indicator of a preferred currency from a user, for example, when a user selects the sending and receiving currencies for a transfer. ¶47(ii) col. 8:52-54
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 platform causes a user's computer to display the value of a transfer in the preferred (i.e., destination) currency. ¶47(iii) col. 8:55-59
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 platform conducts a transaction by transmitting a request to a market exchange server when a user initiates a transfer. ¶47(iv) col. 9:5-9
receiving a settlement notification in the trading server when the transaction of the asset is performed... 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... Defendant's platform receives a settlement notification, and its trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate immediately before the transaction. ¶47(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... the conversion being performed with the calculated prevailing exchange rate. Defendant's platform performs a currency conversion from the source currency to the destination currency using the calculated prevailing rate. ¶47(vi) col. 9:23-28

’863 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full claim-chart analysis of the ’863 Patent. It broadly alleges that Defendant infringes Claim 1 by "making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale the Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶63). The narrative theory is that the Defendant's system as a whole, comprising "a trading server... coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers," constitutes the claimed apparatus (Compl. ¶63). The complaint does not map specific features of the accused platform to individual elements of claim 1 of the ’863 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the term "asset", as used in the patents, can be construed to read on the currency being transferred by the accused money transfer service. The patents' specifications heavily emphasize the context of trading financial securities like stocks, bonds, and commodities (’107 Patent, col. 2:19-24), raising the question of whether a simple monetary transfer falls within the scope of "trading an asset." Similarly, it raises the question of whether Airwallex's servers constitute a "trading server" as contemplated by the patents.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 of the ’107 Patent requires the calculation of a "prevailing exchange rate... right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty. The complaint alleges this functionality but provides no specific evidence on the timing of the calculation in the accused system (Compl. ¶47(v)). A key factual dispute may concern what evidence exists to show that the accused platform performs this specific, time-sensitive calculation as required by the claim, rather than using a periodically refreshed but not necessarily instantaneous rate.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "asset"

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to the entire infringement case. The patents were drafted in the context of trading financial instruments like stocks and commodities. Defendant’s service is a money transfer platform where the "asset" is currency itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely determine whether the patents are applicable to the accused services at all.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Securities include, but are not limited to, a wide array of electronically traded financial assets such as stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts, funds, index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds" (’107 Patent, col. 2:19-24). Plaintiff may argue the phrase "include, but are not limited to" and the general term "asset" support a meaning broad enough to encompass currency.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background" section frames the entire problem as one faced by investors trading "US securities" from foreign countries (’107 Patent, col. 1:29-35). The "three-tier architecture" also explicitly includes a "market exchange where securities/assets are traded" (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-27). This consistent focus on investment securities could support a narrower construction limited to such instruments.

  • The Term: "trading server"

    • Context and Importance: The asserted claims in all four patents require a "trading server". Defendant operates a money transfer platform. The definition of "trading server" will determine if Defendant's infrastructure can be mapped to this core claim element.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition but describes the server's function as coupling market and currency exchanges to facilitate transactions (’107 Patent, col. 3:1-3, col. 8:46-51). Plaintiff could argue that any server performing these networked financial exchange functions is a "trading server".
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly situates the server within a "three-tier architecture" that includes a "brokerage" (e.g., Scottrade) and a "market exchange" (e.g., NYSE) (’107 Patent, Fig. 2B; col. 5:2-6). Defendant may argue that a "trading server" must operate within this specific brokerage context, which may not accurately describe its money transfer system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, asserting that Defendant's "advertising an infringing use" encourages customers to use the platform in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶55, ¶71). It is alleged that Defendant knew or should have known these actions would induce infringement by its U.S. users (Compl. ¶53, ¶69).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on two theories. First, the complaint alleges Defendant will be liable for willful infringement for any infringing acts after receiving notice of the patents via the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶51, ¶67). Second, it alleges a pre-suit theory of "willfully blind," asserting that Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others first for clearance" before launching its services (Compl. ¶56, ¶72).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asset", rooted in the patents' explicit context of trading financial securities, be construed to cover currency itself as transferred by the accused international money transfer service? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
  • A central legal question will be one of patent eligibility: do the asserted claims, which are directed to methods and systems for processing financial data using currency exchange rates, constitute a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101? The complaint's preemptive defense of eligibility suggests this will be a primary battleground (Compl. ¶¶34-41).
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Airwallex platform in fact perform the specific, time-sensitive functions required by the claims, such as calculating a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" (’107 Patent, cl. 1), or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical implementation?