DCT
2:25-cv-01030
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Ebury Partners Uk Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Ebury Partners UK Ltd (United Kingdom)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01030, E.D. Tex., 10/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, regularly conducts business there, committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s international payment and collection platforms infringe a patent related to a consolidated system for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses real-time currency conversion within financial platforms, enabling users to see prices and execute transactions in a local or preferred currency, which is significant for global e-commerce and cross-border finance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patent-in-suit is valid and enforceable, noting that it was examined over relevant prior art in technical fields such as G06Q40/00 and G06Q40/04, which cover computerized financial arrangements and trading systems.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - Issue Date |
| 2025-10-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
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’s background section describes challenges faced by investors seeking to trade assets, such as U.S. securities, in a currency different from their own (e.g., a Chinese investor using RMB to buy a U.S. stock priced in USD). Such investors had to perform bulk currency conversions separate from the asset transaction, creating uncertainty about the ultimate profit or loss due to potential exchange rate fluctuations between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’701 Patent, col. 1:38-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a “consolidated trading platform” that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a single system (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-33). This "three-tier architecture" allows the platform to present all prices, data, and transaction settlements in a trader's "preferred currency" by applying a prevailing exchange rate at the moment of the transaction. This provides the trader with certainty regarding the exact cost or proceeds of a transaction in their own currency (’701 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2B).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to remove the risk and uncertainty of currency rate fluctuations from cross-border asset trading by embedding the currency conversion process into the asset transaction itself (’701 Patent, col. 2:33-38).
Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶35).
- Independent Claim 1 (a platform for trading an asset):
- A trading server coupled to a client machine, a currency exchange server, and a market exchange server.
- The trading server receives an indicator of a "first currency" (the user's preference).
- It calculates and causes the display of costs and fees in this 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 unchanged.
- Upon receiving a trade order, the server conducts the transaction and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" obtained as the transaction is performed.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as Defendant's "Ebury global payment platforms and systems," including corresponding mobile applications and related augmentations (Compl. ¶30).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these platforms provide "international payments and collections" that require currency conversion (Compl. p. 8). A screenshot provided in the complaint describes a service to "Pay and get paid worldwide," including options to "Pay locally in 37+ currencies" and "Pay globally in 130+ currencies" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant provides a "trading server" that is "coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers" to facilitate these services (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... receiving an indicator of a first currency from the client machine, wherein the trading server is configured to couple to at least one currency exchange server and at least one market exchange server... | Defendant allegedly provides a "trading server... coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers." The platform facilitates global payments, which suggests coupling between servers to manage different currencies. | ¶35 | col. 8:46-54 |
| 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 generally but does not provide specific facts on how the accused platform calculates or dynamically displays costs based on a prevailing exchange rate. A provided screenshot shows Defendant’s platform for global payments requiring currency conversion (Compl. p. 8). | ¶35; p. 8 | col. 8:55-65 |
| 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... | The complaint alleges that Defendant's platform performs transactions that infringe this element but does not specify how settlements are reached or detail the use of a "second prevailing exchange rate." | ¶35 | col. 9:1-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "international payments and collections" offered by Defendant (Compl. ¶30) constitute a "platform for trading an asset" as contemplated by the patent. The patent's specification primarily discusses trading financial securities like stocks and commodities (’701 Patent, col. 2:19-24), raising the question of whether a currency transfer itself qualifies as trading an "asset" under the claim construction.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of a "trading server," "currency exchange server," and "market exchange server" (Compl. ¶35), but does not provide technical evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s architecture maps to the claimed three-tier structure. A further question is whether the complaint provides evidence that the accused system uses a "first prevailing exchange rate" for displaying costs and a distinct "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement, as required by the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "asset"
- Context and Importance: The construction of "asset" will be critical to the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is limited to financial securities as described in the patent's embodiments, the infringement case against a currency payment platform could be challenged.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 uses the general term "asset." 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..." which could support an argument that the term is not exhaustive (’701 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and detailed examples focus exclusively on the trading of securities on established exchanges like NASDAQ or NYMEX, which could support an interpretation that "asset" is limited to this context (’701 Patent, col. 1:41-45; col. 5:17-20).
The Term: "market exchange server"
- Context and Importance: This term is a key component of the patent’s "three-tier architecture." The infringement analysis will depend on whether Defendant’s system includes a component that meets this definition, as distinct from a "currency exchange server."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this term covers any server providing market data or facilitating a transaction for an asset, which could include a server providing live foreign exchange rates if currency itself is considered the "asset."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a market exchange as a place "where securities/assets are traded" and gives examples like the NYSE (’701 Patent, col. 2:27-28; col. 5:5-6). This may support a narrower construction limited to servers that facilitate the trading of securities or other non-currency assets.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant having knowledge of the ’701 Patent upon service of the complaint and continuing to provide the accused services. It further alleges that Defendant's advertising constitutes an active step to induce infringement (Compl. ¶41, ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: The claim for willfulness is based on alleged knowledge gained from the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting that Defendant has a practice of not reviewing 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," described in the patent’s specification primarily in the context of trading financial securities, be construed to cover the cross-border currency payments and collections performed by the accused platform?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused platform utilize the distinct three-part architecture of a "trading server," "currency exchange server," and "market exchange server," or does it operate on a different technical model that does not map to the claim elements?
- The infringement analysis may also turn on functional specificity: does the accused system utilize two distinct exchange rates—a "first prevailing exchange rate" for displaying costs and a separate "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement—as explicitly required by the asserted claims, and what evidence will be presented to demonstrate this two-rate mechanism?