DCT
2:25-cv-01033
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Coinjar Australia Pty Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: CoinJar Australia Pty Ltd (Australia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01033, E.D. Tex., 10/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, conducts regular business, and has committed acts of infringement within the district. As a non-U.S. resident, Defendant may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cryptocurrency trading platform infringes a patent related to a consolidated system for trading assets in a user's preferred currency.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses real-time currency conversion within financial trading platforms, a critical function in globalized markets for securities and digital assets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that patents in the same family have been cited by patents issued to Bank of America, suggesting potential relevance to the financial industry.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | Priority Date for ’701 Patent |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Issues |
| 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"
- 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 describes a problem faced by investors trading assets in a foreign currency, such as a Chinese investor buying U.S. stocks. Such investors traditionally had to perform bulk currency conversions before and after trading, creating uncertainty about the ultimate profit or loss due to exchange rate fluctuations that were separate from the asset's price movement (’701 Patent, col. 1:38-60). The core issue identified is that "the currency conversion is not at a transactional level" (’701 Patent, col. 1:62-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" using a "three-tier architecture" that includes a brokerage, a market exchange for the asset, and a currency exchange (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-33). This integrated system allows the platform to present all prices, market data, and transaction results to the user in their "preferred currency." The system obtains a prevailing exchange rate in real-time, allowing a trader to know "exactly what he/she may end up with" at the moment of transaction (’701 Patent, col. 2:30-34).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to eliminate the risk and uncertainty of currency fluctuations by integrating the currency conversion directly into the asset transaction workflow, rather than treating it as a separate, subsequent step (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 8 (a platform claim).
- Claim 1 recites a platform comprising:
- A trading server coupled to a client machine, a currency exchange server, and a market exchange server.
- The server calculates and displays costs and fees for an asset in a user's preferred "first currency," even though the asset trades 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.
- The server conducts the transaction and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated "right before the transaction takes place."
- A key limitation requires that the final "executed costs and fees" are "not identical to the displayed costs and fees" that were based on the first rate.
- Claim 8 recites a platform comprising:
- A client machine coupled to a trading server that executes a software product.
- The client machine sends an indicator of a preferred "first currency" to the server.
- The client machine displays costs and fees that are "dynamically changed" based on a "first prevailing exchange rate."
- The client machine receives a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated by the server "right before the transaction takes place."
- This claim also requires that the executed costs based on the second rate are "not identical to the displayed costs" based on the first rate.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "CoinJar trading platforms and systems," referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities constitute a consolidated trading platform for cryptocurrency (Compl. ¶30). The platform, accessible via website and mobile applications, allows users to buy, sell, and manage a portfolio of over 60 cryptocurrencies (Compl. p. 8). A screenshot provided in the complaint depicts a mobile app interface showing a "Total Portfolio Value" denominated in USD, alongside prices for individual cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH), also in USD (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges that Defendant provides the necessary server infrastructure, including 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 1)
| 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... 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, such as Defendant servers, and one or more market exchange servers." | ¶35 | col. 4:40-66 |
| 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... | Defendant's platform allows trading of cryptocurrencies and displays portfolio values and prices in a specific currency (e.g., USD). | ¶30, p. 8 | col. 5:53-61 |
| 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 CoinJar platform displays prices that allegedly reflect underlying exchange rates for users trading cryptocurrencies. | p. 8 | col. 8:55-65 |
| wherein the trading server is configured to conduct a transaction of the asset by transporting a transaction request to the market exchange server... and reach a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate... | Defendant's platform executes user orders to buy and sell cryptocurrency assets. | ¶30, ¶34 | col. 9:1-7 |
| executed costs and fees in the settlement per the second prevailing exchange rate are not identical to the displayed costs and fees with the first prevailing exchange rate... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 9:1-7 |
'701 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 8)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A platform for trading an asset, the platform comprising: a client machine associated with a user, coupled to a trading server via the Internet, executing a software product to send an indicator of a first currency to the trading server... | Defendant's platform includes a mobile app and web interface where users select and view assets in a given currency. | ¶30, p. 8 | col. 9:48-54 |
| the client machine is caused to display the costs and fees on a display device thereof, the costs and fees being displayed are dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate... | The screenshot shows the CoinJar app displaying a portfolio value and individual asset prices in USD, which are subject to change. | p. 8 | col. 9:60-66 |
| the client machine receives a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate, wherein the second prevailing exchange rate is calculated by the trading server... right before the transaction takes place... | Defendant's systems process transactions and settle user accounts after a trade is executed. | ¶34 | col. 10:5-15 |
| executed costs and fees in the settlement per the second prevailing exchange rate are not identical to the displayed costs and fees with the first prevailing exchange rate... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 10:11-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether the patent's claims, which are described in the context of traditional financial securities like stocks, can be construed to cover modern digital assets like cryptocurrencies, which operate on different market structures and technologies (Compl. ¶¶15-18).
- Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the CoinJar platform actually implements the two-rate system required by the claims. The complaint does not specify how the accused system uses a "first prevailing exchange rate" for display that is distinct from a "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement. Proving that the final executed cost is "not identical" to the displayed cost due to this specific two-rate mechanism, rather than other factors like slippage or fees, may be a key evidentiary hurdle.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate ... even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged" (Claim 1).
Context and Importance: This term is central to the inventive concept of isolating currency risk for the user. Infringement requires showing not just that prices update, but that they update specifically due to exchange rate fluctuations, independent of the asset's own price movement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that displayed price changes on a crypto platform are a combined function of the asset's market price, network fees, and liquidity provider spreads, not a distinct, isolated "prevailing exchange rate" as contemplated by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a system where "the price displayed to the investor" is updated based on "the prevailing interbank market price of the ratio of EUR/USD as well as the price of oil" (’701 Patent, col. 5:20-24). This language could support an interpretation where any real-time update reflecting an exchange rate meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "even when a market value of the asset remains unchanged" suggests a specific capability to distinguish between asset price changes and currency rate changes. An embodiment describes how an order's condition is checked against "either or both of the stock price and the exchange rate change," implying they are treated as separate variables (’701 Patent, col. 6:58-60). This could support a narrower construction requiring the system to track and apply the exchange rate as a discrete input.
The Term: "a second prevailing exchange rate... calculated from the at least one currency exchange server right before the transaction takes place" (Claim 1).
Context and Importance: This term defines the timing and mechanism for the actual settlement conversion. The dispute may turn on what "right before" means in the context of a high-speed electronic transaction and whether the rate used by CoinJar for settlement can be proven to be a new, distinct rate calculated at that specific moment, as opposed to the last-displayed rate.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a precise definition for "right before." This could support a view that any rate used at or near the time of execution, such as the rate embedded in the final transaction price from a liquidity provider, satisfies the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent distinguishes between the "first prevailing exchange rate" for display and the "second" for settlement, stating the executed costs "are not identical to the displayed costs" using the first rate (’701 Patent, col. 9:5-7). This structure suggests "right before" must be a moment in time sufficiently distinct from the display period to result in a different rate, implying a two-step process of displaying with one rate and executing with another.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant took active steps "such as advertising an infringing use" and providing its platform with the knowledge that its actions would cause others (i.e., its users) to directly infringe the ’701 Patent (Compl. ¶¶41, 43).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving notice of the ’701 Patent via 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 its 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 claims, rooted in the specification’s examples of traditional securities like stocks and oil contracts, be construed to cover the distinct technical environment and market structure of cryptocurrencies? The analysis will likely focus on whether terms like "market exchange server" and "currency exchange server" read on the components of a modern crypto trading ecosystem.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the Accused Instrumentality performs the specific two-rate conversion method required by the claims? The case may turn on evidence showing the CoinJar platform uses a "first prevailing exchange rate" for dynamic price display that is functionally and temporally distinct from a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated "right before" settlement, resulting in non-identical costs as the claim requires.