As the patent infringement lawsuit brought by OANDA against GAIN Capital, which is now owned by StoneX, continues at the New Jersey District Court, the parties have updated the Court on how the discovery process progresses.

According to a joint status report submitted at the Court on December 1, 2021 and seen by FX News Group, the parties request the Court’s assistance in resolving a dispute that has arisen with respect to the production of GAIN’s source code.

First, let’s recall that in this action, OANDA alleges that GAIN infringes two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,146,336 (“the ’366 patent”) and 8,392,311 (“the ’311 patent”).

On March 5, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued United States Patent No. 8,392,311, entitled “Currency Trading System, Methods, and Software.” 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.

On December 5, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 7,146,336, entitled “Currency Trading System, Methods, and Software.”

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 latest status report informs the Court that, while the parties have met and conferred about the production of source code related to GAIN’s accused infringing product and OANDA has obtained some initial access to source code, GAIN has refused to provide access to its source code for the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) used to operate GAIN’s automated trading platforms.

OANDA claims that the API portion of GAIN’s Forex.com source code is highly relevant because OANDA intends to use it to demonstrate to the jury how GAIN’s infringing Forex.com product works – e.g., by accepting client input and orders, transmitting those orders to the server via the APIs, and executing those orders on the servers.

OANDA argues that GAIN has provided no valid basis on which to withhold this discovery. Hence, OANDA requests that the Court order GAIN to provide prompt access to the API source code for both GAIN’s publicly documented as well as any private or non-advertised APIs.

GAIN Capital, however, requests that the Court strikes Plaintiff OANDA Corporation’s Request for Production that wrongfully encompasses a demand for production of GAIN’s “API handler” source code.

GAIN says that the “API handler” is a term used by OANDA’s counsel that refers to the back-end source code that “handles” or interprets commands and requests made by third parties. These third-party commands and requests can be made by using GAIN’s public application programming interface (API).

The API handler source code sought by OANDA is the source code that in essence interprets and translates the API requests and commands so that GAIN’s systems can understand and respond to them. It is not the source code for the GAIN trading platforms (which has already been produced).

OANDA’s Request should be stricken because OANDA fails to have any basis to support such Request, GAIN concludes.