DCT
2:25-cv-01143
Intercurrency Software LLC v. Paysafe Group Holdings II Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intercurrency Software LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Paysafe Group Holdings II Limited (England)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01143, E.D. Tex., 11/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, regularly conducts business there, and is not a U.S. resident, permitting suit in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Skrill international payment platform infringes a patent related to systems for conducting financial transactions in a user's preferred currency.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses online financial platforms that must perform real-time currency conversions, a critical function in global e-commerce and financial services.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-04-18 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Priority Date |
| 2023-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 Issue Date |
| 2025-11-21 | 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 (the "’701 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulties faced by investors trading assets (e.g., U.S. securities) denominated in a foreign currency (e.g., U.S. Dollars) (Compl. ¶16). Such investors lacked "certain knowledge of what profit or loss he was going to get because the currency exchange rate must be obtained for a bulk amount at another time, which may fluctuate significantly enough to affect the ultimate profit or loss" (’701 Patent, col. 1:55-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "consolidated trading platform" using a "three-tier architecture" that integrates a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-33). This system presents all prices, transaction data, and settlements in the trader's preferred currency by performing currency conversion at the transactional level, thereby providing the trader with exact knowledge of the transaction's value in their own currency (’701 Patent, col. 2:30-34). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 2A, showing a client machine, a currency exchange server (206), a brokerage server (208), and an asset exchange server (210) connected via a network (’701 Patent, Fig. 2A).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to solve the problem of exchange rate uncertainty in cross-border asset trading by integrating real-time currency conversion directly into the trading workflow (’701 Patent, col. 1:61-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 as exemplary (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’701 Patent includes the following essential elements:
- A platform for trading an asset comprising a trading server coupled to a client machine.
- The server receives an indicator of a "first currency" from the client.
- The server is configured to couple to at least one currency exchange server and at least one market exchange server.
- The server calculates costs and fees in the first currency for an asset traded in a "second 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 transaction by sending a request to the market exchange server.
- The server reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" after the transaction is performed.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "Skrill international payment platforms and systems" (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶39).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality is a platform that allows users to send and receive money internationally, which involves currency conversion (Compl. ¶39). A screenshot from the Skrill website shows a user interface for selecting a country and local currency for a money transfer, and explicitly details a "foreign exchange fee" for transactions involving different currencies (Compl. p. 11). The complaint characterizes this as a "consolidated trading platform" (Compl. ¶39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’701 Patent Infringement Allegations
| 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... | Defendant provides a "trading server, such as the Defendant trading servers" that operate the Skrill platform. | ¶44 | col. 7:51-52 |
| receiving an indicator of a first currency from the client machine... | The Skrill platform allows users to select their country and local currency for transactions. A provided screenshot shows dropdown menus for this purpose. | p. 11 | col. 7:52-54 |
| 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 allegedly "coupled to one or more currency exchange servers...and one or more market exchange servers." | ¶44 | col. 8:1-3 |
| 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 Skrill platform offers money transfers that require currency conversion and calculates associated fees. The screenshot shows a "3.99% foreign exchange fee." | p. 11 | col. 8:3-7 |
| the costs and fees are caused to be displayed on a display device of the client machine and are dynamically changed... | The complaint alleges that costs and fees are displayed to the user and dynamically changed. | ¶28 | col. 8:8-14 |
| wherein the trading server is configured to conduct a transaction of the asset by transporting a transaction request to the market exchange server... | The complaint alleges Defendant's servers conduct transactions, but does not specify the mechanism of transporting a request to a distinct market exchange server. | ¶44 | col. 8:15-19 |
| and reach a settlement based on a second prevailing exchange rate as soon as the transaction of the asset is performed... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the use of a distinct "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement. | N/A | col. 8:19-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Skrill money transfer service constitutes a "platform for trading an asset" and whether its servers function as a "trading server" coupled to a "market exchange server" as those terms are used in the patent. The patent's specification appears to focus on the trading of securities like stocks and commodities (’701 Patent, col. 2:15-23).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of a "market exchange server" (Compl. ¶44) but does not provide specific evidence identifying this component within the Skrill architecture. Another technical question is whether the Skrill platform uses a "first prevailing exchange rate" for displaying costs and a distinct "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement, as required by Claim 1.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "trading server"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "trading server" is critical to determining whether the patent's claims, which are described in the context of trading financial assets, read on the accused money transfer service. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to servers for trading securities or can encompass any server facilitating a financial transaction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of Claim 1 itself refers more generally to "trading an asset" without limiting the asset to a security (’701 Patent, col. 7:49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly provides examples of assets as "stocks, bonds, options, commodities...futures/derivatives contracts" and describes the server's function in that context (’701 Patent, col. 2:20-23). The complaint itself argues the patent is an improvement over prior art from brokerage firms like Charles Schwab (Compl. ¶25).
The Term: "market exchange server"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the "trading server" to be coupled to a "market exchange server" and to transport a transaction request to it. The existence and identity of this component in the accused system will be a key factual and legal issue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that in the context of a money transfer, the foreign exchange market itself, accessed via a server, could be considered the "market" where the "asset" (currency) is "exchanged."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of a market exchange as the NYSE, suggesting a formal exchange where assets like securities are traded (’701 Patent, col. 5:5). This could support an argument that a simple currency conversion provider does not constitute a "market exchange server."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "advertising an infringing use" and making the services available to others (Compl. ¶¶49, 52).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the ’701 Patent obtained through the filing and service of the complaint (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶48). The complaint also pleads pre-suit willful blindness, alleging Defendant has a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" before launching products (Compl. ¶53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "trading an asset" and "trading server," which are rooted in the patent's disclosure of securities trading platforms, be construed broadly enough to cover the functionality of a general-purpose international money transfer service?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the complaint provide sufficient factual support that the Skrill system is built on the specific three-server architecture (client, trading server, currency exchange server, and market exchange server) required by the asserted claim, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed system and the accused platform's technical operation?