DCT
2:25-cv-00456
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Xe Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Xe Corporation (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00456, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, conducts regular business there, and is not a resident of the United States, allowing suit in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online currency conversion and money transfer platforms infringe four patents related to a consolidated trading platform that conducts transactions in a user’s preferred currency.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns financial trading platforms that integrate real-time currency exchange data to allow users to transact in a preferred local currency while the underlying asset is traded in a different market currency.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents form a family, with each patent being a continuation of the prior one. The complaint notes that the patents overcame prior art during prosecution and have been cited in patents issued to Bank of America, which Plaintiff presents as evidence of their significance.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2018-01-01 | Defendant's predecessor, Xe.com Inc., becomes the "Successor Corporation" |
| 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 |
| 2024-11-01 | Defendant amalgamated from a prior Xe Corporation entity |
| 2025-05-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107 - “Consolidated Trading Platform,” Issued Aug. 28, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem for international investors where trading securities (e.g., U.S. stocks) required transactions in the market currency (e.g., U.S. Dollars), not the investor's local currency. This necessitated separate currency conversion steps before and after the trade, creating uncertainty about the final profit or loss due to exchange rate fluctuations between the time of the trade and the time of currency conversion (’107 Patent, col. 1:49-60). The patent asserts that prior art systems did not perform currency conversion at a "transactional level" (Compl. ¶18; ’107 Patent, col. 1:61-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a consolidated, three-tier trading platform architecture comprising a brokerage, a market exchange (e.g., for securities), and a currency exchange (’107 Patent, col. 2:24-28). This integrated system presents all prices, data, and settlements to the user in their preferred currency by obtaining prevailing exchange rates in real-time, thereby allowing the trader to know the exact profit or loss in their own currency at the moment of the transaction (’107 Patent, col. 2:28-35).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to eliminate the currency exchange risk and uncertainty inherent in international securities trading by integrating the currency conversion directly into the transaction workflow (’107 Patent, col. 2:15-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
- 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 being traded in a market currency, which involves determining a prevailing exchange rate and displaying all costs and fees dynamically in the preferred currency.
- Conducting a transaction of the asset by transmitting a request to the market exchange server.
- Receiving a settlement notification, wherein the trading server calculates the prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to execute the transaction and prevent uncertainty.
- Performing a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶33).
U.S. Patent No. 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 ’107 Patent, the ’863 Patent addresses the same core problem of transactional uncertainty for investors operating across different currencies (’863 Patent, col. 1:50-61).
- The Patented Solution: The ’863 Patent also describes the three-tier architecture (brokerage, market exchange, currency exchange) to consolidate trading and currency conversion (’863 Patent, col. 2:25-29). The claims focus on the method of displaying asset information, where the asset's valuation in the preferred currency changes "constantly" based on updated exchange rates, even if the asset's market value remains unchanged, giving the trader real-time knowledge of their position in their own currency (’863 Patent, col. 7:59-col. 8:4).
- Technical Importance: This invention emphasizes the user-facing aspect of the system, ensuring the trader is always presented with a real-time, actionable price in their currency of choice, removing a layer of mental calculation and risk assessment (’863 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:2).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Coupling a trading server to one or more 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 while it is traded in a market currency.
- This display involves determining a prevailing exchange rate, where 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."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶59).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930, “Method and Apparatus for Trading Assets in Different Currencies,” Issued Sep. 20, 2022.
- Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the ’863 Patent, the ’930 Patent further refines the claims around the consolidated trading platform. It focuses on the method of displaying dynamically updated costs and fees in a first (preferred) currency for an asset traded in a second (market) currency, and executing the transaction with a second, newly calculated exchange rate at the moment of trade to ensure accuracy (’930 Patent, col. 9:1-10).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶70).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s provision of a trading server coupled to currency and market exchange servers infringes the patent (Compl. ¶70).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701, “Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies,” Issued Apr. 4, 2023.
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family, the ’701 Patent claims a platform for trading assets. The claims recite a client machine, a trading server, and the dynamic calculation and display of costs and fees in the user's preferred currency, with a specific focus on the system architecture where the client receives a settlement based on a second, point-of-transaction exchange rate that differs from the first, displayed rate (’701 Patent, col. 9:59-col. 10:20).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶86).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s provision of a trading server coupled to currency and market exchange servers infringes the patent (Compl. ¶86).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant’s “Xe Personal and Business platforms and systems found at https://www.xe.com/, as well as its mobile Xe app,” collectively termed the “Accused Instrumentalities” (Compl. ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities provide an "apparatus and method for a consolidated trading platform" (Compl. ¶32). The primary functions identified are "currency conversions & money transfers" (Compl. ¶33, p.8 screenshot). A screenshot from the Xe website offers a tool to convert an amount from a source currency (e.g., USD) to a destination currency (e.g., EUR) (Compl. ¶33, p.8 screenshot). A screenshot of the mobile app shows a currency chart and options to "Convert" or "Send money" (Compl. ¶34, p.9 screenshot). The complaint asserts these platforms are used for international money transfers and currency conversions (Compl. ¶5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,062,107 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 "practices and provides a trading server, such as its trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, and one or more market exchange servers" | ¶38(i) | col. 4:57-61 |
| receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader; | Defendant "practices and provides receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader" | ¶38(ii) | col. 5:36-40 |
| 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 "practices and provides causing a client computer associated with the trader to display at least an asset in the preferred currency" | ¶38(iii) | col. 8:49-54 |
| 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 "practices and provides conducting in the trading server a transaction of the asset by transmitting a transaction request...to a market exchange server" | ¶38(iv) | col. 9:5-9 |
| receiving a settlement notification...wherein the conditions include a price at which the asset is traded in the preferred currency, the trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction takes place... | Defendant "practices and provides receiving a settlement notification...wherein the conditions include a price at which the asset is traded in the preferred currency, the trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction takes place" | ¶38(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... | Defendant "practices and provides performing a currency conversion of some portion or all of the transaction" | ¶38(vi) | col. 9:23-28 |
10,776,863 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| coupling a trading server to one or more currency exchange servers and one or more market exchange servers; | The complaint alleges 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." | ¶54 | col. 3:1-4 |
| receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, alleging only the general provision of a trading server. | ¶54 | col. 7:51-53 |
| causing a client computer...to display the asset in the preferred currency...wherein said causing...comprises: determining...a prevailing exchange rate...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; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, alleging only the general provision of a trading server. | ¶54 | col. 7:54-col. 8:4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Defendant’s currency conversion and money transfer service constitutes the claimed "consolidated trading platform." The patent specifications for the ’107 and ’863 patents repeatedly use securities, stocks, and commodities as examples of the "asset" being traded on a "market exchange" (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23; col. 6:50-51). The court may need to determine if currency itself can be considered the "asset" and if Defendant's platform, which facilitates currency exchange, can be considered a "market exchange server" within the context of the claims and specification.
- Technical Questions: For the ’107 Patent, a factual question is whether the accused Xe platform performs all the specific steps of claim 1, such as calculating a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" specifically "to prevent uncertainty in currency exchanges in another time" (Compl. ¶38(v)). For the ’863 Patent, the infringement allegations are stated at a high level of generality (Compl. ¶54). A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused platform actually performs the specific function of displaying a "valuation of the asset...[that] changes in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged," as the complaint provides no specific facts on this operational detail.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’107 and ’863 Patents:
The Term: "asset"
Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the scope of infringement. The patents describe the invention in the context of trading financial "assets" like stocks, bonds, and commodities. The accused product facilitates the exchange and transfer of currency. The core of the dispute may turn on whether "currency" itself is an "asset" as contemplated by the patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either bring Defendant's entire platform within the claims' scope or place it entirely outside.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Securities include, but are not limited to, a wide array of electronically traded financial assets" (’107 Patent, col. 2:19-21). This "not limited to" language could support an argument that the term is not restricted to the examples given.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description consistently uses examples of "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts, funds, index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds" (’107 Patent, col. 2:21-23). The background section focuses entirely on the problem of trading U.S. securities from a foreign country (Compl. ¶17; ’107 Patent, col. 1:28-45). This context may support a narrower construction limited to securities or similar investment instruments, as distinct from currency itself.
The Term: "market exchange server"
Context and Importance: The claims require a three-part architecture that includes a "market exchange server" where the "asset" is traded. The complaint alleges that Defendant provides one (Compl. ¶38(i)). Whether Defendant's currency exchange infrastructure qualifies as a "market exchange server" is a critical question.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which could support an argument for applying a plain and ordinary meaning that might encompass any server system where items of value are exchanged.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example of a market exchange: the NYSE (’107 Patent, col. 5:4-5). This example, tied to securities trading, could be used to argue that the term is limited to formal securities or commodities exchanges and does not cover the infrastructure for foreign currency exchange (Forex) transactions, which operate differently.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "advertising an infringing use, which supports a finding of an intention for the accused product to be used in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶46, ¶62, ¶78, ¶94).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories. First, that Defendant’s infringement will be willful from the date of service of the complaint, establishing post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶42, ¶58, ¶74, ¶90). Second, the complaint alleges pre-suit willful blindness, asserting on information and belief that Defendant "has a practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others first for clearance or to assess infringement thereof prior to launching products and services" (Compl. ¶47, ¶63, ¶79, ¶95).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents foundational questions of claim scope and technical interpretation. The outcome will likely depend on the court’s determination of the following issues:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "asset", which is described in the patents' specification primarily in the context of securities like stocks and bonds, be construed to read on currency itself? Similarly, can the accused currency exchange system be considered a "market exchange server" as that term is used in the patents? The resolution of these questions will determine whether the accused currency conversion platform falls within the technological boundaries of the asserted patents.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Assuming the patents' scope is found to cover Defendant's platform, does the complaint and subsequent evidence demonstrate that the Xe platform performs the specific, multi-step methods recited in the claims? In particular, does it dynamically calculate and display costs based only on exchange rate fluctuations, and does it perform a secondary, point-of-sale currency calculation for settlement in the precise manner claimed?