DCT
2:25-cv-01027
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Finastra Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Finastra Limited (Cayman Islands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01027, E.D. Tex., 10/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, has regularly conducted business there, certain alleged acts of infringement occurred in the district, and Defendant is not a U.S. resident.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial software platforms and services infringe a patent related to systems for trading assets in a user's preferred currency by integrating real-time currency exchange rates into the transaction process.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses integrated financial platforms that perform real-time currency conversion for cross-border asset transactions, a key function in global finance designed to reduce price uncertainty for international investors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit. The patent is part of a family of applications claiming priority back to 2007.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | ’701 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-04-04 | ’701 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10-08 | 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, "Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies," issued April 4, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulties faced by investors trading securities in a foreign currency (e.g., a Chinese investor buying U.S. stocks) (Compl. ¶15). Prior systems required trading in the market currency (e.g., U.S. dollars), forcing investors to perform separate, bulk currency conversions before and after trading. This created uncertainty about the final profit or loss because the exchange rate could "fluctuate significantly" between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’701 Patent, col. 1:56-60). The patent asserts that this meant currency conversion was not performed at a "transactional level" (’701 Patent, col. 1:61-64).
- 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; Fig. 2B). This platform presents all prices, market data, and transaction settlements to the user in their pre-selected "preferred currency." The system is designed to perform the currency conversion automatically as part of the transaction, allowing a trader to know "exactly what he/she may end up with" at the moment of the trade (’701 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-35).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to eliminate the risk and uncertainty associated with currency fluctuations in international asset trading by integrating the currency conversion function directly into the transactional workflow (Compl. ¶¶ 17-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (’701 Patent, col. 8:46-col. 10:18; Compl. ¶35).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a platform comprising:
- A trading server coupled to a client machine that receives an indicator of a "first currency" (the preferred currency).
- The trading server is configured to couple to at least one currency exchange server and at least one market exchange server.
- The server calculates and displays costs and fees in the first currency for an asset traded in a "second currency."
- These displayed costs are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate," even if the asset's market value is static.
- The server conducts the transaction and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated as the transaction is performed.
- Independent Claim 8 recites a platform focused on the client machine, which:
- Executes software to send the "first currency" indicator to the trading server.
- Is caused to display the dynamically changing costs and fees based on the "first prevailing exchange rate."
- Receives a settlement based on the "second prevailing exchange rate" after the transaction is conducted.
- The complaint does not explicitly state an intent to assert other claims, though parties often reserve this right.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused instrumentalities" as a suite of Defendant’s financial technology products, including the "Global Payments Framework," "Kondor," "SeamlessFX," and "Fusion Global PAYplus" (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products constitute a "consolidated trading platform" for global payments, treasury, and capital markets (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a marketing diagram for the "Global Payments Framework," which depicts an architecture integrating various payment solutions, financial messaging capabilities, and "Market Infrastructure and Rail Connectivity" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges these platforms are used for global payments that require currency conversion and that Defendant provides the underlying "trading server... coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers" (Compl. ¶35, p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
11,620,701 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A platform for trading an asset, the platform comprising: 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" as part of its Accused Instrumentalities which facilitate global financial transactions. | ¶35 | col. 4:50-56 |
| 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 currency exchange servers and market exchange servers. The "Global Payments Framework" diagram shows "Market Infrastructure" connectivity. | ¶35; p. 8 | col. 4:65-col. 5:6 |
| 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 costs and fees are caused to be displayed... and are dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate... | The complaint alleges infringement of the claim, which requires this functionality. The complaint does not provide specific factual detail on how the accused products perform this dynamic cost calculation. | ¶35 | col. 5:53-61 |
| wherein the trading server is configured to conduct a transaction of the asset... and reach a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate as soon as the transaction of the asset is performed... | Defendant's platforms are used to conduct global payments and financial transactions that require currency conversion and settlement. | ¶30, ¶35 | col. 6:1-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent's specification is heavily focused on trading securities like stocks and bonds (’701 Patent, col. 1:41-43, col. 2:20-24). A potential point of contention is whether Defendant's "global payments platforms," which may primarily facilitate interbank fund transfers, constitute a "platform for trading an asset" on a "market exchange" as those terms are used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused systems use two distinct exchange rates as claimed: a "first prevailing exchange rate" for dynamically updating a displayed price and a separate "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated at the moment of settlement. The complaint alleges infringement generally but does not provide specific evidence detailing this two-rate mechanism in the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "trading server"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the central apparatus of the invention. Its construction will determine whether Defendant’s payment processing and financial messaging servers fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s examples concern securities trading, whereas the accused products are described as "global payments" platforms.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not limit the server to any particular type of asset, and the specification defines "trader" broadly to include any "initiator of the securities transaction" (’701 Patent, col. 2:39-40), which could support application beyond traditional stock brokerages.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses the server in the context of a brokerage facilitating transactions on a market exchange like the NYSE or NASDAQ (’701 Patent, col. 5:5; col. 1:41-43). The term could be construed as being limited to servers that interact with such formal asset exchanges.
The Term: "asset"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical to determining whether the patent covers the types of transactions handled by Defendant's platforms.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-limiting list of assets that includes "stocks, bonds, options, commodities... futures/derivatives contracts, funds..." (’701 Patent, col. 2:22-24). This broad list could support an interpretation that covers any electronically transferable item of value, including monetary value in a payment instruction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background problem is framed entirely in the context of trading "US securities" (’701 Patent, col. 1:31-33). This context, combined with the examples, may support an argument that "asset" should be limited to financial instruments traded on an organized market exchange.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, asserting that Defendant took active steps such as "advertising an infringing use" and knew or should have known that its actions would cause others to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on two theories: first, that Defendant’s infringement will be willful from the date it received service of the complaint (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶39); and second, that Defendant has been "willfully blind" due to an alleged practice of not reviewing third-party patent rights 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 patent’s claim terms, such as "trading an asset" and "market exchange server," which are described in the context of securities brokerage, be construed to encompass the functions of the accused "global payments platforms" that may facilitate interbank fund transfers rather than trades of discrete financial instruments?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused products implement the specific two-rate pricing and settlement mechanism required by the claims—dynamically displaying a price based on a "first" real-time exchange rate and settling the transaction based on a distinct "second" exchange rate calculated at the moment of execution?
- A threshold legal question may concern patent eligibility: given that the claims are directed to a computerized system for performing a financial transaction, the case may turn on whether the claimed invention is an improvement to computer functionality itself or is instead directed to the abstract idea of performing a currency-hedged transaction using conventional computer components.