Intercurrency Software LLC v. Currencyfair Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: CurrencyFair Limited (Ireland) and Zai Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00083, E.D. Tex., 01/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has regularly conducted business there, and as a foreign entity not resident in the United States, may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cross-border payment platforms infringe four patents related to systems and methods for conducting financial 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 view prices and execute transactions in a preferred local currency, even when the underlying asset is priced and traded in a different market currency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patents-in-suit share a common priority date and have been cited by patents issued to industry leaders like Bank of America, suggesting the technology was considered relevant during subsequent examinations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107 - “Consolidated Trading Platform,” issued August 28, 2018 (’107 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art financial systems where international investors trading securities in a foreign market (e.g., a Chinese investor trading U.S. stocks) faced uncertainty regarding their actual profit or loss (Compl. ¶17; ’107 Patent, col. 1:38-60). This uncertainty arose because currency conversions were performed separately from the asset transaction, often in bulk and at a different time, exposing the investor to risks from fluctuating exchange rates (Compl. ¶18; ’107 Patent, col. 1:53-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a single system (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-33). This platform allows a user to select a "preferred currency" and then view all prices, quotes, and potential settlements in that currency, with the system automatically performing the currency conversion at the time of the transaction using a prevailing rate (’107 Patent, col. 2:29-38). This provides the trader with immediate certainty about the transaction's value in their home currency (’107 Patent, col. 2:33-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to unify asset trading and foreign exchange into a single, real-time transactional process, thereby reducing currency risk and improving price transparency for international investors (’107 Patent, col. 2:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
• 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, with costs dynamically displayed.
  • Conducting a transaction of the asset by transmitting a request to the market exchange server.
  • Receiving a settlement notification and executing the transaction with a calculated prevailing exchange rate.
  • Performing a currency conversion 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 (’863 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Like its parent, the ’863 Patent addresses the problem of transactional uncertainty for traders operating across different currencies due to the separation of asset trading and currency conversion (’863 Patent, col. 1:36-60).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a trading server causes a client computer to display an asset's value in a user's preferred currency. A key aspect is that the displayed value "changes in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged" (’863 Patent, col. 8:62-67). The system obtains a prevailing rate from currency exchange servers just prior to the transaction to ensure the final settlement is accurate and shields the user from subsequent rate fluctuations (’863 Patent, col. 9:13-21).
• Technical Importance: This technology provided traders a real-time, unified view of an asset's value that simultaneously reflected both asset price movement and currency exchange rate fluctuations, enabling more informed decision-making (’863 Patent, col. 2:33-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
• 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, with its valuation changing dynamically with the exchange rate.
  • Conducting a transaction and calculating a prevailing exchange rate for settlement.

U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930 - “Method and Apparatus for Trading Assets in Different Currencies,” issued September 20, 2022 (’930 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method and system for trading assets across different currencies. The technology centers on a trading server that calculates and displays costs and fees in a user's preferred (first) currency for an asset traded in a market (second) currency. The displayed values are dynamic, changing with the prevailing exchange rate. The system then executes the transaction using a second, freshly calculated exchange rate at the moment of settlement to ensure transactional finality. (’930 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts claim 12 as exemplary (Compl. ¶69).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Defendant's trading servers, coupled to one or more currency and market exchange servers, infringe the ’930 Patent (Compl. ¶69).

U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - “Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies,” issued April 4, 2023 (’701 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

This patent claims a trading platform comprising a trading server coupled to a client machine. The server is configured to calculate and cause the client to display costs in a preferred currency, with these costs dynamically changing in response to a first prevailing exchange rate. Upon receiving an order, the server executes the transaction and reaches a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate calculated at the time of the transaction, providing the user with price certainty. (’701 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts claims 1 and 8 as exemplary (Compl. ¶85).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Defendant's trading servers, which are coupled to currency and market exchange servers and used in its platforms, infringe the ’701 Patent (Compl. ¶85).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s CurrencyFair Business and Personal platforms, including the systems accessible via its website and its mobile application (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities provide an online cross-border payment and foreign exchange service (Compl. ¶5). A screenshot in the complaint depicts a user interface for international money transfers, showing a field to input an amount in a source currency (USD) and a corresponding field displaying the converted amount in a destination currency (EUR) (Compl. p. 9). A second screenshot shows a similar interface for business customers (Compl. p. 9). These visuals illustrate the core accused functionality: enabling a transaction that requires currency conversion between a source and destination currency selected by the user. The complaint alleges the service is used by over 150,000 customers for international payments (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’107 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether a currency-to-currency transfer, as offered by the accused service, constitutes trading an "asset" on a "market exchange" within the meaning of the patent. The patent specification heavily emphasizes examples of financial securities like stocks and bonds (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-24), raising the question of whether its claims are limited to that context or can read on simple monetary exchange.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of distinct "trading," "market exchange," and "currency exchange" servers (Compl. ¶37). A point of contention may be whether Defendant's system architecture actually maps to this three-part structure or operates in a fundamentally different way that does not meet the claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "asset"

• Context and Importance: The construction of "asset" is central to the dispute. The patents’ specifications consistently provide examples such as "stocks, bonds, options, commodities... futures/derivatives contracts" (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-24). The accused instrumentality, however, is a service for transferring currency. Whether "currency" itself qualifies as the claimed "asset" will be a critical determinant of infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "asset" without explicitly limiting it to securities. A party could argue that in the absence of an explicit definition or disclaimer, the term should be given its ordinary financial meaning, which can include currency.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated and consistent use of securities and commodities as the sole examples of "assets" throughout the detailed description may support an interpretation that the invention is directed specifically to the trading of such financial instruments, not general currency exchange. The associated term "market exchange" (with NYSE as an example) may further narrow the context away from simple money transfers.

The Term: "market exchange server"

• Context and Importance: The claims require a transaction to be conducted via a "market exchange server" where the "asset is caused to change hands" (’107 Patent, col. 5:4-6). The infringement allegation depends on finding a corresponding component in the Defendant's system. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is unclear how a peer-to-peer or brokered currency transfer platform architecturally aligns with a formal "market exchange server" as exemplified by the NYSE in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any server or system component that facilitates the core exchange of value (i.e., where the currency transfer is executed) meets the functional requirement of a "market exchange server," regardless of its specific form.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's explicit example of the NYSE (’107 Patent, col. 5:4-6) could support a narrower construction requiring an organized, third-party market platform for trading, which may not be present in the accused system's architecture for direct currency transfers.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that by providing and advertising its platforms, Defendant induces its users to perform the steps of the patented methods. It also alleges contributory infringement by providing an article (the platform) intended for an infringing use (Compl. ¶¶42-45, 58-61, 74-77, 90-93).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories. First, that infringement will be willful upon Defendant receiving notice of the patents via the complaint (Compl. ¶41, ¶57, ¶73, ¶89). Second, it alleges pre-suit willful blindness, asserting that Defendant has a practice of not reviewing the patent rights of others before launching its products and services (Compl. ¶46, ¶62, ¶78, ¶94).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "asset," which is described in the patents primarily in the context of trading financial securities on a "market exchange," be construed to cover the direct currency-to-currency transfers performed by the accused international payment platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural mapping: does the Defendant's system architecture contain distinct components that function as the "trading server," "market exchange server," and "currency exchange server" recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed three-tier architecture and the technical operation of the accused service?
• A central factual dispute will concern functional operation: for claims requiring the constant, dynamic updating of a displayed value based on real-time exchange rate fluctuations, the case may turn on whether the accused platform is proven to perform this specific dynamic function, a feature not conclusively established by the static visual evidence in the complaint.