PTAB

IPR2025-01586

Nium Pte 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 securities trading platform that allows a trader to view and transact assets in a preferred currency, even when the asset is natively traded in a different currency. The system uses a three-tier architecture comprising a brokerage, a market exchange, and a currency exchange to provide real-time transactional currency conversion.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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 # 2002/0087454A1), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361A1), and Sellberg (Application # 2004/0236664A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Calo discloses the core trading platform, including a trading server (its Global Brokerage Service or "GBS") coupled to a client machine, a currency exchange server (its Foreign Exchange Facility), and a market exchange server. Calo’s system provides real-time price previews in a user’s native currency, including estimated costs and fees, before a transaction. Upon execution, Calo initiates a currency conversion to determine a "locked-in" settlement value using a second exchange rate. Rude was argued to teach the specific feature of a user interface that allows a user to select their preferred "operating currency." Sellberg was argued to teach a system that uses the "last received updated exchange rate" right before execution to ensure accuracy.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rude with Calo to provide an explicit mechanism for users to specify their preferred currency, a natural feature for Calo’s system. A POSITA would further incorporate Sellberg’s teaching of using the most current exchange rate at the time of execution to improve the accuracy of Calo's "locked-in" settlement value and mitigate risks from currency volatility, a problem Calo explicitly sought to address.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that success was expected because all three references describe computer-based trading platforms with similar architectures and the shared goal of automating foreign exchange transactions, making their features compatible and integration straightforward.

Ground 2: 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 # 2002/0087454A1), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361A1), and Szoc (Application # 2002/0023053A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: The base combination of Calo and Rude provides the foundational trading platform, as detailed in Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Szoc provides additional teachings on displaying real-time, continuously updated exchange rates and executing transactions only when specific rate-based conditions are met. Szoc’s system features a “scrolling quote bar” showing constantly changing rates and allows a user to enter a "desired exchange rate," with execution occurring only if that rate is achieved.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Szoc's teachings with the Calo/Rude platform to enhance transparency by providing traders with the most accurate, real-time rate information via a feature like a scrolling quote bar. This combination would also improve the implementation of limit orders by ensuring execution occurs based on the exchange rate right before the transaction, predictably aligning settlement with the user's conditions.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was expected as Szoc’s functionalities are compatible with Calo's system, which already uses real-time exchange data. Both systems aim to streamline cross-border transactions, making integration technically achievable.

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Calo (Application # 2002/0087454A1), Rude (Application # 2006/0095361A1), Sellberg (Application # 2004/0236664A1), and Davidowitz (Application # 2004/0267655A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Calo/Rude/Sellberg combination from Ground 1 to address dependent claims requiring monitoring conditions and periodic updates. Petitioner argued that Davidowitz discloses an automated system that continuously monitors market data, including both equity prices and exchange rates, to determine when trader-defined conditions are met. The system then automatically executes transactions. This includes periodically checking updated market values against order conditions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Davidowitz's continuous and periodic monitoring capabilities into the Calo/Rude/Sellberg platform. This would enhance the system’s ability to reliably execute conditional orders (e.g., limit orders) by ensuring that the conditions are evaluated against the most current market data, thereby improving pricing transparency and reducing execution risk in volatile markets.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that integrating Davidowitz's monitoring logic would be a predictable improvement for a system like Calo's, which already processes real-time data and handles conditional orders.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "a selected current rate." This construction is based on the specification’s disclosure of "spot" and "forward" rates and was allegedly agreed to by the Patent Owner in a related IPR.
  • "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term is equivalent to "prevailing exchange rate" but specifically pertains to currency. It should be interpreted to include any selected current currency exchange rate, such as "spot" or "forward" rates.

5. Relief Requested

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