PTAB

IPR2025-01045

Wise PLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies
  • Brief Description: The ’701 patent relates to a consolidated, three-tier trading platform that allows traders to trade assets in a preferred currency, different from the currency in which the asset is typically traded. The architecture comprises a brokerage, a market exchange for assets, and a currency exchange for converting currencies at prevailing rates.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

  • Ground 1: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg - Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are obvious over Calo in view of 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 taught the core three-tier architecture of a globalized trading network with a central brokerage hub, a market exchange, and a foreign exchange facility. Calo disclosed providing preview prices in a user’s native currency based on real-time data. Rude was argued to supply the missing element of an explicit user interface for a trader to select a preferred currency for pricing and settlement. Sellberg was argued to teach the dynamic updating and display of exchange rates, using the "last received" rate at the time of execution to ensure accuracy and minimize volatility, a problem Calo recognized but did not fully solve.
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as they are all in the field of automated cross-border financial trading and address the same problems of reducing friction, cost, and uncertainty. A POSITA would integrate Rude’s user-selection feature into Calo’s system to improve usability and would incorporate Sellberg’s real-time rate application to enhance pricing accuracy and transparency, thereby reducing the need for the large reserve buffers taught by Calo.
      • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because the references use similar computer-based architectures (client-server, network communications) and address compatible goals. Sellberg explicitly stated its methods were "easy to implement in existing trading systems," indicating straightforward integration into a system like Calo's.

  • Ground 2: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Szoc - Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are obvious over Calo in view of Rude and in further view of Szoc.

    • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo, Rude, and Szoc (Application # 2002/0023053).
    • Core Argument for this Ground:
      • Prior Art Mapping: This ground used the same base combination of Calo and Rude as Ground 1. Petitioner argued Szoc provided an alternative or additional teaching for dynamically displaying real-time rates. Szoc disclosed a "scrolling quote bar" that provides a continuously updated list of foreign exchange rates. This feature was argued to teach the "keep displaying" limitation of claim 9, ensuring that costs and fees are constantly updated for the user, even if the asset's market value is unchanged. Szoc also taught executing limit transactions only when a client-specified exchange rate is achieved, providing a mechanism for conditional execution based on real-time rate data.
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Szoc's teachings to the Calo/Rude system to further enhance transparency. Applying Szoc’s scrolling, real-time display to the costs and fees in Calo’s interface would provide traders with the most accurate information, and using its conditional execution logic would ensure limit orders are met precisely, reducing risk.
      • Expectation of Success: Success was expected due to the compatible architectures. Szoc’s quote bar, designed for real-time data display in financial systems, was argued to be functionally compatible with Calo's system, which already processed real-time foreign exchange and asset price data.

  • Ground 3: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, Sellberg, and Davidowitz - Claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg, in further view of Davidowitz.

    • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo, Rude, Sellberg, and Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655).
    • Core Argument for this Ground:
      • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claims related to conditional and periodic monitoring (claims 2, 5, 10, 13) by adding Davidowitz to the primary combination from Ground 1. Petitioner argued Davidowitz taught a system that continuously monitors multiple markets (including foreign exchange rates and security prices) and automatically executes trades when predefined conditions are met. This was mapped to the limitations requiring the system to "monitor the conditions" (claim 2) and "periodically check" updated market values and exchange rates before performing a transaction (claims 2, 5, 10).
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Davidowitz's advanced monitoring and automated execution logic with the Calo/Rude/Sellberg platform to improve the handling of limit orders. This would enhance automation and ensure timely execution based on a combination of both market and currency conditions, a more granular approach than taught by Calo alone.
      • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued for a reasonable expectation of success because Davidowitz’s real-time monitoring functionality was designed for trading systems like Calo's that already handle real-time data streams and order execution logic. Integrating this feature was presented as a predictable improvement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate" / "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner argued that a POSITA would understand these terms to mean "a selected current rate," such as a "spot" or "forward" rate. This interpretation was asserted to be consistent with the patent's specification and the Patent Owner's own position in a related IPR (IPR2024-00378). Petitioner stated the Board need not formally construe any term to find the claims invalid.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial by noting that in IPR proceedings involving related patents from the same family (’107, ’863, and ’930 patents), the Board had already found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over substantially similar prior art and had instituted trial. Petitioner contended that for analogous reasons, this petition should also be instituted.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’701 patent as unpatentable.