DCT
2:25-cv-00701
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Nium Pte Ltd
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Skrill Limited (England)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00701, E.D. Tex., 10/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, regularly conducts business there, and is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s international money transfer platform infringes two patents related to consolidated financial trading systems that perform currency conversions at the transactional level.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrating real-time currency exchange rates into financial transaction platforms to provide users with price certainty when dealing with multiple currencies.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that the patents-in-suit overcame prior art during prosecution before multiple patent examiners.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107 |
| 2007-04-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 |
| 2018-08-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107 Issued |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Issued |
| 2025-10-08 | Complaint Filed |
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 trading systems where an investor trading assets in a foreign market (e.g., a Chinese investor trading on NASDAQ) had to transact in the market's native currency (U.S. Dollars) (Compl. ¶15; ’107 Patent, col. 1:37-43). This required pre-converting a bulk amount of their home currency, leaving the investor with "no certain knowledge of what profit or loss he was going to get" because the currency exchange rate could fluctuate significantly before or after the asset transaction (’107 Patent, col. 1:56-60).
- 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. 2:25-33). This system presents all prices, data, and potential settlements to the trader in their own preferred currency. It achieves this by performing the currency conversion at the "transactional level," meaning in conjunction with the asset trade itself, thereby providing the trader with exact knowledge of the transaction's value in their home currency at the moment of execution (’107 Patent, col. 1:63-68).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to remove the risk and uncertainty of currency fluctuations inherent in international securities trading by binding the currency conversion to the asset transaction itself (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’107 Patent, Compl. ¶43).
- 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.
- Causing a client computer to display an asset in the preferred currency, which involves determining a prevailing exchange rate and displaying all costs and fees dynamically changed in accordance with that rate.
- 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 obtained "right before the transaction takes place."
- Performing a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency.
U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - "PLATFORM FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the ’701 Patent addresses the inability of prior art trading systems to perform currency conversion at a "transactional level," which created uncertainty for traders regarding the ultimate profit or loss on international trades due to fluctuating exchange rates (’701 Patent, col. 1:60-63; Compl. ¶15).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a platform architecture comprising a trading server, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-33). The system is configured to calculate costs and fees in a user's preferred "first currency" for an asset traded in a "second currency." These costs and fees are "dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate" so the user has price certainty. A transaction is later settled using a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated just before settlement, intended to prevent uncertainty from currency fluctuations over time (’701 Patent, claim 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a technical mechanism to give traders real-time, accurate cost information in their home currency, insulating them from the financial risk of separate, later-timed currency exchanges (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claims 1 and 8 (’701 Patent, Compl. ¶59).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A trading server coupled to client, currency, and market exchange servers.
- The server calculates and causes the display of costs and fees in a "first currency" for an asset traded in a "second currency."
- The displayed costs are dynamically changed based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- The server conducts a transaction and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated right before the transaction.
- Claim 8 describes a platform comprising a client machine coupled to a trading server, with similar functionality for displaying dynamically updated costs and executing a transaction based on a prevailing exchange rate.
- The complaint explicitly references dependent claims 4 and 10 as examples of further inventive features, suggesting the right to assert additional claims is reserved (Compl. ¶13-14).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as "Skrill international payment platforms and systems" (Compl. ¶38).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendant offers international money transfer services that inherently require currency exchanges (Compl. ¶3). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website showing a user interface for selecting a "country and local currency" for a transaction. This interface also discloses a "3.99% foreign exchange fee" for certain transactions, which allegedly demonstrates that the platform performs currency conversion (Compl. p. 11). The complaint alleges that Defendant controls the operation of these platforms and generates substantial revenue from them (Compl. ¶42, ¶58).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a detailed, element-by-element infringement read for Claim 1 of the '107 Patent, but offers only general allegations for the '701 Patent.
’107 Patent 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 allegedly provides trading servers coupled to currency and market exchange servers. | ¶43(i) | col. 7:46-50 |
| receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader | Defendant's systems allegedly receive an indicator of a preferred currency from a user. The screenshot on page 11 of the complaint shows a user interface for selecting a country and currency. | ¶43(ii) | col. 7:51-53 |
| 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's systems allegedly cause a client computer to display transaction details in the user's preferred currency. | ¶43(iii) | col. 7:54-58 |
| conducting in the trading server a transaction of the asset by transmitting a transaction request from the trading server to a market exchange server... | Defendant's systems allegedly conduct transactions by transmitting requests from their trading server. | ¶43(iv) | col. 9:4-8 |
| receiving a settlement notification in the trading server when the transaction of the asset is performed...the trading server is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction takes place... | Defendant's systems allegedly receive settlement notifications and are configured to calculate and execute transactions using a prevailing exchange rate obtained just before the transaction. | ¶43(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's systems allegedly perform a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency. | ¶43(vi) | col. 9:23-28 |
’701 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or element-by-element breakdown for the asserted claims of the ’701 Patent. The allegations are framed more generally, stating that Defendant "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" in a manner that infringes Claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶59).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused "international payment platforms" (Compl. ¶38) for sending money constitute a "consolidated trading platform" for transacting an "asset" as contemplated by the patents. The specifications of both patents heavily feature examples of trading financial instruments like stocks and commodities (’107 Patent, col. 2:19-23; ’701 Patent, col. 2:20-24). The case may turn on whether a simple money transfer is equivalent to trading an "asset."
- Technical Questions: Another question may be whether the accused Skrill platform's application of a "foreign exchange fee" (Compl. p. 11) is technically equivalent to the claimed method of calculating a "prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty (’107 Patent, claim 1). The evidence will need to show if Skrill's system performs the specific, dynamic, real-time rate calculation and execution as claimed, or if it employs a different mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "trading server"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted independent claims of both patents. The complaint characterizes the patented invention as an "unconventional specialty trading server" to distinguish it from generic computers and support patent eligibility (Compl. ¶23, ¶27). The infringement analysis will depend on whether Skrill’s payment processing servers fall within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the server functionally as being "coupled to" currency and market exchange servers and performing specific transaction steps. One could argue that any server performing these functions, regardless of the specific "asset," is a "trading server".
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of a platform for traders and investors to transact in "securities," such as "stocks, bonds, options, commodities" (’107 Patent, col. 2:19-23). This context, along with the complaint’s own emphasis on a "specialty" server, could support a narrower construction limited to servers for trading financial instruments, not general-purpose payment processing.
The Term: "asset"
Context and Importance: The claims require actions to be performed on an "asset" (e.g., "display at least an asset," "transaction of the asset"). For infringement to be found, the currency being transferred via the Skrill platform must be considered an "asset" in the context of the patents.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of assets including "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts, funds..." (’107 Patent, col. 2:19-23). A party could argue that currency itself is a type of commodity that is traded, thus falling within the general scope of the term.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the patent's background section discusses the problem faced by investors trading securities on exchanges like NASDAQ (’107 Patent, col. 1:37-52). This focus on investment instruments could support an interpretation that excludes the simple transfer of money from one party to another, which may not be considered "trading" an "asset" in that specific context.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of both patents by providing its platform to users and advertising its use, which allegedly encourages infringing activities (Compl. ¶48-51, ¶64-67).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement will become willful upon service of the complaint, establishing post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶47, ¶63). It also 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" before launching its services (Compl. ¶52, ¶68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "trading platform" and "asset", which are rooted in the patents' context of financial securities and commodities trading, be construed to cover an international money transfer service where currency itself is the item being moved?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Skrill system perform the specific, dynamic calculation of a "prevailing exchange rate...right before the transaction" to eliminate investment uncertainty as claimed, or does its application of a "foreign exchange fee" represent a fundamentally different and non-infringing technical method?