PTAB

IPR2025-01446

AirWallex Pty Ltd v. Intercurrency Software LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Platform for Trading Assets in Different Currencies
  • Brief Description: The ’701 patent relates to a consolidated trading platform with a three-tier architecture (brokerage, market exchange, and currency exchange). The system allows traders to trade assets in a preferred currency by presenting all prices, market data, and settlements in that chosen currency, thereby providing transactional certainty.

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 and Rude, in 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 Calo taught a global trading system with a similar three-tier architecture (brokerage, market exchange, currency exchange) that provides trade previews in a user’s native currency. Rude was argued to disclose a similar system that explicitly allows a user to select a preferred operating currency. The combination of Calo and Rude was asserted to teach the core platform of the independent claims, including a trading server coupled to a client machine, a currency exchange server, and a market exchange server.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Calo's platform with Rude’s user-selectable currency feature to improve the user experience and streamline cross-border trading. A POSITA would further incorporate Sellberg’s teachings to address known exchange rate volatility. Sellberg taught using the most current, "last received" exchange rate just before trade execution, which would be a predictable solution to improve the accuracy of Calo's real-time pricing and reduce the need for large reserve buffers.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected because the references describe similar computer-based architectures aimed at automated foreign exchange trading. Sellberg itself stated its methods are "easy to implement in existing trading systems," supporting its compatibility with 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 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: The base combination of Calo and Rude was asserted to teach the core trading platform, as in Ground 1. Szoc was introduced for its teachings on providing real-time, continuously-updating exchange rates via a "scrolling quote bar" and executing transactions only when a pre-specified exchange rate is met. This combination was argued to teach calculating a second prevailing exchange rate "right before the transaction takes place" to satisfy limit order conditions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine Szoc’s dynamic display and conditional execution logic with the Calo/Rude platform to increase pricing transparency and provide traders with more precise control over limit orders. This modification would directly address the problem of exchange rate volatility, a central issue in the art, by ensuring trades execute at a desired rate.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that Szoc’s quote bar, which provides real-time data, is functionally compatible with Calo’s system, which already relies on real-time foreign exchange data for its preview pricing. This architectural compatibility would make integration predictable and successful.

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 builds on the combination in Ground 1 to address dependent claims requiring monitoring of conditions and periodic updates. Davidowitz was asserted to teach an automated system that continuously monitors various markets, including equity prices and exchange rates, and executes trades only when predefined investor parameters are met. This taught the claimed limitations of periodically checking updated market values and exchange rates to determine if transaction conditions are satisfied.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Davidowitz’s continuous monitoring and automated execution logic into the base Calo/Rude/Sellberg platform to enhance its functionality for handling conditional orders (e.g., limit orders). This would create a more robust system that improves execution accuracy by ensuring that both asset price and currency rates are up-to-date when checking if conditions are met.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected because integrating Davidowitz's monitoring functionality is a predictable improvement to a system like Calo's, which already processes real-time data and handles order execution logic.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "a selected current rate." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the patent’s specification, which describes using "spot" or "forward" rates. Petitioner noted that the Patent Owner had previously agreed to this construction in a related IPR concerning the ’930 patent.
  • "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term, recited in claims 2, 5, 10, and 13, should be understood to encompass any selected current currency exchange rate, such as a spot or forward rate, consistent with the construction of the broader term.

5. Relief Requested

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