Executive Summary
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging patent 10776863 held by Intercurrency Software LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on the combination of electronic trading features and currency conversion methods in financial technology.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Askeladden L.L.C. vs Intercurrency Software LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.
Arm LimitedvsICPillar LLC
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against InfoExpress Inc.'s network security patent (8117645) before the PTAB. The Board denied institution because the petitioner could not demonstrate that prior art teachings sufficiently suggested specific auditing limitations in the claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsMarlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01444, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. to challenge the patent held by Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al., based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al.vsCLX Engineering
Daifuku Co., Ltd. filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of CLX Engineering's patent (11386602) related to baggage tracking and visualization systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Cavada, Orito, Sommer, and Schmirler.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.