PTAB

IPR2024-00378

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 ’930 patent describes a three-tier electronic trading system for executing trades in an asset. The system allows a trader to view pricing and settlement data in a "preferred currency" (e.g., a domestic currency) even when the underlying asset is traded in a different "market currency" by performing currency conversions using a prevailing exchange rate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg - Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-13, and 15 are obvious over Calo in view of Rude and 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 Calo and Rude collectively disclose the core elements of the challenged claims, including a three-tier trading architecture with a trading server coupled to market and currency exchange servers. Both references allegedly teach systems that perform cross-border trades, calculate costs in a preferred currency, and automatically convert currencies for settlement. Calo was asserted to disclose an E*TRADE system that provides real-time price previews in a native currency based on real-time quotes and foreign exchange rates. Rude was asserted to disclose automatically converting price quotations into a trader’s operating currency and executing orders using either a spot or forward rate. To the extent this combination does not explicitly teach using a prevailing rate "right before the transaction takes place," Petitioner argued Sellberg supplies this limitation by teaching the use of an updated rate, "preferably the last exchange rate just prior to the submitting the order," for performing the transaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the foundational trading platforms of Calo and Rude with the specific rate-timing teachings of Sellberg to solve the known problem of exchange rate uncertainty in cross-border trading. Incorporating Sellberg’s method of using the most current exchange rate would have been a simple and predictable solution to improve the accuracy and transparency of transaction pricing.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining known electronic trading functions (from Calo and Rude) with a known method for improving rate accuracy (from Sellberg) involves applying familiar techniques to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Szoc - Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-13, and 15 are obvious over Calo in view of Rude and in further view of Szoc.

  • 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 presents an alternative combination for the same claims challenged in Ground 1, relying on the same base system taught by Calo and Rude. Instead of Sellberg, Petitioner asserted that Szoc teaches the missing element of using a current, prevailing exchange rate. Szoc was argued to disclose a system for providing "real-time, constantly-changing" foreign exchange rate quotes and allowing a client to execute a transaction upon receiving a favorable rate quote. This functionality, Petitioner contended, meets the claim limitation of dynamically changing displayed costs and fees based on a prevailing rate.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate Szoc's real-time rate display and execution logic into the Calo/Rude systems to mitigate the financial risk and uncertainty associated with volatile exchange rates in international transactions, a problem explicitly identified by Szoc.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable, as it would involve integrating a known real-time data feature into an existing type of trading platform to enhance its functionality.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, Sellberg/Szoc, and Davidowitz - Claims 3, 10-11, and 14 are obvious over the combinations of Grounds 1 or 2 in further view of Davidowitz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The combinations from Grounds 1 or 2, plus Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets dependent claims that add limitations related to periodically checking market prices and currency rates, and executing a transaction only when certain conditions are met. Petitioner argued that Davidowitz teaches this functionality by disclosing the need for an automated system that "continuously monitor[s] the various markets" and automatically executes transactions based on specific, pre-set parameters chosen by an investor. This teaching was asserted to directly correspond to the claimed periodic monitoring and conditional execution.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Davidowitz's automated monitoring and execution features with the base systems of Grounds 1 or 2 to enhance risk management for conditional orders like limit orders. Automating the monitoring of both market price and exchange rates would be a logical and obvious improvement for executing such orders efficiently and accurately in a cross-currency environment.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating automated monitoring logic into a trading platform was a well-understood practice, and a POSITA would expect success in applying Davidowitz’s teachings to the systems of the primary references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner proposed this term means "a selected current rate." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification's disclosure of using a "spot" rate (for immediate conversion) or a "forward" rate (for future settlement), both of which are types of current rates selected for a transaction.
  • "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term has the same meaning as "prevailing exchange rate" but is specifically limited to currency-to-currency rates.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’930 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.