GAIN Capital makes another attempt to nix OANDA patent lawsuit
Online trading major GAIN Capital, which is now a part of financial services company StoneX, has made another attempt to nix a patent infringement lawsuit brought by OANDA.
OANDA Corporation alleges patent infringement by GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. and GAIN Capital Group, LLC (doing business as FOREX.com) of two patents: ‘336 and ‘311.
The ʼ336 Patent teaches, among other things:
In one aspect, the present invention comprises a system for trading currencies over a computer network. A preferred embodiment comprises: (a) a server front-end; (b) at least one database; (c) a transaction server; (d) a rate server; (e) a pricing engine; (f) an interest rate manager; (g) a trade manager; (h) a value at risk server; (i) a margin control manager; (j) a trading system monitor; and (k) a hedging engine. In another aspect, the present invention comprises methods for trading currency over a computer network. In another aspect, the present invention comprises software for currency trading over a computer network.
The ’311 Patent teaches, among other things:
In one aspect, the present invention comprises a system for trading currencies over a computer network. A preferred embodiment comprises: (a) a server front-end; (b) at least one database; (c) a transaction server; (d) a rate server; (e) a pricing engine; (f) an interest rate manager; (g) a trade manager; (h) a value at risk server; (i) a margin control manager; (j) a trading system monitor; and (k) a hedging engine. In another aspect, the present invention comprises methods for trading currency over a computer network. In another aspect, the present invention comprises software for currency trading over a computer network.
Shortly after GAIN Capital filed a counterclaim against OANDA, the broker has made another attempt to thwart the lawsuit.
On June 11, 2021, GAIN Capital wrote to the New Jersey District Court asking the Court for permission to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings of all Counts in Plaintiff OANDA Corporation’s First Amended Complaint. Put otherwise, GAIN argues that this case may be solved as a preliminary matter that should be decided before the parties launch into full-blown discovery on all aspects of this case.
GAIN insists that OANDA’s patent claims are invalid for lack of patent eligibility. The claims, GAIN says, arguably improve upon traditional on-line currency markets. However, GAIN adds, such alleged improvements themselves are abstract ideas accomplished through the use of general, non-specialized computer components.
For example, the ’311 patent contains only method claims whereby an online currency trade is executed if a first or second current exchange rate price is better than or equal to a user’s requested trade price and refusing a trade if it is not. This simple logical decision tree is an abstract idea and not a technical solution.
GAIN also notes that the system claims of the ’336 patent suffer from similar deficiencies: they too are drawn to abstract ideas that are implemented through general, non-specialized computer components.
Accordingly, GAIN argues that its motion should resolve this case; and even if certain claims remain, which the defendants believe is unlikely, the Court would then be able to consider the nature of the remaining claims in tailoring the scope of discovery.