PTAB

IPR2025-01045

Wise PLC v. Intercurrency Software LLC

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, regardless of the currency in which the asset is typically traded. The architecture comprises a brokerage server, a market exchange server for asset trading, and a currency exchange server for currency conversion.

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 foundational globalized trading platform with a centralized hub (Global Brokerage Service or "GBS") that routes orders between a client, a market exchange, and a foreign exchange facility, allowing trades in a user's native currency. The platform provides real-time preview prices, including estimated commissions and fees, before a transaction is executed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Calo with Rude to implement an explicit mechanism for a user to select a preferred currency for pricing and settlement, a feature suggested but not detailed in Calo. A POSITA would further incorporate Sellberg's teachings to improve the system's accuracy and transparency by using the most current exchange rate available ("the last received updated exchange rate") at or just before the moment of execution, thereby minimizing exposure to currency volatility and reducing the need for the reserve buffers taught by Calo.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because all three references described computer-based trading platforms with similar architectures designed to interoperate with existing financial infrastructure. Sellberg explicitly stated its methods were "easy to implement in existing trading systems," confirming compatibility.

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 (Application # 2002/0087454), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361), and Szoc (Application # 2002/0023053).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the base combination of Calo and Rude. Petitioner argued Szoc taught providing real-time, continuously updating foreign exchange rate quotes via a "scrolling quote bar" on the user interface. Szoc also disclosed executing limit transactions only when a client-specified exchange rate is achieved, requiring the system to evaluate real-time rates at the moment of execution.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Szoc's teachings with the Calo/Rude system to enhance pricing transparency by continuously displaying fluctuating costs and fees to the user. This aligns with the shared goal of providing traders with the most accurate, up-to-date information in volatile markets. Further, incorporating Szoc's method for handling conditional orders would ensure that limit transactions execute only when both asset price and currency rate conditions are met, improving user control.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Szoc’s real-time quote bar and conditional execution logic were structurally and functionally compatible with Calo's system, which already utilized real-time data feeds for generating preview prices.

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 (Application # 2002/0087454), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361), Sellberg (Application # 2004/0236664), and Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed claims related to monitoring conditions and periodically updating data. Petitioner asserted Davidowitz taught a system that continuously monitored multiple markets for both securities prices and foreign exchange rates, automatically executing trades when predefined conditions were met.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Davidowitz's more granular teachings on continuous, automated monitoring into the Calo/Rude/Sellberg platform. This would enhance the system's ability to execute conditional orders (e.g., limit orders, as recited in claim 2) by ensuring that the system periodically checks both the updated asset market value and the updated currency exchange rate before performing a transaction. This improves execution accuracy and reduces the risk of acting on stale data.
    • Expectation of Success: Integration would be predictable and successful because Davidowitz’s real-time monitoring functionality was designed to work with trading servers that, like Calo's, already handled real-time data feeds and order execution logic.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the Board did not need to formally construe any claim terms to find the challenged claims invalid. However, Petitioner proposed that a POSITA would have understood key terms consistent with their ordinary meaning and the patent's specification.
  • "prevailing exchange rate" / "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner contended a POSITA would understand these terms to mean "a selected current rate," such as a "spot" or "forward" rate. This interpretation was noted as being consistent with the specification and with Patent Owner's own agreement in a related IPR. This construction is central to distinguishing the first rate (for pre-trade estimates) from the second rate (for final settlement).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’701 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.