PTAB

IPR2024-01292

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 ’107 patent discloses a method and system for a consolidated trading platform that allows a trader to view and execute trades for assets in a preferred currency (e.g., a domestic currency) that is different from the market currency in which the asset is traded. The system uses a trading server coupled to market and currency exchanges to perform real-time currency conversions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-18 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and 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 teach the core elements of the challenged claims, including a three-tier trading architecture with market and currency exchange servers for cross-border trading. Calo was asserted to disclose a system (E*TRADE Global) that provides real-time price previews in a customer’s native currency and executes foreign exchange orders to provide a locked-in value in that currency. Rude was argued to similarly teach a system that automatically converts foreign security price quotations into a trader's operating currency and calculates costs and fees. Petitioner contended that Sellberg remedies any potential deficiency by explicitly teaching the use of an updated exchange rate, preferably the last one available "just prior to the submitting the order," to perform the transaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the foundational trading platforms of Calo and Rude with the specific real-time rate-locking mechanism of Sellberg to solve the known problem of currency exchange risk. This combination would predictably result in a more transparent and reliable trading system, which was a recognized goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these known features of electronic trading systems was a simple task for a POSITA and would have yielded the predictable result of a consolidated platform with enhanced currency conversion capabilities.

Ground 2: Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-18 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and 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 a similar argument to Ground 1, with Calo and Rude again providing the basic consolidated trading platform. Szoc was offered as an alternative to Sellberg. Petitioner argued Szoc discloses a system for providing real-time foreign exchange information and executing cross-border payments, addressing the uncertainty and financial risk of volatile exchange rates. Szoc allegedly teaches providing locked-in, real-time quotes (such as spot rates) and displaying constantly-changing rates on a customizable user interface, satisfying the claim requirement of using a "prevailing exchange rate" immediately before a transaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate the real-time, locked-in quote features from Szoc into the established trading architecture of Calo and Rude. The motivation was to improve the system's accuracy and reduce the currency fluctuation risk for users, a persistent problem in cross-border trading that Szoc was designed to solve.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating Szoc's real-time data feed and transaction-timing logic into the Calo/Rude platforms would have been a straightforward application of known software integration techniques to achieve a predictable improvement in system performance.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 14 and 15 are obvious over the primary combinations in further view of Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655) for teaching continuous monitoring and automated execution. Petitioner also asserted that claim 8 is obvious over the primary combinations in further view of Kidea (Application # 2007/0005481) for teaching the display and handling of partially filled orders.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as "a selected current rate that is not an FOREX average exchange rate." This construction was based on the patent’s disclosure of using specific "spot" or "forward" rates and the Patent Owner's arguments during prosecution to distinguish prior art that allegedly used only an average rate. This distinction was central to Petitioner's argument that references like Rude, Sellberg, and Szoc teach the claimed invention because they disclose using specific spot or forward rates, not averages.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is unwarranted. It contended that because Petitioners have not previously challenged the ’107 patent and seek to join an already instituted inter partes review (IPR), denial under General Plastic is inappropriate. Furthermore, Petitioner asserted that because all petitioners have made a Sotera stipulation to not pursue the same grounds in related district court litigation if the IPR is instituted, denial under the Fintiv factors is inapplicable.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’107 patent as unpatentable.