DCT
2:25-cv-00702
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Skrill Ltd
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-00702, E.D. Tex., 07/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has regularly conducted business there, certain acts of infringement occurred in the district, and Defendant is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s international money transfer platform infringes two patents related to systems and methods for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency, with real-time exchange rate conversions.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the financial uncertainty inherent in cross-currency transactions by integrating a currency exchange function directly into the transaction process, allowing a user to see costs and execute trades in their chosen local currency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patents-in-suit were allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after examination and have been cited in patents issued to Bank of America, which Plaintiff presents as an indicator of their relevance.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | Priority Date for '107 and '701 Patents |
| 2018-08-28 | U.S. Patent 10,062,107 Issues |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent 11,620,701 Issues |
| 2025-07-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent 10,062,107 - "Consolidated Trading Platform"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 10,062,107, entitled "Consolidated Trading Platform", issued on August 28, 2018.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem faced by investors trading assets (e.g., U.S. stocks) in a currency different from their own (e.g., Chinese RMB) (Compl. ¶15; ’107 Patent, col. 1:36-40). Prior systems required separate, bulk currency conversions before and after trading, creating "uncertainty" about the ultimate profit or loss because the exchange rate could fluctuate between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’107 Patent, col. 1:52-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a "three-tier architecture" comprising a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’107 Patent, col. 2:25-28). This system allows a trader to view all prices and execute transactions in a "preferred currency," with the currency conversion occurring as part of the transaction itself, thereby giving the trader immediate certainty on the final cost or proceeds (’107 Patent, col. 2:30-35).
- Technical Importance: The described solution sought to eliminate the risk and uncertainty of currency fluctuations from individual international financial transactions by embedding the conversion process directly into the transaction workflow (Compl. ¶17; ’107 Patent, col. 2:15-19).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of independent 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, using a prevailing exchange rate.
- Conducting a transaction of the asset by sending a request to the market exchange server.
- Receiving a settlement notification and being configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to prevent uncertainty.
- Performing a currency conversion from the market currency to the preferred currency.
U.S. Patent 11,620,701 - "Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 11,620,701, entitled "Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies", issued on April 4, 2023.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '107 Patent, the '701 Patent addresses the same core problem: the "cost and risk" incurred when a currency conversion is performed separately from a financial transaction, which prevents a trader from knowing the exact profit or loss at the time of the transaction ('701 Patent, col. 1:52-65).
- The Patented Solution: The '701 Patent claims a platform where costs and fees for an asset traded in a "second currency" are calculated and displayed to a user in a "first currency" (the user's preferred currency) ('701 Patent, Abstract). These displayed costs are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate," while the final settlement occurs using a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated when the transaction is performed ('701 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This technology also aims to provide price certainty in cross-currency financial transactions, but the claims focus on a platform architecture involving distinct exchange rates for display and settlement ('701 Patent, col. 2:15-19).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶51).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 (a platform claim) include:
- A trading server that receives an indicator of a "first currency" from a user's client machine.
- The server is configured to calculate costs and fees in the first currency for an asset traded in a second currency.
- The costs and fees are displayed on the client machine and are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- The server conducts the transaction and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate."
- Independent claim 8 is directed to the client machine component of the platform, which sends the currency indicator, displays the dynamically updated costs, and receives the final settlement information.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant's "Skrill international payment platforms and systems" (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused Skrill platform is used for "international money transfers requiring currency exchanges" (Compl. ¶3). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a user interface for selecting a "country and local currency" to send money. (Compl. p. 8). This screenshot also describes a "3.99% foreign exchange fee" applicable when a U.S. recipient receives money from a non-U.S. customer, which the complaint offers as evidence of the platform's currency conversion functionality (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant generates "substantial financial revenues" from the sale and operation of these platforms (Compl. ¶34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'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 provides its trading servers, which are coupled to one or more currency exchange servers and market exchange servers. | ¶35(i) | col. 8:47-50 |
| receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred currency from a trader; | The Skrill platform receives an indicator of a preferred currency from the user, for example, via the "Select your country and local currency" feature. | ¶35(ii) | col. 8:51-52 |
| 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 system causes the user's client computer to display the transaction value in the user's preferred currency. | ¶35(iii) | col. 8:53-56 |
| conducting in the trading server a transaction of the asset by transmitting a transaction request from the trading server to a market exchange server... | The trading server conducts the transaction by transmitting a request to a market exchange server when the user proceeds with the transfer. | ¶35(iv) | col. 9:5-8 |
| 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... | The server receives a settlement notification and is configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate immediately before the transaction to prevent uncertainty. | ¶35(v) | col. 9:10-21 |
| performing a currency conversion of some portion or all of the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency... | The system performs a currency conversion from the sender's currency to the recipient's currency as part of the transaction. | ¶35(vi) | col. 9:22-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of trading financial "assets" like "stocks, bonds, options, commodities" on a "market exchange" such as the NYSE (’107 Patent, col. 2:20-23, col. 5:4-6). A central question will be whether Skrill's peer-to-peer "money transfer" service constitutes trading an "asset," and whether the general foreign exchange (FX) market infrastructure it uses can be considered a "market exchange server" as those terms are used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires the trading server to be "configured to calculate the prevailing exchange rate... right before the transaction takes place... to prevent uncertainty in currency exchanges in another time." The complaint does not provide specific evidence that the Skrill system performs this precise, real-time calculation at the moment of transaction, as opposed to applying a pre-set rate or a rate that includes a fixed fee, as suggested by the "3.99% foreign exchange fee" visual (Compl. p. 8).
'701 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement allegations for the '701 Patent. The infringement count incorporates earlier paragraphs by reference and asserts in a more general manner that Defendant's provision of its "trading servers," coupled to currency and market exchange servers, infringes claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶47, ¶51). The allegations for the '701 patent therefore rely on the same general theory and description of the accused platform as the allegations for the '107 patent.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The same dispute over the meaning of "asset" and "market exchange" from the '107 patent will apply here. Additionally, claims 1 and 8 of the '701 patent require a "first prevailing exchange rate" (for display) and a "second prevailing exchange rate" (for settlement). The complaint does not allege specific facts showing how the Skrill platform uses two distinct, time-sensitive exchange rates in the manner claimed.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be whether the accused Skrill system's architecture matches the specific two-rate structure of the '701 patent's claims. Discovery will likely focus on whether Skrill's platform calculates one rate for displaying a quote to the user and a separate, newly calculated rate at the moment of final settlement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "asset"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical to the applicability of the patents to the accused money transfer service. The patents describe "assets" primarily as securities and commodities ('107 Patent, col. 2:20-23). The court's interpretation will determine if a simple transfer of currency falls within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use the general term "asset" without express limitation to securities. Plaintiff may argue that currency is a form of financial asset and the patent's examples are merely illustrative, not limiting.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's consistent use of examples like stocks, bonds, oil, and futures, traded on organized exchanges, may support a narrower construction limited to such instruments and excluding simple currency transfers ('107 Patent, col. 4:55-60).
The Term: "market exchange server"
- Context and Importance: The patents describe a "three-tier architecture" that explicitly includes a "market exchange" separate from a "currency exchange" ('107 Patent, Fig. 2B). To prove infringement, Plaintiff must show that the Skrill system is coupled to a "market exchange server."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may contend that the decentralized, over-the-counter foreign exchange market, which Skrill must access for rates, functions as a "market exchange" and that the computer systems providing those rates are "market exchange servers."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term, as used in the patent, refers to a formal, centralized exchange where assets like securities are traded (e.g., NASDAQ), and not the distributed infrastructure of the FX market ('107 Patent, col. 1:36-40).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing the Skrill platform and advertising its use to customers, thereby encouraging them to perform the steps of the patented methods (Compl. ¶40-43, ¶56-59).
- 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 (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶39, ¶55); and second, that Defendant was willfully blind to Plaintiff's patent rights due to an alleged "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 patent terms "asset" and "market exchange server", which the specification describes in the context of trading securities and commodities, be construed broadly enough to read on the peer-to-peer "money transfer" functionality and underlying foreign exchange market infrastructure of the accused Skrill platform?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Skrill platform actually perform the specific, time-sensitive exchange rate calculations required by the claims? This includes the '107 patent’s requirement for a calculation "right before the transaction takes place" to eliminate temporal risk, and the '701 patent's distinct "first" and "second" prevailing rates for display and settlement, respectively.