PTAB

IPR2024-00376

Askeladden LLC v. Intercurrency Software LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Consolidated Trading Platform
  • Brief Description: The ’107 patent describes a method and system for a three-tier electronic trading platform that allows a trader to view and transact assets in a "preferred currency" (e.g., their domestic currency) even when the asset is traded on a market in a different "market currency." The system performs a currency conversion using a prevailing exchange rate to display prices and settle transactions, aiming to reduce uncertainty from currency fluctuations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg - Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-18

  • 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 the combination of Calo and Rude discloses all fundamental elements of the challenged claims. Calo, from E*TRADE, was asserted to teach a three-tier architecture for cross-border securities trading, including displaying a real-time price in a customer’s native currency based on a real-time FX conversion. Rude was asserted to teach a similar system that automatically converts price quotations and settles transactions in a trader's preferred "operating currency" using forward or spot exchange rates, thereby disclosing the core functionality claimed in the ’107 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Calo and Rude as they both address the same well-known problem of simplifying cross-border trading and managing currency risk. To the extent the base combination was seen as not explicitly teaching the use of an exchange rate immediately prior to a transaction, a POSITA would have turned to Sellberg. Sellberg was cited for its express teaching of solving exchange rate uncertainty by using an updated rate, "preferably the last exchange rate just prior to the submitting the order," for the transaction.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining these known elements, as it involved applying a known technique (using a last-available exchange rate from Sellberg) to improve a known system (the cross-border trading platforms of Calo and Rude) to yield predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Szoc - Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-18

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo (Application # 2002/0087454), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361), and Szoc (Application # 2002/0023053).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented Szoc as an alternative to Sellberg. The core trading platform was again established by the combination of Calo and Rude. Petitioner argued Szoc provides the missing element of using a current, prevailing exchange rate at the time of the transaction. Szoc was asserted to disclose a system for providing real-time foreign exchange information, including a customizable interface with a "scrolling quote bar" that displays "real-time, constantly-changing rates" and allows a user to lock in a rate for a transaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that for combining Sellberg: to mitigate the known risk and uncertainty of currency fluctuations in cross-border trading. Petitioner argued a POSITA would find it obvious to incorporate Szoc’s real-time, lockable quote functionality into the Calo/Rude platform to provide traders with certainty about the final transaction cost in their preferred currency.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, Sellberg/Szoc, and Davidowitz - Claims 14 and 15

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The combinations from Grounds 1 or 2, in further view of Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claims 14 and 15, which add limitations related to monitoring exchange rates and executing a trade only when specified conditions are met. Petitioner asserted that the base combinations already teach monitoring for the purpose of executing limit orders. Davidowitz was added for its explicit disclosure of an automated system designed to "continuously monitor the various markets" and currency relationships to revalue securities and automatically execute trades based on investor-chosen parameters.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Davidowitz's continuous monitoring capabilities with the base trading platform to enhance its functionality and further mitigate foreign currency risk. Petitioner argued this was a predictable combination of known elements to create a more robust automated trading system.

Ground 4: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Kidea - Claim 8

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo (Application # 2002/0087454) and Rude (Application # 2006/0095361), in further view of Kidea (Application # 2007/0005481).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 8, which recites performing a currency conversion on a portion of a transaction (e.g., a partial fill). Petitioner argued that while Calo and Rude's systems would inherently perform conversion on executed portions of an order, Kidea explicitly taught the management and display of such partial fills. Kidea was cited for disclosing a graphical user interface that displays both historical filled order data and current unfilled order data in substantially real-time.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to integrate Kidea's conventional method for displaying partial order fills into the Calo/Rude trading platform. This would provide users with standard, necessary feedback on the status of their orders, representing a simple combination of known features for a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner proposed this term means "a selected current rate that is not an FOREX average exchange rate." This construction was central to its argument that the prior art, particularly Rude, meets this limitation. During prosecution, the Patent Owner had distinguished Rude by alleging it used only an "average FOREX rate." Petitioner argued that Rude, in fact, discloses using current spot or forward rates, which aligns with the proposed construction and renders the Patent Owner's prior distinction incorrect.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 10,062,107 as unpatentable.