DCT
2:25-cv-01031
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Rapyd Payments Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Rapyd Payments Limited (United Kingdom)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01031, E.D. Tex., 10/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas, and is not a resident of the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s global payment and disbursement platforms infringe a patent related to systems for trading financial assets in a user’s preferred currency.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves financial technology (fintech) platforms that integrate real-time currency exchange functions into financial transactions to provide users with price and settlement certainty in their local currency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent claims priority to an application filed in 2007 and argues that the claims are patent-eligible, having been reviewed by patent examiners over extensive prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Issued |
| 2025-10-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 - PLATFORM FOR TRADING ASSETS IN DIFFERENT CURRENCIES
The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701, issued on April 4, 2023 (the “'701 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem faced by international investors where trading securities in a foreign currency (e.g., a Chinese investor buying U.S. stocks) required separate, bulk currency exchange transactions before and after the securities trade (Compl. ¶15; ’701 Patent, col. 1:41-54). This separation meant the investor lacked "certain knowledge of what profit or loss he was going to get because the currency exchange rate" could fluctuate between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’701 Patent, col. 1:55-60). The prior art failed to perform currency conversion at a "transactional level" (Compl. ¶16; ’701 Patent, col. 1:61-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange into a "three-tier architecture" (’701 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-32). This platform presents all prices, data, and transaction results to the user in their "preferred currency" and can perform the currency conversion automatically when the asset transaction is executed, thereby giving the trader immediate certainty of the transaction's value in their own currency (Compl. ¶18; ’701 Patent, col. 2:32-38).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to eliminate the risk and uncertainty of currency fluctuations inherent in cross-border securities trading by unifying the asset transaction with the necessary currency conversion in a single, integrated process (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶35).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (a system claim):
- A trading server that receives an indicator of a "first currency" from a user's client machine.
- The server is configured to couple with at least one "currency exchange server" and at least one "market exchange server."
- The server calculates costs and fees for trading an asset (which is in a "second currency") in the user's "first currency."
- These costs and fees are displayed on the client machine and are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- The server conducts the asset transaction by sending a request to the market exchange server.
- The server reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated "as soon as the transaction of the asset is performed."
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 8 (a system claim):
- A client machine coupled to a trading server, which sends an indicator of a "first currency" to the server.
- The trading server is configured to couple to currency and market exchange servers and calculates costs/fees in the first currency for an asset traded in a second currency.
- The client machine displays these costs/fees, which are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- An asset transaction is conducted on the trading server, and the client machine receives a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated "right before the transaction takes place."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Rapyd Disburse global payment platforms and systems, as represented on its website, and corresponding mobile apps" (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products provide a "unified payouts solution that supports B2B, B2C and C2C domestic and cross-border disbursements" (Compl. p. 8). Key accused features include the ability to "Send payouts to 190+ countries in 120+ currencies" and the inclusion of "Built-in foreign exchange and multi-currency accounts" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website for its "Rapyd Disburse" product, which advertises these multi-currency payment capabilities (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant generates substantial revenue from these instrumentalities (Compl. ¶34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement allegations are framed at a high level, asserting that the accused platform performs the functions recited in the claims without mapping specific architectural components or user-facing features to the claim elements in detail.
’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... | Defendant’s platform, which the complaint alleges includes a "trading server," allows users to send payments in over 120 currencies, which is alleged to require receiving a currency selection. | ¶35, p. 8 | col. 7:48-52 |
| 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 that Defendant provides a system with a "trading server... coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers." | ¶35 | col. 7:52-54 |
| 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 complaint does not specify how costs and fees are calculated but alleges that the overall operation of sending cross-border payments infringes. | ¶30, 35, p. 8 | col. 7:54-58 |
| the costs and fees are caused to be displayed... and are dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate... | The complaint does not provide specific evidence of a dynamic display of costs and fees based on a "first prevailing exchange rate." | ¶30, 35 | col. 8:1-6 |
| 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 platform’s functionality to "Send payouts" and "Pay via bank transfers" is alleged to constitute the claimed transaction and settlement. | ¶35, p. 8 | col. 8:10-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether Defendant’s "payouts" and "disbursements" platform constitutes a "platform for trading an asset" as contemplated by the patent. The patent’s specification repeatedly frames the invention in the context of trading securities, commodities, and other investment instruments on a market exchange (’701 Patent, col. 2:18-24), raising the question of whether a payment or disbursement qualifies as a traded "asset."
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" that is distinct from the "first prevailing exchange rate" used for display. The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused platform utilizes two different, time-separated exchange rates in this manner. Further, the complaint's allegations of a "trading server," "market exchange server," and "currency exchange server" are conclusory and do not identify specific components of Defendant's system architecture that allegedly perform these roles (Compl. ¶35).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "asset"
- Context and Importance: The construction of "asset" appears critical to the infringement analysis. The patent’s specification describes assets as "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold), futures/derivatives contracts" and other electronically traded financial instruments (’701 Patent, col. 2:21-24). The accused product, however, facilitates monetary "payouts" and "disbursements" (Compl. p. 8). The case may turn on whether a simple monetary payment can be considered an "asset" that is being "traded."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may point to the broad language of the claims, which use the general term "asset" without express limitation to securities. The specification also defines "securities" broadly to include a "wide array of electronically traded financial assets" (’701 Patent, col. 2:19-20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term "asset" must be interpreted in light of the specification's consistent focus on investment instruments traded on a "market exchange" like the NYSE or NASDAQ (’701 Patent, col. 1:41-44, col. 5:5-6). The detailed descriptions and embodiments appear centered on solving a problem in the specific field of securities trading, not general-purpose payments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, asserting that Defendant has knowledge of the ’701 Patent from the filing of the suit and encourages infringement by advertising the accused product's features (Compl. ¶¶40, 43).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued conduct after receiving notice of infringement via the complaint (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, premised on an asserted "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 "platform for trading an asset," which is rooted in the patent's context of trading securities and commodities on a market exchange, be construed to cover a fintech platform that facilitates multi-currency "payouts" and "disbursements"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused platform’s architecture contains the claimed "trading," "market exchange," and "currency exchange" servers, and critically, that it employs the two-step exchange rate process (a "first" rate for display and a distinct "second" rate for settlement) required by the asserted claims?