DCT

2:25-cv-01143

Intercurrency Software LLC v. Paysafe Group Holdings II Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01143, E.D. Tex., 01/14/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants conduct substantial business in the district, have committed acts of infringement there, and are not residents of the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Skrill international payment platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for conducting financial transactions in a user’s preferred currency by dynamically calculating and displaying associated costs and exchange rates.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses online financial platforms that facilitate transactions involving multiple currencies, aiming to provide users with clear, real-time cost information by integrating currency conversion into the transaction workflow.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is a First Amended Complaint, indicating it follows an Original Complaint filed previously in the litigation.

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 Issues
2026-01-14 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 (the “’701 Patent”), issued April 4, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem faced by investors wishing to trade assets (e.g., U.S. securities) in a currency different from their local currency. These investors lacked "certain knowledge of what profit or loss" they would realize because the necessary currency conversion was performed on a "bulk amount at another time," subject to rate fluctuations separate from the asset transaction itself (’701 Patent, col. 1:53-60). The prior art allegedly failed to perform currency conversion "at a transactional level" (’701 Patent, col. 1:62-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "consolidated trading platform" utilizing a "three-tier architecture" that includes a brokerage, a market exchange for the asset, and a currency exchange (’701 Patent, col. 2:25-29). This architecture is designed to present all prices, market data, and transaction results to a user in their "preferred currency." By obtaining a "prevailing exchange rate" and integrating it into the transaction process, the system allows a trader to know "exactly what he/she may end up with" at the time of the transaction (’701 Patent, col. 2:32-38; Fig. 2B).
  • Technical Importance: This integrated approach was intended to remove the risk and uncertainty of fluctuating exchange rates from international financial transactions by making the currency conversion an integral and transparent part of the asset trade itself (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 as an exemplary claim (Compl. ¶65).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A platform with a trading server coupled to a client machine.
    • The server receives an indicator of a "first currency" (the user's preferred currency) from the client.
    • The server is coupled 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 and reaches a settlement based on a "second prevailing exchange rate" calculated when the transaction is performed.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "Skrill international payment platforms and systems, and corresponding mobile apps" (Compl. ¶60).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Skrill platform is a digital wallet service for international money transfers and payments, marketed as a "fast, secure way to pay, get paid, and manage money online" (Compl. ¶¶7, 12). The service supports transfers in over 40 currencies and is positioned as a global payment provider (Compl. ¶¶10, 16). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Skrill website showing a user interface for selecting a "country and local currency" and displaying associated fees, including a "foreign exchange fee" for cross-currency transactions (Compl. p. 19). The complaint also points to Skrill's state licensing disclosures as evidence of its business operations in Texas (Compl. p. 7).

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... Defendants provide the Skrill platform, which allegedly includes "trading servers" that couple to user devices (client machines) to facilitate international payments (Compl. ¶65). ¶65 col. 4:51-54
receiving an indicator of a first currency from the client machine... The Skrill interface allows a user to "Select your country and local currency," which serves as the indicator of the user's preferred (first) currency (Compl. p. 19). p. 19 col. 5:36-42
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 on a display device of the client machine and are dynamically changed in accordance with a first prevailing exchange rate... The Skrill platform displays fees for money transfers, including a "3.99% foreign exchange fee," which are allegedly dynamically calculated based on a prevailing exchange rate (Compl. p. 19, ¶44). ¶44, p. 19 col. 6:53-62
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 Skrill platform executes the requested money transfer and settles the transaction, which necessarily involves a currency conversion if the sender and recipient currencies differ (Compl. ¶¶60, 64). ¶60, ¶64 col. 6:1-8
wherein the second prevailing exchange rate is calculated from the at least one currency exchange server right before the transaction takes place, executed costs and fees in the settlement per the second prevailing exchange rate are not identical to the displayed costs and fees... The complaint alleges that the platform's operation infringes this limitation but does not provide specific factual allegations detailing the use of two distinct exchange rates or the resulting non-identical costs (Compl. ¶65). ¶65 col. 9:1-8

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of a "platform for trading an asset." The patent's specification focuses heavily on trading securities like stocks and commodities (’701 Patent, col. 1:41-45, col. 2:20-23). This raises the question of whether the claim term can be construed to read on the accused Skrill platform, which the complaint describes as a service for international money transfers rather than asset trading.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "first prevailing exchange rate" for displaying costs and a distinct "second prevailing exchange rate" for settlement, leading to executed costs that are "not identical" to the displayed costs. What evidence does the complaint provide that the Skrill system technically operates in this two-rate manner, as opposed to using a single, locked-in exchange rate for both the quote and the execution of a given transaction?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"platform for trading an asset"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears foundational to the case. Whether a money transfer service like Skrill falls within the scope of a "platform for trading an asset" will likely be a key point of contention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint argues the patent relates generally to "transactions in finance" (Compl. ¶31). The specification refers to a "wide array of electronically traded financial assets" which could be argued to include currency itself (’701 Patent, col. 2:20-21).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section exclusively discusses the problems of trading "US securities" and "stocks" (’701 Patent, col. 1:30-55). The detailed examples of "assets" are likewise securities, such as "stocks, bonds, options, commodities" (’701 Patent, col. 2:21-23), potentially supporting a narrower definition that excludes simple currency transfers.

"dynamically changed"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint highlights this as a key technical improvement over the prior art (Compl. ¶57). Its construction will be important for determining whether the accused system meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be construed to mean any real-time or near-real-time update of displayed costs based on fluctuating market data, a common feature in financial systems. The specification notes that the displayed price is updated "at any point in time" based on the prevailing exchange rate (’701 Patent, col. 6:23-25).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term could be interpreted more narrowly in the context of the full claim, which distinguishes between a "first prevailing exchange rate" for display and a "second" one for settlement. This suggests the "dynamic change" is not just a continuous update but reflects the specific possibility of a change between the time of viewing a quote and the moment of execution, as the claim requires that the final executed costs "are not identical to the displayed costs" (’701 Patent, col. 9:4-8).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendants have taken "active steps to induce infringement, such as advertising an infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶71, 73). The allegations are general and do not cite specific instructional materials directed at users.

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint bases its willfulness allegation primarily on Defendants' knowledge of the ’701 Patent acquired "through the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶69). It further alleges a "practice of not performing a review of the patent rights of others" and being "willfully blind" to Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶74).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "platform for trading an asset," which is rooted in the patent’s explicit context of securities and commodities trading, be construed to cover the accused Skrill service, which functions as an international money transfer platform?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: can Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused Skrill platform performs the specific, two-rate process required by Claim 1—displaying costs based on a "first prevailing exchange rate" and later settling the transaction using a distinct "second prevailing exchange rate" such that the final costs are not identical to those initially displayed?