PTAB

IPR2024-00378

Askeladden L.L.C. v. Intercurrency Software LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Consolidated Trading Platform
  • Brief Description: The ’930 patent describes a method and system for trading assets using a three-tier architecture. The system aims to solve a purported problem in cross-border trading by displaying prices and settlement details in a trader's "preferred currency" (e.g., a domestic currency) rather than the "market currency" in which the asset is traded, thereby providing the trader with immediate knowledge of profit or loss without uncertainty from exchange rate fluctuations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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 fundamental features of the challenged claims. Calo taught a three-tier architecture for cross-border securities trading, including receiving an order in one currency and automatically placing a foreign exchange order to convert settlement amounts to a different operating currency. Rude taught a similar system that automatically converts foreign security price quotations into a trader's operating currency and displays them, including for limit orders. The combination of Calo and Rude was asserted to teach the core method of receiving an order, calculating and displaying costs in a preferred currency, and conducting the transaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: The Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Calo and Rude as they both address the same field of cross-border electronic trading and provide complementary features. Sellberg was introduced to explicitly teach the limitation of using a prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place." Sellberg taught modifying a trading system to handle multiple currencies and using an updated exchange rate, preferably the last one available just prior to submitting the order, to perform the transaction. A POSITA would combine Sellberg with the Calo/Rude system to improve its accuracy and reduce exchange rate risk, a known problem with a known solution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining these known elements—a trading platform from Calo/Rude with the specific rate-timing feature from Sellberg—involved applying known techniques to solve a known problem, which would predictably result in a more transparent and less risky trading system.

Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-13, and 15 are obvious over Calo and Rude 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 presented an alternative to Ground 1, using Szoc as the third reference instead of Sellberg. As in Ground 1, Calo and Rude were argued to provide the foundational trading system. Szoc was asserted to teach the missing element of using a "prevailing rate" by disclosing a system for providing real-time, constantly-changing foreign exchange rate quotes. Szoc’s system allowed a user to execute a transaction based on a favorable rate quote, ensuring the benefit of that rate.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Szoc with the Calo/Rude system was to enhance the platform's ability to manage the financial risk and uncertainty associated with volatile exchange rates, a problem explicitly identified by Szoc. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious for a POSITA to incorporate Szoc’s teachings on displaying and transacting with real-time, dynamic rates into the trading platforms of Calo or Rude to provide users with greater certainty and control over their cross-border transactions.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because integrating Szoc's real-time rate display and execution logic into the established trading frameworks of Calo and Rude was a straightforward application of known online financial technologies to achieve the predictable benefit of transactional certainty.

Ground 3: Claims 3, 10-11, and 14 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg or Szoc, in further view of Davidowitz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo (Application # 2002/0087454), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361), either Sellberg (Application # 2004/0236664) or Szoc (Application # 2002/0023053), and Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims that added limitations related to periodically checking or continuously monitoring market prices and currency rates to trigger a transaction (e.g., a limit order). Petitioner argued that the base combinations from Ground 1 or Ground 2 already taught the core system. Davidowitz was added to teach the specific limitation of automated, continuous monitoring. Davidowitz disclosed the need for an automated system to continuously monitor relationships between securities in foreign currencies and execute trades when specific, user-chosen parameters are met.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having already constructed the system taught by the primary combination (Calo/Rude/Sellberg or Calo/Rude/Szoc), would be motivated to add the automated monitoring and execution features taught by Davidowitz. This would represent a logical next step in improving the system's functionality, allowing it to automatically implement an investor's trading strategy by reacting to market changes without constant manual input.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in integrating Davidowitz's monitoring logic into the base system, as it involved automating a known process (monitoring for trade conditions) within a conventional trading architecture.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed to mean "a selected current rate." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent’s specification, which only describes using a "spot" rate or a "forward" rate. This construction is important because prior art references like Rude explicitly disclose using spot and forward rates, which Petitioner contended meet this limitation.
  • "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term, found in dependent claims, is functionally the same as "prevailing exchange rate" but limited to currency. If construed, it should mean "any selected current currency exchange rate such as a 'spot' rate or a 'forward' rate," both of which were well-known at the time of the invention.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and find claims 1-15 of the ’930 patent unpatentable and cancelled.