Intercurrency Software LLC v. TTT Moneycorp Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: TTT Moneycorp Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00056, E.D. Tex., 01/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a U.S. resident, is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, and has regularly conducted business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s international payment and foreign exchange platforms infringe four patents related to a consolidated trading system that allows users to transact in assets using a preferred currency, even when the asset is priced in a different market currency.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses integrated financial platforms that simplify cross-border transactions by performing currency conversions at a transactional level, thereby providing users with price certainty in their local currency.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit share a common priority date. The complaint asserts that the patents are not directed to abstract ideas and contain inventive concepts, noting that they were allowed by patent examiners over relevant 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 describes a problem in prior art financial systems where international investors trading assets (e.g., U.S. securities) had to perform currency conversions as a separate step before and after a trade. This created uncertainty regarding the ultimate profit or loss, as exchange rates could fluctuate between the time of the trade and the time of currency conversion (’107 Patent, col. 1:38-60; Compl. ¶15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a "three-tier architecture" (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-28; Compl. ¶18). This platform allows a user to see all prices and conduct transactions in a "preferred currency," with the system performing the currency conversion at the moment of the transaction to provide the user with exact knowledge of the transaction's final value (’107 Patent, col. 2:30-38; Compl. ¶19).
• Technical Importance: The claimed technology sought to reduce the risk and complexity of cross-border financial transactions by embedding real-time currency conversion directly into the trading process (’107 Patent, col. 1:62-67).

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.
  • Displaying an asset and its associated costs in the preferred currency, with the price being dynamically updated based on a prevailing exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction by transmitting a request to a market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and executing the transaction with a calculated prevailing exchange rate obtained "right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty.
  • Performing a currency conversion of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 a continuation of the same inventive effort, the ’863 Patent addresses the same problem of uncertainty in cross-border asset trading caused by separate, non-transactional currency conversion steps (’863 Patent, col. 1:53-60).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for trading an asset where a trading server determines a prevailing exchange rate to display the asset's valuation in the user's preferred currency. The valuation is "updated constantly" as the exchange rate changes (’863 Patent, Claim 1). The transaction is then executed using a final exchange rate calculated "right before the transaction" occurs, ensuring settlement is based on the most current data available (’863 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent emphasizes the dynamic nature of the price display and the "just-in-time" calculation of the exchange rate for settlement, aiming to provide enhanced transparency and risk mitigation for the user (’863 Patent, col. 2:24-33).

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 from a trader.
  • Displaying the asset in the preferred currency, where the valuation changes in accordance with a "constantly updated" prevailing exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset.
  • Executing the transaction with a prevailing exchange rate "obtained right before the transaction" to settle in the preferred currency.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent 11,449,930 - "Method and Apparatus for Trading Assets in Different Currencies" (Issued Sep. 20, 2022)

• Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same patent family, the ’930 Patent claims a system for trading an asset across currencies. A key feature is the display of costs based on a first prevailing exchange rate, while the final settlement is conducted using a second prevailing exchange rate calculated immediately prior to the transaction, meaning the final settlement costs are not identical to the initially displayed costs but reflect the most current market conditions (’930 Patent, Abstract; Claim 12).
• 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 the ’930 Patent (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent 11,620,701 - "Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies" (Issued Apr. 4, 2023)

• Technology Synopsis: The ’701 Patent claims a trading platform that includes the client machine. The platform is configured to receive a preferred currency from a user, calculate and display costs in that currency based on a first exchange rate, and then conduct the transaction and settlement using a second, "just-in-time" exchange rate, with the executed costs not being identical to the displayed costs (’701 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶83).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's trading servers, which are coupled to currency and market exchange servers, of infringement (Compl. ¶83).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant’s "Moneycorp Corporate and Private Client Solution platforms and systems" and its "mobile Moneycorp app" (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products form a "multi-award-winning payment solutions platform" that enables users to make "FX and cross-border transactions" (Compl. ¶4). The functionality allows users to send and receive money internationally, with options to exchange over 30 currencies for payments to over 190 countries (Compl. ¶30). A screenshot provided in the complaint depicts a user interface for making international payments, which includes steps for selecting the recipient's country and the currency for the transfer (Compl. ¶30, p.8). The complaint states Defendant services approximately 11,000 corporate clients, specializing in "cross-border payments, FX risk management and payment solution products" (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 10,062,107 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 10,776,863 Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an element-by-element analysis of infringement of the ’863 Patent. The allegations are made at a high level, stating that 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" (Compl. ¶51). The complaint does not map specific features of the Accused Instrumentalities to the individual limitations of the asserted claims of the ’863 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether Defendant's international payment system qualifies as a "consolidated trading platform" for an "asset" as contemplated by the patents. The patents' specifications are heavily oriented toward trading investment securities, raising the question of whether the simple transfer of currency for payment purposes falls within the claims' scope.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the Accused Instrumentalities actually perform the claimed function of calculating a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place." The complaint alleges this specific timing to prevent uncertainty (Compl. ¶35(v)), but does not provide technical evidence demonstrating that the accused system operates in this manner, as opposed to using a rate quoted and fixed at an earlier point in the user workflow.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent 10,062,107

• The Term: "asset"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "asset" is critical, as infringement depends on whether the currency being transferred by Defendant’s service is an "asset" within the meaning of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents' context is primarily investment securities, while the accused service is a payment platform.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that securities include "a wide array of electronically traded financial assets" (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-21) and that assets "may include, but not be limited to, various securities" (’107 Patent, col. 4:56-57), which may support construing the term broadly to include currency itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section and examples focus almost exclusively on trading securities like stocks on an exchange to realize a "profit or loss," suggesting the "asset" is an investment instrument distinct from the currencies used to purchase it (’107 Patent, col. 1:38-60).

• The Term: "trading server"

• Context and Importance: The construction of "trading server" will determine if Defendant's payment processing infrastructure meets this claim limitation. Defendant may argue its system is a payment gateway, not a "trading" platform in the financial investment sense.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the server as facilitating transactions where "an asset is caused to change hands," a general description that could encompass a currency exchange (’107 Patent, col. 5:3-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent defines a "trader" in terms of an "individual investor, an institutional investor, an asset manager, a hedge fund," and describes the server as facilitating their work, which points toward a server used for investment purposes (’107 Patent, col. 2:39-42).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by its customers. The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s advertising and provision of its platform with instructions, which allegedly encourages and facilitates use of the platform in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶40, 43, 56).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on two theories. First, it alleges Defendant will have post-suit knowledge of the patents upon service of the complaint and that continued infringement will be willful (Compl. ¶¶39, 55). Second, it alleges willful blindness, asserting that Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" prior to launching its services (Compl. ¶¶44, 60).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "asset" and "trading server," which are rooted in the patents’ context of investment securities trading, be construed broadly enough to read on Defendant’s international currency payment platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Moneycorp platform perform the specific, time-sensitive function of calculating the final exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" as required by the claims, or does it utilize a rate fixed at a different point in the process? The complaint’s ability to substantiate this technical allegation will be central to its infringement case.
• An underlying legal question will concern patent eligibility: although argued preemptively by the Plaintiff, the case may test whether the patents' claims, directed to methods of managing currency exchange in transactions, represent a patent-eligible application of an idea or are directed to an abstract financial practice without a sufficient inventive concept.