Intercurrency Software LLC v. Moneymovr Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: MoneyMovr Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01012, E.D. Tex., 12/09/2024
• 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 transactions, offers for sale, and sales of the accused products to customers within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s international money currency conversion and transfer services infringe four patents related to consolidated financial trading platforms.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns computer-implemented financial platforms designed to allow assets to be priced, traded, and settled in a user’s preferred currency, mitigating the risk and uncertainty associated with separate currency exchange operations.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit share a common priority date and are part of the same family. The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit have been cited by patents issued to Bank of America, an assertion that may be used to suggest the technology's relevance.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107 - “CONSOLIDATED TRADING PLATFORM”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art financial systems where international investors trading assets (e.g., U.S. stocks) had to transact in the asset's native currency (e.g., U.S. Dollars) (Compl. ¶15). This required separate, bulk currency conversions before and after trading, creating "uncertainty of what profit or loss" would be realized due to exchange rate fluctuations occurring between the time of conversion and the time of the transaction (’107 Patent, col. 1:56-60). The currency conversion was not integrated at a "transactional level" (’107 Patent, col. 2:1-3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "three-tier architecture" comprising a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange, integrated into a consolidated trading platform (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-33). This platform presents all prices, transaction data, and settlements to the user in their own "preferred currency." It does so by obtaining a prevailing exchange rate and automatically performing the currency conversion as part of the transaction itself, thereby giving the trader immediate certainty of the transaction's value in their local currency (’107 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-38).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to remove the currency exchange rate risk and transactional friction from international securities trading, making foreign markets more transparent and predictable for traders (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• The 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 to the trader in the preferred currency, which involves determining a prevailing exchange rate to convert from the "market currency."
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset on the market exchange.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and, crucially, calculating the prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to execute the transaction and prevent "uncertainty in currency exchanges in another time."
  • Performing the currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency using the calculated rate.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’863 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’107 Patent: the financial uncertainty for traders caused by the temporal separation of asset transactions and the required foreign currency conversions (’863 Patent, col. 1:53-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a trading server displays an asset to a trader in their preferred currency by using a prevailing exchange rate. A key aspect is the dynamic nature of this display: 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, Claim 1). This ensures the trader has a continuously updated, real-time understanding of the asset's value in their own currency before committing to a transaction (’863 Patent, col. 2:29-37).
• Technical Importance: The solution provides transactional certainty by continuously repricing foreign assets in a local currency, thereby abstracting away the complexity and risk of separate foreign exchange operations for the end-user (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • 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, where the valuation dynamically changes with the exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset.
  • Receiving a settlement notification after executing the transaction using a prevailing exchange rate calculated "right before the transaction takes place."

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

• Technology Synopsis: The ’930 patent claims a system and method for trading an asset, focusing on the display of costs and the execution of the trade. The system displays dynamically updated costs and fees in a user's preferred (first) currency, based on an initial prevailing exchange rate. When the trade is executed, a second prevailing exchange rate is calculated at the moment of the transaction to finalize the settlement, providing certainty at the point of execution (’930 Patent, Abstract; Claim 12).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 12 (Compl. ¶67).
• Accused Features: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendant’s provision of a trading server coupled to currency and market exchange servers infringes the patent (Compl. ¶67).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The ’701 patent claims a platform for trading an asset where a trading server, communicating with a client machine, calculates and displays costs to trade an asset (in a second currency) in the user’s preferred (first) currency. The platform is configured to conduct the transaction upon receiving an order and reach a settlement based on a second, transaction-time exchange rate that may differ from the first exchange rate used for the initial cost display (’701 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶83).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's provision of a trading server that facilitates multi-currency transactions infringes the patent (Compl. ¶83).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Money Mover platforms and systems," collectively referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Instrumentalities provide a "Multi-currency account" service allowing users to "Receive, hold, convert and pay in over 25 currencies" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges this constitutes a "consolidated trading platform" that performs "international money currency conversions and transfers requiring currency exchanges" (Compl. ¶¶3, 30). The screenshot provided in the complaint shows a user interface with wallet balances in multiple currencies (e.g., CAD, EUR, GBP, USD) and options to make payments and convert funds (Compl. p. 8). The complaint further alleges that the platform is operated through "trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, and one or more market exchange servers" (Compl. ¶35(i)).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'107 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent specification heavily contextualizes the term "asset" with examples of securities like stocks, bonds, and commodities (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23). The accused product is described as a service for "money currency conversions and transfers" (Compl. ¶3). This raises the question of whether a currency holding or transfer, as performed by the accused service, constitutes a transaction of an "asset" being traded in a "market currency" as those terms are used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the system to calculate the prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place." A potential point of dispute may be the factual evidence required to demonstrate the precise timing of this calculation within the accused system's architecture and process flow.

'863 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a limitation-by-limitation analysis of infringement for the ’863 Patent. The complaint makes a general allegation that the Defendant "practices and 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," but does not map specific functionalities of the Accused Instrumentalities to the other elements of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will likely be evidentiary. A court may need to determine what specific features of the MoneyMovr system satisfy the detailed claim requirements, such as the dynamic "valuation of the asset...chang[ing] in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged."
  • Scope Questions: As with the ’107 Patent, a central question is whether the accused money transfer service performs a transaction on an "asset" in the manner contemplated by the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "asset"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction appears central to the dispute. The patents’ specifications consistently provide examples of financial securities (stocks, bonds, commodities) as the "assets" being traded (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23). The accused product is a money transfer and multi-currency account service. The infringement case may hinge on whether the scope of "asset" can be construed to cover the currency holdings or transfers facilitated by Defendant.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue the plain and ordinary meaning of "asset" is broad and that currency itself is a financial asset. The patent’s list of securities is presented as exemplary, not exhaustive ("Securities include, but are not limited to...") (’107 Patent, col. 2:18-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim context, requiring an asset to be "traded in a market currency" (’107 Patent, cl. 1), limits the term to instruments like securities that have a separate pricing currency. The repeated use of securities-trading examples throughout the specification could be used to argue that the inventor contemplated a narrower field than simple currency exchange.

• The Term: "trading server"

• Context and Importance: The claims recite a system architecture involving a "trading server" coupled to "currency exchange servers" and "market exchange servers." Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation depends on mapping the Defendant's system to this claimed architecture.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could point to specification language stating that the three server types may be implemented "in a single computing machine" or "distributed over many servers owned by different organizations" (’107 Patent, col. 5:30-33). This may support a functional construction where any system performing the claimed steps meets the limitation, regardless of physical or logical server distinctions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the patent’s repeated description of a "three-tier architecture" (’107 Patent, col. 2:25) as a feature of the invention requires a more structured interpretation. They may contend that their system does not contain the distinct functional modules corresponding to a "trading server," a "market exchange server," and a "currency exchange server."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, asserting that Defendant encourages infringing use through its advertising and by providing its platform to end-users in the United States (Compl. ¶¶40, 43).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on two theories. First, it asserts that infringement will be willful post-suit, as the filing of the complaint provides Defendant with actual knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶39). Second, it alleges pre-suit willfulness through "willful blindness," based on an alleged "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others...prior to launching products" (Compl. ¶44).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asset," which the patent specifications describe in the context of trading securities like stocks and commodities, be construed to cover the "international money currency conversions and transfers" offered by the accused service?
• A second central question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the Defendant’s system architecture embody the distinct "trading server," "market exchange server," and "currency exchange server" functions recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented three-tier system and the accused product's actual implementation?
• A key evidentiary question for damages will be whether the Plaintiff can substantiate its claim of pre-suit willful blindness with specific evidence of the Defendant's alleged "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others," or if the willfulness claim will be limited to conduct occurring after the complaint was filed.