PTAB

IPR2024-00375

Askeladden LLC v. Intercurrency Software LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Displaying Trading Assets in a Preferred Currency
  • Brief Description: The ’863 patent discloses a three-tier financial trading system designed to reduce uncertainty in cross-border transactions. The system's trading server displays asset prices and settlement details in a trader's "preferred currency" (e.g., a domestic currency) by obtaining a "prevailing exchange rate" from currency exchange servers and performing a real-time conversion from the asset's "market currency."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo (Application # 2002/0087454), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361), and Sellberg (Application # 2004/0236664).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Calo and Rude collectively disclose the core features of the challenged claims, including a consolidated, multi-tier trading platform that connects to both market and currency exchanges, receives a preferred currency from a trader, and displays asset prices in that preferred currency. Calo disclosed a system for cross-border trades that provides a preview price in a native currency based on real-time quotes and real-time currency conversion. Rude disclosed a similar system that automatically converts foreign security price quotations into a trader's operating currency. To the extent this combination did not explicitly teach using an exchange rate obtained immediately before a transaction, Petitioner asserted Sellberg cured this deficiency. Sellberg taught using an updated exchange rate, "preferably the last exchange rate just prior to the submitting the order," to address the risk of rate fluctuations.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the known, consolidated trading platforms of Calo and Rude with Sellberg's specific teaching on timing the exchange rate calculation. This combination of familiar elements would have been a simple and predictable solution to the known problem of mitigating currency risk in cross-border trading.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as integrating a real-time exchange rate mechanism into an existing electronic trading platform was a well-understood task using conventional methods.

Ground 2: Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg or Szoc, in further view of Davidwitz

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo, Rude, Sellberg or Szoc (Application # 2002/0023053), and Davidwitz (Application # 2004/0267655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that claims 11 and 12 add the limitation of monitoring market and currency conditions to determine if a trade should be executed (e.g., for a limit order). The base combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg/Szoc provided the platform for currency-converted trading. Davidwitz was introduced because it explicitly taught an automated system that "continuously monitor[s] the various markets and automatically execute[s] transactions based upon the realization of specific conditions chosen by the investor." Davidwitz further taught monitoring relationships between securities in foreign currencies and revaluing them into a single currency to facilitate trading strategy.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Davidwitz's automated monitoring and conditional execution logic with the base trading platform of Calo and Rude. This would provide the known benefit of automated trade execution based on both asset price and currency fluctuations, which was a recognized goal in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating conditional logic from Davidwitz into the trading systems of Calo and Rude would have been a straightforward implementation for a POSITA, yielding the predictable result of an automated, currency-aware trading system.

Ground 3: Claim 5 is obvious over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg or Szoc, in further view of Kidea

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo, Rude, Sellberg or Szoc, and Kidea (Application # 2007/0005481).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 5 adds functionality for handling a transaction in separate "portions," where currency conversion is performed only on a portion of the transaction involving a different preferred currency. Petitioner asserted that the concept of partially filled orders was well-known. Kidea was cited for its express disclosure of a graphical user interface that displays and updates historical "filled order data" and current "unfilled order data" in substantially real-time. Kidea therefore taught the specific concept of breaking orders into portions and displaying their status.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Kidea's method for handling and displaying partial fills into the base currency-converting platform of Calo and Rude. This would improve the system by adding a conventional feature for managing complex order executions, a predictable enhancement for any robust trading platform.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully implement partial-fill logic and display features as taught by Kidea into the systems of Calo and Rude, as it involved applying known order management techniques.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-4 and 6-10 based on Calo and Rude in view of Szoc. This ground was substantially similar to Ground 1, with Szoc offered as an alternative reference to Sellberg for teaching the use of real-time, constantly-changing exchange rates for executing transactions.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that the term "prevailing exchange rate" should be construed as "a selected current exchange rate." This construction was based on the patent's specification, which only described using "spot" or "forward" rates, both of which are types of current rates. Petitioner noted this construction was relevant because the Examiner during prosecution had allegedly misunderstood that the Rude reference, which disclosed spot and forward rates, failed to teach a "prevailing" rate.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’863 patent as unpatentable.