DCT
2:25-cv-01022
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Interpay Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Interpay Limited (d/b/a TransferMate) (Ireland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01022, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts substantial business in the state, including offering and selling the accused products, and is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TransferMate global payments platform infringes a patent related to a consolidated financial platform that conducts transactions in a user's preferred currency.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses risks in cross-border financial transactions by integrating real-time currency conversion into the transaction process, aiming to provide users with price certainty in their local currency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit has been cited in patents issued to Bank of America, but mentions no prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Priority Date |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Issue Date |
| 2025-10-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 (“’701 Patent”), issued April 4, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem faced by investors trading assets (e.g., U.S. securities) in a currency other than their own. These investors had to perform bulk currency conversions before trading and again after selling, creating uncertainty about the final profit or loss due to exchange rate fluctuations that could occur between the asset transaction and the currency conversion (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16; ’701 Patent, col. 1:38-60). The patent asserts that prior art systems did not perform currency conversion at a "transactional level" (Compl. ¶16; ’701 Patent, col. 1:61-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a single system ('701 Patent, col. 2:25-35). This "three-tier architecture" allows the platform to present all prices, data, and transaction settlements in a user's chosen "preferred currency" by applying a prevailing exchange rate in real-time. This provides the trader with advance knowledge of the exact transaction value in their preferred currency, thereby eliminating the risk associated with subsequent, separate currency conversions (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19; ’701 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution aims to provide transactional certainty in cross-border financial trading by computationally unifying the asset transaction with the currency conversion, removing the temporal gap and associated exchange rate risk (Compl. ¶19; ’701 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶35).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a platform comprising:
- A trading server coupled to a client machine, a currency exchange server, and a market exchange server.
- The server receives an indicator of a "first currency" (the user's preference).
- The server calculates and displays costs and fees for an asset traded in a "second currency," with the displayed costs dynamically changing based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- The server conducts the transaction upon receiving an order and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated when the transaction is performed.
- Independent Claim 8 recites a platform from the perspective of the client machine, comprising:
- A client machine coupled to a trading server, which sends an indicator of a "first currency."
- The client machine displays dynamically changing costs and fees based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- After a transaction is conducted by the server, the client machine receives a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant’s "TransferMate Platform and systems" (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused product as a "global payments platform" used to "pay, receive and move money globally" (Compl. p. 9). A screenshot provided in the complaint depicts a user interface for making a "single payment" and describes the service as "ONE PLATFORM, ALL YOUR PAYMENTS" (Compl. p. 9). The allegations center on the platform's function of facilitating international payments that require currency conversion (Compl. ¶¶ 3-4, p. 9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trading server, coupled to a client machine... receiving an indicator of a first currency from the client machine | Defendant provides a trading server as part of its TransferMate platform, which allows users to make global payments, a process that includes selecting currencies. | ¶35, p. 9 | col. 5:36-42 |
| wherein the trading server is configured to couple to at least one currency exchange server and at least one market exchange server | The complaint alleges Defendant's trading servers are "coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers." | ¶35 | col. 4:41-66 |
| the trading server is further configured to calculate costs and fees in the first currency to own or sell the asset being traded in a second currency | The TransferMate platform is alleged to perform global payments requiring currency conversion, which necessarily involves calculating the cost of the transaction in the user's selected currency. | ¶30, p. 9 | col. 5:54-61 |
| the costs and fees are caused to be displayed... and are dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate... | The platform allegedly provides functionality covered by the patent, which includes presenting transaction details that would be based on prevailing exchange rates. | ¶35 | col. 5:20-25 |
| wherein the trading server is configured to conduct a transaction of the asset... and reach a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate... | The TransferMate platform is used to "Make a Single Payment," which constitutes conducting a transaction and reaching a settlement. | ¶35, p. 9 | col. 6:1-15 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's "global payments" platform constitutes a "platform for trading an asset" as recited in the claims. The patent’s specification primarily discusses the trading of securities and commodities, which raises the question of whether making a payment is equivalent to trading an "asset" within the meaning of the patent ('701 Patent, col. 1:19-54, claim 1).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement in general terms but does not specify how the accused platform implements certain technical details of the claims. For instance, what evidence supports the allegation that the TransferMate platform uses two distinct exchange rates—a "first prevailing exchange rate" for displaying initial costs and a separate "second prevailing exchange rate" for final settlement, as claim 1 requires? (Compl. ¶35).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "platform for trading an asset"
- Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to the accused TransferMate product, described as a "global payments" platform, may depend entirely on the construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to be limited to securities-style trading, the infringement case could be significantly affected.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that securities "include but are not limited to a wide array of electronically traded financial assets such as stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts, funds, index funds, mutual funds, exchange traded funds" ('701 Patent, col. 2:19-24). The use of "include but are not limited to" may support an argument that "asset" is a broad term not confined to the listed examples.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s "Background" section exclusively frames the problem in the context of an investor in one country trading securities listed on a foreign exchange, using Charles Schwab and NASDAQ as examples ('701 Patent, col. 1:19-54). This context, focused on investment instruments, may support a narrower construction that excludes general monetary transfers or payments.
The Term: "market exchange server"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the trading server to be coupled to a "market exchange server." The complaint alleges the accused system has such a server (Compl. ¶35). How this term is defined will be critical for determining if the architecture of the accused payments platform maps onto the claimed invention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition of "market exchange server," potentially leaving it open to its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any server system where assets or value are exchanged.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses examples of formal securities exchanges like the NYSE to illustrate the concept of a market exchange ('701 Patent, col. 5:6). This repeated contextual usage may support a narrower definition limited to servers of organized financial exchanges for securities or commodities, as distinct from components within a payment processing network.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant advertises its platform and provides services for use in a manner that infringes the ’701 Patent, and that Defendant knew or should have known these actions would cause its users to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41, 43).
- Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on notice provided by the filing and service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶39). The complaint further alleges that Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others," which it characterizes as willful blindness (Compl. ¶44).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "platform for trading an asset," which is described in the patent's specification primarily in the context of securities and commodities, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused "global payments" platform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural and functional mapping: does the TransferMate platform operate using the specific three-server architecture (trading, currency exchange, market exchange) claimed in the patent, and does its process for executing a payment specifically use two distinct prevailing exchange rates—one for quoting and a second for settlement—as required by the asserted claims?