PTAB

IPR2024-01279

Bitsgap Holding Ou v. Intercurrency Software LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Consolidated Trading Platform
  • Brief Description: The ’930 patent discloses a three-tier electronic trading system designed to mitigate currency risk in cross-border transactions. The system allows a trader to view asset prices and execute trades in a "preferred currency" (e.g., their domestic currency) even when the asset is traded on a market in a different "market currency," by performing currency conversions using real-time exchange rates.

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 the combination of Calo and Rude discloses the foundational elements of the challenged claims, including a consolidated trading platform with a server connected to both market and currency exchanges. Calo was asserted to teach a system for cross-border trades that automatically places a foreign exchange order to convert settlement amounts from a market currency to a user's preferred currency. Rude was argued to teach a similar system that automatically converts foreign security price quotations into a trader's operating currency and calculates a net settlement amount. Petitioner contended that the only element arguably missing from this base combination is the specific use of a "prevailing exchange rate" calculated immediately before a transaction. Sellberg was introduced to supply this teaching, as it explicitly discloses using an updated exchange 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 robust, multi-currency trading platforms of Calo and Rude with Sellberg's specific method for timing the exchange rate calculation. The motivation would be to enhance the accuracy of the displayed and executed prices by using the most current exchange rate possible, thereby reducing price slippage and providing the predictable benefit of greater transactional certainty for the trader.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining these known elements from financial trading systems would involve applying a known technique (using a last-available rate) to a known system (a cross-border trading platform) to achieve a predictable improvement (increased price accuracy).

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 presented an alternative to Ground 1, using Szoc as the tertiary reference to supply the "prevailing rate" teaching to the Calo and Rude combination. Petitioner argued Szoc discloses a system for providing real-time, "constantly-changing" foreign exchange rate quotes. Critically, Szoc was asserted to teach allowing a user to execute a transaction based on receiving a favorable exchange rate, thereby linking the transaction execution to a specific, current rate.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation for this combination was identical to that in Ground 1: to improve the functionality of the Calo/Rude trading platforms. A POSITA would incorporate Szoc’s real-time rate display and rate-contingent execution features to provide traders with more accurate pricing and control over their currency conversions.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, Sellberg/Szoc, and Davidowitz

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), 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 monitoring market and currency prices and executing a trade only when specified conditions are met. Petitioner asserted that Davidowitz teaches the very elements required by these claims. Davidowitz was argued to disclose an automated system that "continuously monitor[s] the various markets and automatically execute[s] transactions based upon the realization of specific parameters chosen by the investor" to manage the risks associated with foreign currency exposure.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add the continuous monitoring and conditional execution logic from Davidowitz to the base trading platform of Calo/Rude/Sellberg (or Szoc). This addition would serve the well-understood and compelling need for automated risk management in financial trading, a predictable and desirable enhancement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner proposed this term means "a selected current rate," such as a spot or forward rate. This construction was central to its argument that prior art reference Rude, which was dismissed during prosecution for supposedly teaching only an "average" rate, in fact disclosed the claimed "prevailing rate" by teaching the use of spot and forward rates.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be unwarranted because this petition seeks joinder with an already-instituted IPR (IPR2024-00378) and Petitioners will assume an inactive role. Furthermore, Petitioner made a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in related litigation any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. Petitioner contended this stipulation makes a discretionary denial under Fintiv inapplicable.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of the ’930 patent as unpatentable.