PTAB

IPR2025-01446

Airwallex Pty. Ltd. 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 discloses a consolidated trading platform that allows traders to transact assets in a preferred currency, regardless of the asset's native market currency. The system describes a three-tier architecture comprising a brokerage server, a market exchange for assets, and a currency exchange to present all prices, fees, and settlements in the trader's chosen currency in real-time.

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, 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 three-tier trading platform, including a central "Global Brokerage Service" (GBS) that functions as the claimed "trading server." Calo’s GBS was shown to be coupled to a client machine, a "Foreign Exchange Facility" (currency exchange server), and "U.S. Market Makers and Exchanges" (market exchange server). Petitioner contended Rude supplied the missing limitation of a user providing an "indicator of a first currency" to the trading server via a user interface. To meet limitations regarding settlement, Petitioner argued Sellberg taught using the most current, "last received" exchange rate at the time of execution, which corresponds to the claimed "second prevailing exchange rate" used for settlement, distinct from the initial rate used for the pre-trade preview.
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Calo and Rude to provide users with the known and desirable feature of specifying a preferred currency, thereby improving the user experience in a cross-border trading system. A POSITA would further integrate Sellberg's method to improve pricing accuracy and transparency by using the most up-to-date exchange rate at execution, which minimizes volatility risk—a core problem addressed by all three references.
      • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success was expected due to the similar system architectures and aligned commercial goals of Calo and Rude. Sellberg’s method was described as "easy to implement in existing trading systems," further supporting its predictable integration.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Calo, Rude, and Szoc

  • Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-16 are obvious over Calo and Rude in 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 relied on the same Calo/Rude combination as the base system. Petitioner argued that Szoc supplied the teachings for dynamically updating and displaying costs and fees. Szoc's disclosure of a "scrolling quote bar" featuring "real-time, constantly-changing rates" was mapped to the claim limitations requiring costs to be dynamically changed and displayed based on a prevailing exchange rate, even when the underlying asset's market value remains unchanged, thus highlighting the impact of currency fluctuations.
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Szoc's real-time display functionality to the Calo/Rude platform to provide traders with more accurate, up-to-the-minute information. This modification would increase transparency in volatile markets and directly address the shared goal of the prior art to mitigate currency exchange risks for the end user.
      • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected because Szoc's quote bar was functionally compatible with Calo's system, which already utilized real-time foreign exchange data to generate its preview prices, making the integration straightforward.

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

  • Claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 are obvious over Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in 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 built on the Calo/Rude/Sellberg combination to address dependent claims requiring the monitoring of conditions and periodic updates. Petitioner asserted that Davidowitz taught an automated system that continuously monitors multiple market data streams, including equity prices and exchange rates, to automatically execute trades when predefined conditions are met. This functionality was mapped to claim limitations requiring the server to monitor conditions (e.g., limit orders) and to periodically receive updated market values and exchange rates to do so.
      • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Davidowitz's continuous monitoring and automated execution logic into the base system to ensure robust and reliable compliance with trader-specified conditions like limit orders. This combination would enhance the platform by improving automation and ensuring timely execution based on a synthesis of both asset market and currency conditions.
      • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that success was expected because Calo's platform already handled real-time data feeds and order execution logic, making the integration of Davidowitz's more advanced monitoring functionality a predictable and well-understood improvement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed that the term "prevailing exchange rate," which appears in multiple independent and dependent claims, should be construed under its plain and ordinary meaning as "a selected current rate."
  • For the related term "prevailing currency exchange rate," Petitioner argued it should encompass any selected current currency exchange rate, such as a "spot" rate or a "forward" rate.
  • The petition noted that the Patent Owner had previously agreed with this construction in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding concerning a related patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 11,620,701 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.