PTAB

IPR2024-00377

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 three-tier trading architecture that includes a brokerage computer, a market exchange, and a currency exchange. The system is designed to execute financial trades by displaying trading data and settling transactions in a user's "preferred currency," which may differ from the "market currency" of the traded asset, by performing real-time currency conversions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg - Claims 19-25, 27-31, and 34-36 are obvious over Calo in view of Rude, in further view of 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 the combination of Calo and Rude teaches the core elements of the challenged claims. Calo, related to the E*TRADE Global network, disclosed a three-tier architecture for cross-border securities trading that determines a settlement amount in a local currency and automatically places a foreign exchange order to convert it to a preferred "operating currency." Rude similarly disclosed a system for automatic settlement of foreign securities trades in a trader's operating currency, including converting price quotations and handling limit orders. The combination taught the claimed consolidated trading platform.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that to the extent Calo and Rude did not explicitly teach using a currency exchange rate immediately prior to a transaction, Sellberg supplied this limitation. Sellberg addressed the same problem of cross-border trading uncertainty and taught using an updated exchange rate, specifically "the last exchange rate just prior to the submitting the order," for the transaction. A POSITA would combine the known trading platforms of Calo and Rude with Sellberg's specific exchange rate timing to create a more predictable and transparent system, which was a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known currency conversion technique (Sellberg) to well-established trading platforms (Calo, Rude) to achieve the predictable result of reduced currency risk.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, Sellberg/Szoc, and Davidowitz - Claims 32 and 33 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg or Szoc, in further view of Davidowitz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo, Rude, Sellberg or Szoc (Application # 2002/0023053), and Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims 32 and 33, which added limitations related to continuously monitoring asset prices and currency exchange rates to determine when a trade should be executed. Petitioner argued that the base combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg/Szoc established the foundational trading system. Davidowitz was added for its disclosure of an automated system that continuously monitors multiple markets and foreign currencies to automatically execute trades when specific investor-chosen parameters are met. Davidowitz explicitly taught revaluing securities into a single currency to facilitate an investor's trading strategy and manage currency exposure risk.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the automated monitoring and execution logic from Davidowitz into the trading platform taught by the primary references. Davidowitz directly addressed the need to manage the additional risks of foreign currency exposure, providing a clear reason to add its continuous monitoring features to a cross-border trading system to improve risk management and trade execution efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating automated monitoring logic into a computerized trading platform was a well-understood practice, and a POSITA would have reasonably expected success in doing so.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Kidea - Claim 26 is obvious over Calo and Rude, in further view of Kidea.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo, Rude, and Kidea (Application # 2007/0005481).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 26, which required performing a currency conversion only on the remaining portion of a partially filled order. Petitioner asserted that the base combination of Calo and Rude taught the overall system where currency conversions are performed upon trade execution. Kidea was introduced for its express teaching of managing and displaying partially filled orders, including showing historical filled order data separately from current unfilled order data and updating that data in real-time.
    • Motivation to Combine: The concept of partially filled orders was common in electronic trading. A POSITA would find it obvious and logical to apply Kidea's method for handling partial fills to the Calo/Rude system. This would involve performing the claimed currency conversion only on the portion of the transaction that had actually executed, as it would be illogical to convert currency for shares that had not yet been traded. This modification would be a simple, predictable improvement to the system's accounting and display functions.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying the routine concept of handling partial fills to the currency conversion step of an electronic trading platform.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 2) against claims 19-25, 27-31, and 34-36 based on Calo and Rude in view of Szoc. Szoc, like Sellberg, was argued to teach the use of real-time, locked-in foreign exchange rates to provide transactional certainty.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a selected current rate that is not an FOREX average exchange rate."
    • This construction was based on arguments made by the Patent Owner during prosecution to distinguish prior art that allegedly used an "average FOREX rate." Petitioner argued the specification's disclosure of "spot" and "forward" rates supported a construction limited to a selected current rate, not an average.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 19-36 of Patent 10,062,107 as unpatentable.