ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

Intercurrency Software LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

IG Group,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-234

Jury Trial Demanded 

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

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

for Patent Infringement against IG Group (“IG” 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 IG Group is a company organized and existing under the laws of England with a 

place of business in this District located at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London, 

EC4R 2YA, United Kingdom. 

3. Upon information and belief, IG is engaged in research and development, manufacturing, 

importation, distribution, sales and related technical services for forex trading. IG promotes 

IG US, LLC as its own arm in the U.S. “IG is an award-winning1 online forex trading 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

provider. In 2019, we brought our high-quality FX service to the US - empowering informed, 

decisive, adventurous people access to over 80 currency pairs at competitive prices.” 

https://www.ig.com/us/about-us. 

4. IG forex trading is made outside and inside the United States of America sold to end-users 

via the Internet and via distribution partners, retailers, reseller partners, and solution partners, 

including IG US LLC. Those sales occur in the United States, and throughout Texas, 

including in this District.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

8. 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 

9. 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”). 

10. 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.

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

35 of the United States Code.

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

industry giant Bank of America. 

13. The Patents-in-Suit each include numerous claims defining distinct inventions. No single 

claim is representative of any other.

14. 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 nonroutine. Indeed, the Patents-in-Suit overcame a number of specific technological problems in 

the industry and provided specific technological solutions.

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

15. 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. 

16. 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, 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. 

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

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.

20. 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. 

21. 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).

22. 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.

23. 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.

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

as G06Q40/00 and G06Q40/04. 

25. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

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. 

26. 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.

27. 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-in-Suit over extensive prior art as disclosed and of record during the prosecution of 

the Patents-in-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).

28. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

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).

29. 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).

THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

30. 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-in-Suit, including its forex 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.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

See https://www.ig.com/us/about-us (screenshot explaining IG US LLC’s offering of 

Accused Instrumentalities, as given to it by Defendant). 

31. As shown below, Defendant takes full credit for all the Accused Instrumentalities offered by 

IG US LLC.

See https://www.ig.com/us/forex (screenshot of IG US LLC offering to open a trading account, 

but giving credit to Defendant for its establishment in 1974 and that Defendant “has 313,000+ 

clients worldwide.”)

COUNT I

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

32. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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; 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

See https://fxvps.biz/ig-server-location-and-latency-featured-broker-within-0-8ms/ (screenshot 

of forex VPS provider explaining where IG servers are located and use).

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11

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

currency from a trader; 

• (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; 

See https://www.forexbrokers.com/reviews/ig (screenshot of IG trading platform).

• (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 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 11
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12

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.

37. 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.

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

Instrumentalities.

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 12
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13

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

infringing method operation of the Accused Instrumentalities.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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 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).

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 13
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14

43. 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.”).

44. 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”).

45. 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.

46. 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.

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

Plaintiff.

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 14
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 15

COUNT II

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

48. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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, 

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

servers, and one or more market exchange servers.

53. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 15
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 16

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.

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

Instrumentalities.

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

infringing method operation of the Accused Instrumentalities.

56. 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. 

57. 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 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 16
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17

58. 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).

59. 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.”).

60. 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”).

61. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 17
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18

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.

62. 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.

63. 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

64. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.

65. 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.

66. 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.

67. 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.

68. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 18
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 19

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 IG

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

one or more market exchange servers.

69. 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.

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

Instrumentalities.

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

infringing method operation of the Accused Instrumentalities.

72. 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 19
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 20

73. 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.

74. 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).

75. 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.”).

Case 2:23-cv-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 20
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 21

76. 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”).

77. 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.

78. 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.

79. 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-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 21
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 22

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

René A. Vazquez

 Virginia Bar No. 41988

 rvazquez@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-00234 Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 22