ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

Intercurrency Software LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEK Global Limited and 

PhoenixFin Pte Ltd.,

Defendants.

Case No.

Jury Trial Demanded 

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Intercurrency Software LLC (“Intercurrency” or “Plaintiff”) hereby files this Original Complaint 

for Patent Infringement against MEK Global Limited and PhoenixFin Pte Ltd. (“KuCoin” or 

“Defendant”), and alleges, upon information and belief, as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Intercurrency Software LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws

of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at 3333 Preston Road, Suite 300, Frisco,

Texas 75034.

2. Defendant MEK Global Limited is a company organized and existing under the laws of Seychelles

and located at Suite 23, 1st Floor, Eden Plaza, Eden Island, Mahé, Seychelles.

3. Defendant PhoenixFin Pte Ltd. is a company organized and existing under the laws of Singapore

and located at 2 Science Park Drive, #01-03, Ascent, Singapore (118222).

4. Upon information and belief, Defendants are engaged in research and development,

manufacturing, importation, distribution, sales and related technical services for crypto trading and

promote kucoin.com (the “KuCoin Platform”).

2:23-cv-394

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

5. Upon information and belief, MEK Global Limited has been identified on KuCoin’s website as 

the corporate entity behind the KuCoin Platform. Upon information and belief, Mek Global 

remains the corporate entity behind the KuCoin Platform and sets the terms to which investors 

must agree when using the KuCoin Platform.

6. Upon information and belief, PhoenixFin Pte Ltd. is the owner of kucoin.com, where investors 

access the KuCoin Platform.

7. Defendants MEK Global Limited and PhoenixFin Pte Ltd., and any subsidiaries, are alter egos and

therefore responsible and liable for any activities performed by each and their subsidiaries on their

behalf in offering for sale, testing, selling, and/or importing the KuCoin Platform in or into the 

United States and instructing or training end users to use the KuCoin Platform in the United States. 

ASSA ABLOY AB directs and completely and/or effectively controls the conduct of each other 

and their subsidiaries, and collectively control the internal business operations, workings, and 

affairs of themselves and their subsidiaries and related companies. Defendants and their

subsidiaries do not observe and enforce corporate formalities and share common executive level 

leadership. The relationship between Defendants and any subsidiaries, parents, and related entities 

is a sham at least because Defendants direct and control all external and internal activities of 

themselves and any subsidiaries, and all key United States-market strategy, implementation, and 

sales decisions are made solely by Defendants and their direct employees. Hereinafter, Defendants 

will be referred to as “KuCoin” or Defendant” for simplicity.

8. Defendant’s crypto trading is made outside and inside the United States of America sold to endusers via the Internet and via distribution partners, retailers, reseller partners, and solution partners.

Those sales occur in the United States, and throughout Texas, including in this District.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous and systematic 

business contacts with the State of Texas. Defendant transacts business within this District and 

elsewhere in the State of Texas. Further, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant based 

on its commission of one or more acts of infringement of patent-in-suit in this District and 

elsewhere in the State of Texas.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant transacts substantial business in the State of Texas and 

this Judicial District. Defendant has committed acts of infringement in this District by, among 

other things, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the asserted patents, including the 

accused products as alleged herein, as well as providing service and support to its customers in 

this District. Upon information and belief, Defendant, directly or indirectly, participates in the 

stream of commerce that results in products, including the accused products, being made, used, 

offered for sale, and/or sold in the State of Texas and/or imported into the United States to the 

State of Texas.

12. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b) 

because, among other things, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Judicial District, 

Defendant has regularly conducted business in this Judicial District, certain of the acts complained 

of herein occurred in this Judicial District, and Defendant is not a resident in the United States and 

may be sued in any judicial district.

PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

13. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent 10,062,107 (the “’107

Patent”), U.S. Patent 10,776,863 (the “’863 Patent”), and U.S. Patent 11,449,930 (the “’930 

Patent”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Patents-in-Suit”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

14. By written instruments duly filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Plaintiff is 

assigned all rights, title, and interest in the Patents-in-Suit. As such, Plaintiff has sole and exclusive 

standing to assert the Patents-in-Suit and to bring these causes of action.

15. The Patents-in-Suit are valid, enforceable, and were duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 

of the United States Code.

16. The Patents-in-Suit have been cited patents issued to well-known industry leaders, including

industry giant Bank of America. 

17. The Patents-in-Suit each include numerous claims defining distinct inventions. No single claim is 

representative of any other.

18. The priority date of each of the Patents-in-Suit is at least as early as April 18, 2007. As of the 

priority date, the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine. 

Indeed, the Patents-in-Suit overcame a number of specific technological problems in the industry 

and provided specific technological solutions.

19. By way of example, as of the date of invention, the prior art of financial service providers which 

allowed foreign investors to trade U.S. securities required the trades to be done in U.S. currency, 

which required the use of foreign currency exchange brokers before and after trading to realize 

profits. This did not allow foreign investors to have “certain knowledge of what profit or loss he 

was going to get because the currency exchange rate must be obtained for a bulk amount at another 

time, which may fluctuate significantly enough to affect the ultimate profit or loss.” See ’107 

Patent, Col. 1, ll. 38-60. 

20. The prior art did not perform the “the currency conversion [sic] at a transactional level ... so that 

a trader or investor knows exactly what profit or loss may occur with a transaction.” The prior art 

did not “show prices as well as conduct all transactions in a currency preferred by an investor, 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

regardless of whatever currency being used in the primary market for the security/asset.” Id., 

Col.1, ll. 61-7 and Col. 2, ll. 1-3. 

21. Therefore, “the invention relates to methods, processes and systems for conducting security 

transactions in a preferred currency, regardless of what original or market currency the securities 

are being traded in and where the transaction may take place.” Id., Col. 2, ll. 15-9.

22. Further, as an embodiment of the inventions, the inventions provide “a three-tier architecture [sic]

which includes a brokerage, a market exchange where securities/assets are traded, and a currency 

exchange where amounts in one currency can be converted to corresponding amounts in another 

currency at prevailing rates,” which “presents all prices, market data, P&L estimates, and 

transaction results or settlements in a preferred currency, in conjunction with the market exchange 

and the currency exchange Id., Col. 2, ll. 24-33.

23. Thus, “a trader always knows exactly what he/she may end up with a transaction of an asset. 

Furthermore, according to another aspect of the present invention, when the transaction of the asset 

is performed, the consolidated trading platform can also perform a currency conversion 

automatically based on specified conditions.” Id., Col. 2, ll. 33-8.

24. The inventions of the Patents-in-Suit also contemplate that “orders with conditions (e.g., a limit 

order, or a stop order) are only executed when the conditions are met with reference to the market 

price from the market exchange together with the currency exchange rate from the currency 

exchange.” Id., Col. 2, ll. 45-9. 

25. Moreover, any arguments relating to eligibility as may be made by Defendant here are necessarily 

merely cumulative with those already considered, and rejected, by the Patent Examiners in 

allowing the Patents-in-Suit. See, e.g., Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 

1316, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Stone Basket Innov. v. Cook Medical, 892 F.3d 1175, 1179 (Fed. Cir. 

2018).

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

26. The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract 

ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the Asserted Patents are ubiquitous now 

(and, as a result, are widely infringed), the specific combinations of elements, as recited in the 

claims, were not conventional or routine at the time of the invention.

27. Further, the claims of the Patents-in-Suit contain inventive concepts. Even if a court ruled the 

underlying aspects to be abstract, the inventive concepts disclosed in sufficient detail would 

transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.

28. Patent Examiners investigated fields of art exactly relevant to the patented inventions, such as 

G06Q40/00 and G06Q40/04. 

29. Specifically, the examiner investigated G06Q40/00, which covers subject matter drawn to a 

computerized arrangement for planning the disposition or use of funds or securities, or extension 

of credit; data processing systems or processes specially adapted for financial applications, e.g.

management of monetary assets in data processing systems or on-line banking, electronic funds 

transfer (eft) systems, financial or exchange applications, e.g. trading stock, options, ordering of 

stock, index balancing investment, e.g. fund management, and portfolio management. 

30. Additionally, the examiner also performed searches in the field of G06Q40/04, which covers the 

trading or exchange of securities or commodities within an organized system; data processing 

systems or processes specially adapted for trading in the context of stock, FX exchanges, e.g.

trading of stocks and currency exchange; Stock exchange applications, e.g. Trading stock, options, 

ordering of stock, general stock trading administration Foreign exchange, e.g. currency trading 

and currency exchange.

31. The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102, 103, and 112, as 

reflected by the fact that three different Patent Examiners all agreed and allowed the Patents-inSuit over extensive prior art as disclosed and of record during the prosecution of the Patents-inCase 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

Suit. See Stone Basket Innov., 892 F.3d at 1179 (“when prior art is listed on the face of a patent, 

the examiner is presumed to have considered it”) (citing Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 802 

F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Exmark Mfg. v. Briggs & Stratton, 879 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018).

32. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all 

relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United States 

Patent Examiners allowed all of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit to issue. In so doing, it is 

presumed that Examiners used their knowledge of the art when examining the claims. See K/S 

Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further presumed 

that Patent Examiners had experience in the field of the invention, and that the Patent Examiners

properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 

1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

33. The claims of the ’107 Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited art that is 

merely cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(b) (information is 

material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record in the 

application); see also AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 1304 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014); In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Likewise, the claims of the ’107 

Patent are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited contemporaneous state of the art 

systems and methods, all of which would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, 

and which were therefore presumptively also known and considered by the Examiners. See, e.g., 

St. Clair I.P. Consultants v. Canon, Inc., 2011 WL 66166 at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Sang Su 

Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation, 2020 WL 

7392868 at *19 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Standard Oil v. American Cyanamid, 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. 

Cir. 1985) (persons of ordinary skill are presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art).

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

34. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or otherwise 

provides an apparatus and method for a consolidated trading platform covered by the Patents-inSuit, including its KuCoin Platform through kucoin.com trading platforms and systems, as 

represented below, including all augmentations to these platforms or descriptions of platforms.

Collectively, all the foregoing is referred to herein as the “Accused Instrumentalities.” 

See https://www.kucoin.com/ (screenshot KuCoin’s offering of Accused 

Instrumentalities). 

COUNT I

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,062,107

35. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

36. Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’107 Patent at least as early as the date it received 

service of the Original Complaint in this litigation.

37. Plaintiff or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations required to 

collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’107

patent, thus the damages period begins at least as early as six years prior to the date of service 

of the Original Complaint in this litigation.

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

38. Defendant manufactures, sells, offers for sale, owns, directs, and/or controls the operation of 

the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues and benefits 

therefrom.

39. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the claims of the ’107

Patent. As exemplary, Claim 1 is infringed by making, using, importing, selling, and/or 

offering for sale the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant directly makes and sells the 

infringing Accused Instrumentalities at least because it is solely responsible for putting the 

infringing systems into service by directing or controlling the systems as a whole and by 

obtaining the benefits therefrom. More specifically, and on information and belief, with 

respect to the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant: 

• (i) practices and provides a trading server, such as its trading servers coupled to one or 

more currency exchange servers, and one or more market exchange servers; 

See https://www.kucoin.com/express (screenshot KuCoin’s offering of Accused 

Instrumentalities). 

• (ii) practices and provides receiving in the trading server an indicator of a preferred 

currency from a trader; 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

• (iii) practices and provides causing a client computer associated with the trader to 

display at least an asset in the preferred currency while the asset is being traded in a 

market currency, wherein said causing a client computer associated with the trader to 

display at least an asset in the preferred currency comprises; 

• (iv) practices and provides conducting in the trading server a transaction of the asset by 

transmitting a transaction request from the trading server to a market exchange server 

when the trader decides to proceed with trading the asset; 

• (v) practices and provides receiving a settlement notification in the trading server when 

the transaction of the asset is performed by the market exchange server in accordance 

with conditions set by the user, wherein the conditions include a price at which the 

asset is traded in the preferred currency, the trading server is configured to calculate 

the prevailing exchange rate from all exchange rates obtained from the one or more 

currency exchange servers right before the transaction takes place when the asset is not 

priced in the preferred currency, and executes the transaction with the calculated 

prevailing exchange rate obtained at the transaction to prevent uncertainty in currency 

exchanges in another time; and

• (vi) practices and provides performing a currency conversion of some portion or all of 

the transaction from the market currency to the preferred currency when the preferred 

currency is not identical to the market currency, the conversion being performed with 

the calculated prevailing exchange rate.

40. Further on information and belief, Defendant directly uses the infringing Accused 

Instrumentalities at least because it assembled the combined infringing elements and makes 

them collectively available in the United States, including via its Internet domain web pages 

and/or software applications, as well as via its internal systems and interfaces. Further, and on 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11

information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed by using the infringing Accused 

Instrumentalities as part of its ongoing and regular testing and/or internal legal compliance 

activities. Such testing and/or legal compliance necessarily requires Defendant to make and 

use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Still further, Defendant is a direct 

infringer by virtue of its branding and marketing activities, which collectively comprise the 

sale and offering for sale of the infringing Accused Instrumentalities.

41. As shown above, Defendant is making, using, and offering for sale the Accused 

Instrumentalities.

42. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendant owns, directs, and/or controls the 

infringing method operation of the Accused Instrumentalities.

43. On information and belief, the infringement of the ’107 Patent by Defendant will now be

willful through the filing and service of this Complaint. The ’107 Patent is not expected to 

expire before October 28, 2033.

44. In addition or in the alternative, Defendant now has knowledge and continues these actions 

and it indirectly infringes by way of inducing direct infringement by others and/or contributing 

to the infringement by others of the ’107 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, 

and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering 

for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, infringing services for use in systems that 

fall within the scope of the claims of the ’107 Patent. This includes without limitation, one or 

more of the Accused Instrumentalities by making, using, importing offering for sale, and/or 

selling such services, Defendant injured Plaintiff and is thus liable to Plaintiff for infringement 

of the ’107 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

45. Now with knowledge of the ’107 Patent, Defendant induces infringement under Title 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271(b). Defendant will have performed actions that induced infringing acts that Defendant 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12

knew or should have known would induce actual infringements. See Manville Sales Corp. v. 

Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed.Cir.1990), quoted in DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS 

Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2006) (en banc in relevant part). “[A] finding of inducement 

requires a threshold finding of direct infringement—either a finding of specific instances of 

direct infringement or a finding that the accused products necessarily infringe.” Ricoh, 550 

F.3d at 1341 (citing ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturer Co., 501 F.3d 1307, 1313, 

(Fed. Cir. 2007).

46. Plaintiff will rely on direct and/or circumstantial evidence to prove the intent element. See Fuji 

Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A patentee may 

prove intent through circumstantial evidence.”); Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 

660, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“While proof of intent is necessary, direct evidence is not required; 

rather, circumstantial evidence may suffice.”).

47. Defendant has taken active steps to induce infringement, such as advertising an infringing use, 

which supports a finding of an intention for the accused product to be used in an infringing 

manner. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 932, 125 S. 

Ct. 2764, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005) (explaining that the contributory infringement doctrine 

“was devised to identify instances in which it may be presumed from distribution of an article 

in commerce that the distributor intended the article to be used to infringe another’s patent, 

and so may justly be held liable for that infringement”).

48. In addition, on information and belief, and based in part upon the clear infringement by the 

Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant has a practice of not performing a review of the patent

rights of others first for clearance or to assess infringement thereof prior to launching products 

and services. As such, Defendant has been willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff.

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13

49. The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused past and ongoing injury to 

Plaintiff. The specific dollar amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement 

shall be determined at trial but is in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of 

first infringement to the expiration of the ’107 Patent.

50. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from 

Plaintiff.

COUNT II

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,863

51. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

52. Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’863 Patent at least as early as the date it received 

service of the Original Complaint in this litigation.

53. Plaintiff or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations required to 

collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’863

patent, thus the damages period begins at least as early as six years prior to the date of service 

of the Original Complaint in this litigation.

54. Defendant manufactures, sells, offers for sale, owns, directs, and/or controls the operation of 

the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues and benefits 

therefrom.

55. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the claims of the ’863

Patent. As exemplary, Claim 1 is infringed by making, using, importing, selling, and/or 

offering for sale the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant directly makes and sells the 

infringing Accused Instrumentalities at least because it is solely responsible for putting the 

infringing systems into service by directing or controlling the systems as a whole and by 

obtaining the benefits therefrom. More specifically, and on information and belief, with 

respect to the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant practices and provides a trading server, 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14

such as the Defendant trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, such 

as Defendant servers, and one or more market exchange servers.

56. Further on information and belief, Defendant directly uses the infringing Accused 

Instrumentalities at least because it assembled the combined infringing elements and makes 

them collectively available in the United States, including via its Internet domain web pages 

and/or software applications, as well as via its internal systems and interfaces. Further, and on 

information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed by using the infringing Accused 

Instrumentalities as part of its ongoing and regular testing and/or internal legal compliance 

activities. Such testing and/or legal compliance necessarily requires Defendant to make and 

use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Still further, Defendant is a direct 

infringer by virtue of its branding and marketing activities, which collectively comprise the 

sale and offering for sale of the infringing Accused Instrumentalities.

57. As shown above, Defendant is making, using, and offering for sale the Accused 

Instrumentalities.

58. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendant owns, directs, and/or controls the 

infringing method operation of the Accused Instrumentalities.

59. On information and belief, the infringement of the ’863 Patent by Defendant will now be 

willful through the filing and service of this Complaint. The ’863 Patent does not expire before

May 24, 2027. 

60. In addition or in the alternative, Defendant now has knowledge and continues these actions 

and it indirectly infringes by way of inducing direct infringement by others and/or contributing 

to the infringement by others of the ’863 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, 

and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering 

for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, infringing services for use in systems that 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 15

fall within the scope of the claims of the ’863 Patent. This includes without limitation, one or 

more of the Accused Instrumentalities by making, using, importing offering for sale, and/or 

selling such services, Defendant injured Plaintiff and is thus liable to Plaintiff for infringement 

of the ’863 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

61. Now with knowledge of the ’863 Patent, Defendant induces infringement under Title 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271(b). Defendant will have performed actions that induced infringing acts that Defendant 

knew or should have known would induce actual infringements. See Manville Sales Corp. v. 

Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed.Cir.1990), quoted in DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS 

Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2006) (en banc in relevant part). “[A] finding of inducement 

requires a threshold finding of direct infringement—either a finding of specific instances of 

direct infringement or a finding that the accused products necessarily infringe.” Ricoh, 550 

F.3d at 1341 (citing ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturer Co., 501 F.3d 1307, 1313, 

(Fed. Cir. 2007).

62. Plaintiff will rely on direct and/or circumstantial evidence to prove the intent element. See Fuji 

Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A patentee may 

prove intent through circumstantial evidence.”); Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 

660, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“While proof of intent is necessary, direct evidence is not required; 

rather, circumstantial evidence may suffice.”).

63. Defendant has taken active steps to induce infringement, such as advertising an infringing use, 

which supports a finding of an intention for the accused product to be used in an infringing 

manner. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 932, 125 S. 

Ct. 2764, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005) (explaining that the contributory infringement doctrine 

“was devised to identify instances in which it may be presumed from distribution of an article 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 16

in commerce that the distributor intended the article to be used to infringe another’s patent, 

and so may justly be held liable for that infringement”).

64. In addition, on information and belief, and based in part upon the clear infringement by the 

Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant has a practice of not performing a review of the patent 

rights of others first for clearance or to assess infringement thereof prior to launching products 

and services. As such, Defendant has been willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff.

65. The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused past and ongoing injury to 

Plaintiff. The specific dollar amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement 

shall be determined at trial but is in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of 

first infringement to the expiration of the ’863 Patent.

66. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from 

Plaintiff.

COUNT III

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,449,930

67. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

68. Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’930 Patent at least as early as the date it received 

service of the Original Complaint in this litigation.

69. Plaintiff or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations required to 

collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the ’930

patent, thus the damages period begins at least as early as six years prior to the date of service 

of the Original Complaint in this litigation.

70. Defendant manufactures, sells, offers for sale, owns, directs, and/or controls the operation of 

the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues and benefits 

therefrom.

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17

71. Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the claims of the ’930

Patent. As exemplary, Claim 12 is infringed by making, using, importing, selling, and/or 

offering for sale the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant directly makes and sells the 

infringing Accused Instrumentalities at least because it is solely responsible for putting the 

infringing systems into service by directing or controlling the systems as a whole and by 

obtaining the benefits therefrom. More specifically, and on information and belief, with 

respect to the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant provides a trading server, such as the 

Defendant trading servers coupled to one or more currency exchange servers, such as 

Defendant servers, and one or more market exchange servers.

72. Further on information and belief, Defendant directly uses the infringing Accused 

Instrumentalities at least because it assembled the combined infringing elements and makes 

them collectively available in the United States, including via its Internet domain web pages 

and/or software applications, as well as via its internal systems and interfaces. Further, and on 

information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed by using the infringing Accused 

Instrumentalities as part of its ongoing and regular testing and/or internal legal compliance 

activities. Such testing and/or legal compliance necessarily requires Defendant to make and 

use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Still further, Defendant is a direct 

infringer by virtue of its branding and marketing activities, which collectively comprise the 

sale and offering for sale of the infringing Accused Instrumentalities.

73. As shown above, Defendant is making, using, and offering for sale the Accused 

Instrumentalities.

74. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendant owns, directs, and/or controls the 

infringing method operation of the Accused Instrumentalities.

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18

75. On information and belief, the infringement of the ’930 Patent by Defendant will now be 

willful through the filing and service of this Complaint. The ’930 Patent does not expire before 

April 18, 2027. 

76. In addition or in the alternative, Defendant now has knowledge and continues these actions 

and it indirectly infringes by way of inducing direct infringement by others and/or contributing 

to the infringement by others of the ’930 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, 

and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering 

for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, infringing services for use in systems that 

fall within the scope of the claims of the ’930 Patent. This includes without limitation, one or 

more of the Accused Instrumentalities by making, using, importing offering for sale, and/or 

selling such services, Defendant injured Plaintiff and is thus liable to Plaintiff for infringement 

of the ’863 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

77. Now with knowledge of the ’930 Patent, Defendant induces infringement under Title 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271(b). Defendant will have performed actions that induced infringing acts that Defendant 

knew or should have known would induce actual infringements. See Manville Sales Corp. v. 

Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed.Cir.1990), quoted in DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS 

Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2006) (en banc in relevant part). “[A] finding of inducement 

requires a threshold finding of direct infringement—either a finding of specific instances of 

direct infringement or a finding that the accused products necessarily infringe.” Ricoh, 550 

F.3d at 1341 (citing ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Manufacturer Co., 501 F.3d 1307, 1313, 

(Fed. Cir. 2007).

78. Plaintiff will rely on direct and/or circumstantial evidence to prove the intent element. See Fuji 

Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A patentee may 

prove intent through circumstantial evidence.”); Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 19

660, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“While proof of intent is necessary, direct evidence is not required; 

rather, circumstantial evidence may suffice.”).

79. Defendant has taken active steps to induce infringement, such as advertising an infringing use, 

which supports a finding of an intention for the accused product to be used in an infringing 

manner. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 932, 125 S. 

Ct. 2764, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005) (explaining that the contributory infringement doctrine 

“was devised to identify instances in which it may be presumed from distribution of an article 

in commerce that the distributor intended the article to be used to infringe another’s patent, 

and so may justly be held liable for that infringement”).

80. In addition, on information and belief, and based in part upon the clear infringement by the 

Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant has a practice of not performing a review of the patent 

rights of others first for clearance or to assess infringement thereof prior to launching products 

and services. As such, Defendant has been willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff.

81. The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused past and ongoing injury to 

Plaintiff. The specific dollar amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement 

shall be determined at trial but is in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of 

first infringement to the expiration of the ’930 Patent.

82. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from 

Plaintiff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Intercurrency Software LLC respectfully requests the Court enter judgment 

against Defendant as follows:

1. Declaring that Defendant has infringed the Patents-in-Suit;

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 19
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 20

2. Awarding Plaintiff its damages suffered because of Defendant’s infringement of the 

Patents-in-Suit;

3. Enter a judgment awarding treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 for Defendant’s 

willful infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;

4. Awarding Plaintiff its costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and interest; and

5. Granting Plaintiff such further relief as the Court finds appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38.

Respectfully Submitted

/s/ Christopher A. Honea

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 sfuller@ghiplaw.com

Randall Garteiser 

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

INTERCURRENCY SOFTWARE LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00394-JRG Document 1 Filed 08/31/23 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 20