Financial services — US PTAB Patent Cases
18 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 18 total
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC entered into a settlement that grants Ebury a royalty‑free license to several patents covering cross‑border payments, includes covenants not to sue, and mandates dismissal of the pending IPR and related lawsuit.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ‘701 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art trading systems (Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, Davidowitz).
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Capital One’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01325, keeping the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB Director denied Early Warning Services’ request for a rehearing of the institution decision on Intellectual Ventures’ patent 7,314,167, leaving the institution intact.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
A petition was filed challenging Autoscribe Corporation's '621 patent, which covers tokenization methods for online payment processing. The petitioner argues that the claimed techniques are obvious over prior art references, specifically PayPal’s Express Checkout and Schlesser systems. The PTAB found sufficient grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) to institute the review.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by M&A Ventures against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patent. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability assertions, particularly regarding claim construction and prior art limitations.
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Nuvei Technologies against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, specifically regarding negative limitations in tokenization claims.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have entered a settlement agreement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on patent 9,098,855.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One and Implicit, LLC settled their IPR dispute over a payment‑card fraud patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's '930 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed automated trading and currency conversion methods are conventional features of electronic financial systems known prior to 2007.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent 10062107, challenging claims 19-36 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner regarding at least one challenged claim, advancing the dispute into the trial phase.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Calabrese Stemer LLC's credit card authorization patent (7954706). The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims, leading to a favorable outcome for the Petitioner.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding claims 19-36 unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg was sufficient to teach key limitations in electronic trading/forex methods.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.