DCT
2:25-cv-01023
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Currency Cloud Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: The Currency Cloud Limited (England)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-1023, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and regularly conducts business in the district. As Defendant is not a resident of the United States, Plaintiff asserts it may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s global money movement and currency exchange platforms infringe a patent related to a consolidated trading platform that integrates currency conversion at the transactional level.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency when the underlying asset is priced and traded in a different, or "market," currency, aiming to provide certainty by locking in exchange rates at the time of the transaction.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
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 Issued |
| 2025-10-07 | Complaint Filed |
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 ("PLATFORM FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES"), issued April 4, 2023 (the "’701 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes a problem faced by investors wishing to trade securities in a foreign market, such as a Chinese investor trading U.S. stocks. Such transactions required the investor to perform bulk currency conversions separate from the security transaction itself, creating uncertainty regarding the final profit or loss due to exchange rate fluctuations that could occur between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’701 Patent, col. 1:38-60). The patent notes that this meant "currency conversion is not at a transactional level" (’701 Patent, col. 1:61-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a "three-tier architecture" (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-33). This platform allows a user to see all prices and conduct all transactions in a "preferred currency." The system is designed to perform currency conversions automatically and contemporaneously with the asset transaction, so that a "trader always knows exactly what he/she may end up with" (’701 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to mitigate currency exchange risk and increase price transparency for participants in globalized financial markets by bundling the asset transaction with the necessary currency conversion (’701 Patent, col. 2:32-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶35).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a platform for trading an asset, 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 preferred currency).
- The server calculates and causes the display of costs and fees in the first currency for an asset traded in a "second currency."
- These displayed costs are "dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate... even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged."
- The server conducts the transaction and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated as soon as 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 costs and fees that are dynamically changed based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- The client machine receives a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" after an order is sent to the trading server.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant's "Currencycloud platforms and systems" (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a "b2b international cross border payment platform" that allows users to "access 36+ currencies in over 180 countries" (Compl. p. 8). A screenshot provided in the complaint states the platform is used to "collect, convert, pay and manage multiple currencies simultaneously" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant provides a "trading server" coupled to "currency exchange servers" and "market exchange servers" as part of this platform (Compl. ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s operation of the Accused Instrumentalities infringes at least claims 1 and 8 of the ’701 Patent (Compl. ¶35).
’701 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trading server, coupled to a client machine associated with a user, receiving an indicator of a first currency from the client machine... | Defendant provides a "trading server, such as the Defendant trading servers" as part of its "Currencycloud platforms and systems." | ¶30, ¶35 | col. 8:46-49 |
| wherein the trading server is configured to couple to at least one currency exchange server and at least one market exchange server... | Defendant's trading servers are allegedly "coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, such as Defendant servers, and one or more market exchange servers." | ¶35 | col. 8:50-52 |
| 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 accused "cross border payment platform" is used to "collect, convert, pay and manage multiple currencies," which requires currency conversion. | p. 8 | col. 8:52-55 |
| the costs and fees are caused to be displayed on a display device of the client machine and are dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate... | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations detailing a dynamic display of costs based on a "first prevailing exchange rate." | ¶35, ¶37 | col. 8:55-62 |
| the trading server is configured to conduct a transaction of the asset... and reach a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate... | The accused platform facilitates "global payments" and "same day transfers for multiple currencies," which are alleged to be infringing transactions and settlements. | p. 8 | col. 8:63-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether Defendant's "cross border payment platform" constitutes a "platform for trading an asset" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue that the patent is directed toward trading financial securities on a "market exchange," whereas the accused platform facilitates payments, which may not be considered "assets" traded on an "exchange" in the context of the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused platform meets the "dynamically changed" cost display limitation or the use of two distinct exchange rates (a "first prevailing exchange rate" for pre-transaction display and a "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement). The sufficiency of Plaintiff's evidence on these technical requirements may become a key point of contention.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "asset"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical to determining whether the patent reads on Defendant's payment platform. Its construction will likely define whether the patent is limited to financial instruments or can cover generalized monetary transfers.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 uses the general term "asset" without limitation. The specification states that securities "include but are not limited to" a list of financial instruments, which may suggest the term is not exhaustive (’701 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background exclusively discusses trading "US securities" (’701 Patent, col. 1:33-41). The described "three-tier architecture" explicitly requires a "market exchange where securities/assets are traded," suggesting an "asset" is something traded on an organized exchange, not just any transfer of value (’701 Patent, col. 2:26-28).
The Term: "trading server"
- Context and Importance: Whether Defendant's infrastructure for processing payments can be characterized as a "trading server" will be a central point of the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which may allow for a construction that covers any server facilitating a commercial transaction involving the exchange of value.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is consistently used in the context of a "consolidated trading platform" connected to a "market exchange server" to facilitate transactions of securities or commodities (’701 Patent, col. 2:29-33; col. 8:50-54). This context suggests a server specialized for executing trades on financial markets, which may differ from a server that processes payments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads inducement, alleging Defendant knew or should have known its actions would cause infringement and took active steps such as "advertising an infringing use" (Compl. ¶41, ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving notice via the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also alleges willful blindness based on a purported "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (Compl. ¶44).
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 patent's specification primarily in the context of securities traded on a "market exchange," be construed broadly enough to read on the monetary transfers processed by Defendant's "cross border payment platform"?
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does the evidence show that the accused platform performs the specific two-part currency conversion process required by the claims, involving a dynamic pre-transaction cost display based on a "first" exchange rate and a separate settlement based on a "second" exchange rate? The complaint's high-level allegations leave this as a central open question.