PTAB

IPR2026-00152

Ebury Partners Uk 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 describes 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 system uses real-time, transactional-level currency conversion to provide certainty on costs and settlement values.

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, as the primary reference, discloses a globalized trading network with a three-tier architecture for trading securities across borders in a customer’s native currency. Calo’s Global Brokerage Service (GBS) was asserted to be the claimed "trading server," which couples to a client machine, a foreign exchange facility ("currency exchange server"), and a market exchange ("market exchange server"). Petitioner contended that Calo teaches calculating and displaying preview prices, including fees, in the user's native currency based on real-time data. To meet all limitations, Petitioner mapped Rude's disclosure of a user interface for selecting a preferred currency to Calo's system and mapped Sellberg's teaching of using the "last received updated exchange rate" right before a transaction to address exchange rate volatility.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references as they are all in the analogous art of automated cross-border financial trading. A POSITA would modify Calo with Rude's user-selectable currency feature to provide a clear mechanism for a user to specify their native currency, a feature already suggested by Calo. A POSITA would further incorporate Sellberg's exchange rate timing method to improve Calo's system by minimizing exposure to rate fluctuations and increasing pricing transparency, a known problem Calo sought to address.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had an expectation of success because all three systems are computer-based trading platforms with similar architectures. Sellberg explicitly stated its methods were "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 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 relied on the same base combination of Calo and Rude as Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Szoc provides the teachings of displaying continuously updated, real-time exchange rates via a "scrolling quote bar" and executing limit transactions only when a client-specified exchange rate is achieved. This combination was asserted to teach calculating the settlement exchange rate right before the transaction takes place to ensure limit order conditions are met, and continuously displaying updated costs and fees.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Szoc's teachings with the Calo/Rude system to enhance pricing transparency and ensure limit orders execute accurately. While Calo addresses volatility with a "locked-in" rate, Szoc provides a more explicit mechanism for handling rate-dependent limit orders and for continuously displaying real-time rates to the user. This combination would provide traders with the most accurate information at the time of trade, a shared goal of the references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because Szoc's quote bar functionality is structurally and functionally compatible with Calo's real-time price conversion system. Both systems are designed to automate currency exchange data to streamline cross-border transactions, making their 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 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 built upon the combination in Ground 1 to challenge dependent claims related to monitoring conditions and periodically receiving updated data. Petitioner argued that Davidowitz teaches an automated system that continuously monitors multiple market variables (including equity prices and exchange rates) to determine when predefined trading conditions are met. This was mapped to claim limitations requiring the trading server to monitor conditions, periodically check them against updated market and currency values, and execute a transaction only when those conditions are met.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Davidowitz's continuous monitoring capabilities into the Calo/Rude/Sellberg system to improve the execution of conditional orders, such as limit orders. Combining Davidowitz's granular teachings on displaying updated asset prices would enhance Calo's preview price feature, providing more transparent and responsive cost updates as market conditions fluctuate.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because integrating Davidowitz's real-time cost display and monitoring functionality would be a predictable improvement to the trading servers in Calo, which already handle real-time data and order execution logic.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "prevailing exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a selected current rate." This construction was asserted to be consistent with the specification's description of using a "forward" or "spot" rate and with the Patent Owner's agreed-upon construction in a related IPR.
  • "prevailing currency exchange rate": Petitioner argued this term has the same meaning as "prevailing exchange rate" but is specific to currencies, proposing the construction "a selected current currency exchange rate."

5. Relief Requested

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