Intercurrency Software LLC v. Thunes Asia Pte Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Thunes Asia Pte Ltd. (Singapore)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01029, E.D. Tex., 10/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, regularly conducts business in the district, and is not a resident of the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cross-border payment platforms infringe a patent related to a consolidated financial trading system that performs currency conversions at the transactional level.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses risk and uncertainty in international financial transactions by integrating real-time currency exchange data into a trading platform, allowing users to view and execute transactions in a preferred local currency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit. It does note that the patent was allowed by patent examiners over prior art of record.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-04-18	’701 Patent Priority Date
2023-04-04	’701 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-09	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 (’701 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulties faced by foreign investors trading securities in a different currency (e.g., a Chinese investor trading on NASDAQ) (Compl. ¶15). Such investors had to perform bulk currency conversions separate from the actual securities transactions, creating uncertainty about the ultimate profit or loss due to fluctuating exchange rates between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’701 Patent, col. 1:38-60). This meant currency conversion was not performed at a "transactional level," preventing traders from knowing the precise outcome of a transaction in their own currency (Compl. ¶16; ’701 Patent, col. 1:61-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates three elements: a brokerage, a market exchange for trading assets, and a currency exchange (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-29; Fig. 2B). This platform obtains a "prevailing exchange rate" and presents all prices, market data, and potential settlements to a trader in their "preferred currency" (’701 Patent, col. 2:29-33). This integration allows a trader to "always know exactly what he/she may end up with" at the moment of a transaction, as the currency conversion is tied directly to the asset trade (Compl. ¶19; ’701 Patent, col. 2:33-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to mitigate the financial risk and uncertainty associated with currency exchange rate fluctuations in the context of international securities trading (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (’701 Patent, col. 7:46-6:17; Compl. ¶35).
• Independent Claim 1 (a system claim) includes the following essential elements:
  • 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 displays costs and fees in the first currency for an asset traded in a "second currency," with the display being "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
  • The server conducts a transaction by sending a request to the market exchange server.
  • The server reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated "right before the transaction takes place."
  • The final "executed costs and fees" based on the second rate are "not identical" to the initially displayed costs and fees based on the first rate.
• Independent Claim 8 recites a similar system from the perspective of the client machine, which executes software to interact with the trading server and display the dynamically updated costs and fees.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Thunes cross-border payment platforms and systems," which include services such as "Pay-to-Wallets, Pay-to-Banks, Pay-to QR-Code, Pay-to-Cards, and corresponding mobile apps" (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products function as a "consolidated trading platform" (Compl. ¶30). A screenshot provided in the complaint depicts a user interface for sending money from one currency (USD) to another (KES), showing the exact amount the recipient will receive. This screenshot, from Thunes' website, promotes the service's "Transparent pricing and FX," stating that "beneficiaries can easily understand the amount they will receive in their local currency" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that to provide this service, Defendant operates a "trading server... coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers" (Compl. ¶35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’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... wherein the trading server is configured to couple to at least one currency exchange server and at least one market exchange server...	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."	¶35	col. 5:2-6
receiving an indicator of a first currency from the client machine...	The accused platform allows a user to specify a sending currency (e.g., USD) and a receiving currency (e.g., KES), which function as the first and second currencies.	p. 8	col. 5:36-40
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 platform calculates and displays the final amount in the recipient's currency based on an input amount in the sender's currency.	p. 8	col. 5:55-59
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 platform's marketing of "Transparent pricing and FX" suggests the use of real-time or prevailing exchange rates to present transaction details to the user.	p. 8	col. 6:21-24
reach a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate as soon as the transaction of the asset is performed...	The accused system completes the cross-border payment, which the complaint alleges constitutes a settlement based on a prevailing exchange rate.	¶30, ¶35	col. 7:2-4
wherein the second prevailing exchange rate is calculated... right before the transaction takes place, executed costs and fees... are not identical to the displayed costs and fees...	The complaint makes a general allegation that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe all limitations of Claim 1.	¶35	col. 9:4-7

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether Defendant's cross-border payment system constitutes a "platform for trading an asset" that uses a "market exchange server" as those terms are used in the patent. The patent’s specification consistently frames the invention in the context of trading financial securities like stocks, bonds, and commodities, raising the question of whether a currency transfer service falls within the patent's scope (Compl. ¶15; ’701 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations demonstrating that the accused system uses two distinct prevailing exchange rates—a "first" rate for display and a "second, non-identical" rate for settlement—as required by Claim 1. The accused product’s marketing of "Transparent pricing" and allowing beneficiaries to "easily understand the amount they will receive" could suggest a single, locked-in rate for both display and settlement, which raises the question of a potential mismatch with the claim language (Compl. p. 8).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "asset"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of "asset" will be critical. The patent specification provides numerous examples of financial assets such as "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts, funds, index funds," etc. (’701 Patent, col. 2:20-24). The infringement case depends on whether a currency transfer, as performed by the accused payment system, can be considered the "trading" of an "asset."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "asset" without express limitation to securities, which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning covering anything of value, including currency.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background, summary, and detailed description sections consistently frame the invention’s purpose and operation in the context of trading securities on a market exchange, which may support a narrower construction limited to such financial instruments (’701 Patent, col. 1:29-37, col. 5:4-6).

• The Term: "market exchange server"

  • Context and Importance: The patent's claimed three-tier architecture requires a "market exchange server" where the "asset is caused to change hands" (’701 Patent, col. 5:5-6). Whether Defendant’s payment network infrastructure can be characterized as a "market exchange server" will be a central point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not define the term, potentially allowing it to cover any system that facilitates the exchange of an asset, including a foreign exchange network that matches currency buy and sell orders.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the term to formal securities exchanges like the NYSE, where assets like stocks are traded (’701 Patent, col. 5:5-6). This consistent contextual use may be cited to argue that the term is limited to servers associated with such formal exchanges.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating Defendant’s advertising and provision of the accused services constitute active steps that Defendant "knew or should have known would induce actual infringements" (Compl. ¶41, ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness on two grounds: first, that infringement will be willful post-filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶39); and second, that Defendant has been "willfully blind" to Plaintiff's patent rights due to an alleged "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 terms "asset" and "market exchange server," which are rooted in the patent’s specific context of a securities trading platform, be construed broadly enough to cover the currency transfers and payment network infrastructure of the accused cross-border payment system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused platform, which markets "transparent pricing," utilizes two distinct and non-identical exchange rates—one for display and a second for settlement—as explicitly required by the asserted claims?