Intercurrency Software LLC v. Ofx Group Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: OFX Group Limited (Australia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01066, E.D. Tex., 12/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has conducted regular business there, certain acts of infringement occurred in the district, and Defendant is not a U.S. resident.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online foreign exchange platforms infringe four patents related to systems and methods for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the financial technology (fintech) sector, addressing the complexities and risks of cross-border currency exchange and asset trading for international commerce and investment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the Patents-in-Suit have been cited by patents issued to Bank of America. No other procedural events such as prior litigation or administrative challenges are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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’s background describes that prior art financial platforms required investors to trade foreign securities using the market’s local currency (e.g., U.S. Dollars). This forced investors to perform separate, bulk currency conversions before and after trades, leaving them with "no certain knowledge of what profit or loss" they would ultimately realize due to exchange rate fluctuations over time ( ’107 Patent, col. 1:56-60). The currency conversion was not performed "at a transactional level" ( ’107 Patent, col. 1:61-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" with a "three-tier architecture" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-33). This system presents all prices, quotes, and potential settlements to the trader in their own "preferred currency," performing the necessary currency conversion as part of the transaction itself. This integration allows a trader to know "exactly what he/she may end up with" at the moment of the transaction (’107 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-38).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to provide transactional certainty and mitigate the currency exchange risk inherent in international securities trading by unifying the asset trade and the currency conversion into a single, transparent operation (’107 Patent, col. 1:63-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• 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.
  • Causing a client computer to display an asset in the preferred currency while it is traded in a market 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 a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" and execute the transaction with that calculated rate.
  • Performing a currency conversion of the transaction 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"

Issued September 15, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’863 Patent addresses the problem that investors trading foreign assets lacked "certain knowledge of what profit or loss" they would incur because the asset transaction and currency conversion were separate events subject to different exchange rates over time (’863 Patent, col. 1:55-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention, a continuation of the '107 patent's application, also discloses a consolidated trading platform that displays trading assets in a user's preferred currency. It specifically focuses on a method where "all costs and fees are dynamically changed in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly," ensuring the valuation shown to the user in their preferred currency is always current (’863 Patent, col. 7:63-col. 8:4). This real-time display of value allows a trader to make decisions with full cost transparency (’863 Patent, col. 2:29-39).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to enhance user decision-making in international trading by providing a user interface that presents a complete, real-time financial picture of a potential transaction, including all costs, in the user’s familiar home currency (’863 Patent, col. 2:34-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• 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.
  • Displaying "all costs and fees" in the preferred currency that are "dynamically changed in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly."
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and executing the transaction with a calculated prevailing exchange rate.

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

Issued September 20, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family, the ’930 patent describes a method for trading assets across different currencies by providing a client computer access to a trading server. The system addresses transactional uncertainty by displaying costs in a trader’s first (preferred) currency based on a first prevailing exchange rate, while executing the final settlement using a second, contemporaneously calculated exchange rate to ensure the final transaction value is accurate and locked-in (’930 Patent, Abstract; Claim 12).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶67).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's "trading server," which is allegedly coupled to currency and market exchange servers, of infringement (Compl. ¶67).

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

Issued April 4, 2023

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, also a continuation, describes a trading platform that facilitates transactions where an asset is traded in a second currency but viewed and managed by a user in a first (preferred) currency. The platform calculates and displays costs in the first currency based on a prevailing exchange rate and, upon an order from the user, executes the transaction and settles it based on a second, newly calculated exchange rate to finalize the transaction without risk from subsequent currency fluctuations (’701 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1 and 8 are asserted (Compl. ¶83).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's provision of a "trading server" coupled to other exchange servers infringes the claims of the ’701 Patent (Compl. ¶83).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant's OFX Personal and Business platforms, its mobile OFX app, and the associated backend systems (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused platforms provide "International money transfers" that allow users to perform "foreign currency exchange" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint includes a screenshot of the OFX "International money transfers" user interface, which shows fields for entering an amount in a source currency (USD) and viewing the converted amount in a destination currency (EUR) based on a "Live rate" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges these platforms constitute a "consolidated trading platform" that generates "substantial financial revenues" for the Defendant (Compl. ¶30, ¶34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’107 Patent Infringement Allegations

’863 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only general allegations for infringement of the ’863 Patent. The following chart maps the asserted claim elements to the general description of the accused instrumentality.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether Defendant's foreign currency exchange service involves trading an "asset" as contemplated by the patents. The specifications heavily feature examples of trading securities like stocks and commodities (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-24), raising the question of whether currency itself, when exchanged, qualifies as the claimed "asset" or if the claims are limited to a platform for trading other types of assets in a preferred currency.
• Technical Questions: The claims require calculating an exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty (’107 Patent, col. 9:15-22). A key factual question will be whether the "Live rates" used by the accused platform (Compl. p. 8) meet this temporal requirement, or if there is a functional difference between the accused implementation and the specific timing recited in the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "asset"

• Context and Importance: The construction of "asset" appears central to the dispute. If the term is construed narrowly to cover only the securities and commodities explicitly detailed in the specification's examples, infringement allegations against a pure currency exchange service may be weakened. If construed broadly to include currency itself as a tradable financial asset, the infringement case may be stronger.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "asset" without express limitation. The specification provides a non-limiting list, stating "Securities include, but are not limited to, a wide array of electronically traded financial assets," followed by examples like stocks, bonds, and commodities (’107 Patent, col. 2:18-24). Plaintiff may argue that currency is a type of financial asset and falls within the plain meaning of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Background" section of the patent frames the problem entirely around an investor in one country trading securities (e.g., stocks on NASDAQ) listed in another country's currency (’107 Patent, col. 1:40-54). Defendant may argue that these specific embodiments define the context and intended scope of the invention, limiting the term "asset" to such securities.

The Term: "trading server"

• Context and Importance: The claims recite a "trading server" coupled to "currency exchange servers" and "market exchange servers," and the specification describes a "three-tier architecture" (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-27). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the architecture of the OFX platform maps onto this claimed structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that "trading server" should be understood functionally as any server or system of servers that performs the claimed steps of receiving user input, calculating rates, and executing transactions. The claim language requires the server to be "coupled to" exchange servers, not necessarily that they be separate physical or logical entities.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant could argue that the specification’s explicit description of a "three-tier architecture" comprising a distinct "brokerage, a market exchange ..., and a currency exchange" (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-28) informs the meaning of "trading server" and requires a similarly structured system. A finding that the accused platform uses a different, more integrated architecture could support a non-infringement argument.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all patents, asserting that Defendant encourages its customers to use the accused platforms in an infringing manner through advertisements, user manuals, and by making the platforms available (Compl. ¶40-41, ¶56-57, ¶72, ¶88).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶39, ¶55, ¶71, ¶87). The complaint also makes a general allegation that Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" and was thus "willfully blind" to Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶44, ¶60, ¶76, ¶92).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asset," which is primarily described within the patents’ specifications in the context of trading securities like stocks and commodities, be construed to read on the foreign currency itself that is being exchanged in the accused money transfer service?
• A central evidentiary question will concern architectural equivalence: does the OFX platform’s backend system embody the claimed "trading server" coupled to distinct "market exchange" and "currency exchange" servers as described in the patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in system architecture that could preclude a finding of infringement?
• A key technical question will be one of temporal precision: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused platform’s use of a "Live rate" performs the specific function of calculating a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place," as required by certain claims to eliminate future risk, or does the accused system operate on a different timing mechanism?