DCT
2:25-cv-01032
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Bitflyer Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: bitFlyer Inc. (Japan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-1032, E.D. Tex., 10/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is not a U.S. resident and may be sued in any judicial district, and also because Defendant allegedly conducts regular business in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cryptocurrency trading platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for trading assets in a user’s preferred currency by integrating real-time currency exchange rates.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses financial trading platforms designed for international users, enabling them to view prices and conduct transactions in their local currency, rather than the market’s native currency, thereby reducing uncertainty from foreign exchange rate fluctuations.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term. The complaint notes that the patent claims priority to an application filed in 2007 and asserts that patent examiners reviewed relevant fields of art during prosecution.
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" (Issued Apr. 4, 2023)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem faced by foreign investors trading assets in a market with a different native currency (e.g., a Chinese investor trading U.S. stocks) (’701 Patent, col. 1:40-44). In prior systems, investors had to perform currency conversions separately from the asset transaction, leading to "no certain knowledge of what profit or loss he was going to get" because the exchange rate could fluctuate between the time of the trade and the time of the currency conversion (’701 Patent, col. 1:55-60). The patent asserts that this meant currency conversion was not performed "at a transactional level" (’701 Patent, col. 1:62-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" that integrates three functional tiers: a brokerage, a market exchange for the asset, and a currency exchange (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-29). This architecture allows the platform to present all prices, market data, and transaction settlements in a "preferred currency" selected by the user (’701 Patent, Abstract). By obtaining a "prevailing exchange rate" in real-time, the system allows a trader to "always know exactly what he/she may end up with" for a given transaction, solving the uncertainty problem (’701 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide transactional certainty and reduce foreign exchange risk for investors participating in global financial markets via online platforms (’701 Patent, col. 2:49-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶35).
- Claim 1 (Independent System Claim) requires:
- A trading server coupled to a client machine that receives an indicator of a "first currency" (the user's preferred currency).
- 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 an asset traded in a "second currency" (the market currency) and displays them to the user in the first 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 a transaction and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" obtained "as soon as the transaction... is performed."
- Claim 8 (Independent Platform Claim) requires:
- A client machine that sends an indicator of a "first currency" to a trading server.
- The client machine displays costs and fees for an asset, which are calculated by the server in the first currency and are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- The client machine receives a settlement for a transaction based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated by the server "right before the transaction takes place."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "bitFlyer trading platforms and systems," which are used for crypto trading (Compl. ¶4, ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant provides a consolidated trading platform for users in the United States, including Texas, to trade cryptocurrencies (Compl. ¶4, ¶7). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website, which shows an interface for trading Bitcoin against the U.S. Dollar (BTC/USD) and displays account balances and market prices in USD (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant operates a "trading server... coupled to one or more currency exchange servers... and one or more market exchange servers" to provide this functionality (Compl. ¶35). The same screenshot also presents bitFlyer as "No. 1 in Bitcoin trade volume for 6 years in Japan," suggesting its market significance (Compl. p. 8).
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... | Defendant provides a trading server accessible via its website and applications, allowing users to conduct transactions in a selected currency such as U.S. Dollars. | ¶35, ¶36, p. 8 | col. 7:47-51 |
| 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 alleged to be coupled to distinct currency exchange servers and market exchange servers. | ¶35 | col. 7:51-54 |
| 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 bitFlyer platform displays prices for cryptocurrencies in a user's selected currency (e.g., USD), which inherently requires calculation based on an exchange rate. The screenshot shows a real-time price for BTC in USD. | ¶30, ¶35, p. 8 | col. 7:54-63 |
| 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 makes a general allegation that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe this element by performing the functions of the claims. | ¶30, ¶35 | col. 7:66-8:2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint accuses a cryptocurrency trading platform of infringement. A potential point of dispute is whether the term "asset," as used in a patent with a 2007 priority date and examples like "stocks, bonds, options, commodities (e.g., oil, gold)," can be construed to read on cryptocurrencies, which were not in existence at the time of filing (’701 Patent, col. 2:20-22).
- Technical Questions: A central question is whether the accused platform’s architecture maps onto the patent’s claimed three-tier structure of distinct "trading," "market exchange," and "currency exchange" servers (’701 Patent, Fig. 2A). In an integrated crypto exchange, these functions may not be performed by separately coupled servers as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶35).
- Technical Questions: The claims require a "first prevailing exchange rate" for display and a "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement. It raises the evidentiary question of whether the complaint provides facts to show that the accused system uses two distinct, time-separated rates in this manner, rather than a single real-time rate for both display and execution.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "asset"
- Context and Importance: The patent's specification lists traditional financial instruments as examples of an "asset" (’701 Patent, col. 2:20-22). The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the patent's claims, which originate from a 2007 priority date, apply to the accused cryptocurrency products.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification prefaces its list of examples with the phrase "include but are not limited to," which may support an interpretation that covers new types of electronically traded financial instruments (’701 Patent, col. 2:19-22).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the patent’s background and detailed description is framed around traditional securities markets (e.g., NASDAQ), which may support an argument that the term's scope is limited to the types of financial instruments contemplated at the time of invention (’701 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
The Term: "currency exchange server"
- Context and Importance: The claims require the "trading server" to be coupled to both a "market exchange server" and a "currency exchange server." The distinction is fundamental to the claimed architecture. In the accused crypto trading context (e.g., a BTC/USD market), the "market" is inherently an exchange of one currency-like asset for another, raising the question of what constitutes a separate "currency exchange server."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any server or software module that provides exchange rate data or facilitates conversions, even if it is functionally integrated with the market exchange.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's "three-tier architecture" and Figure 2A, which depicts servers 206 (currency exchange) and 210 (asset exchange) as separate entities connected via a network, may suggest that the claimed servers must be distinct components (’701 Patent, Fig. 2A; col. 2:25-29).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant knew or should have known its actions would induce infringement and took active steps such as "advertising an infringing use" (Compl. ¶41, ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit knowledge arising from the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶39). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting on information and belief that Defendant has a "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 claim terms like "asset" and "currency exchange server," which are defined by the patent's 2007-era context of traditional securities and foreign exchange markets, be construed to cover the technology and architecture of a modern, integrated cryptocurrency exchange?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural and functional correspondence: what evidence will be presented to establish that the accused bitFlyer platform operates using the specific three-tier server architecture and the two-step, dual-exchange-rate process (one for display, a second for settlement) required by the asserted claims?