Shortly after GAIN Capital accused OANDA of trying to use new infringement theories in a patent lawsuit, OANDA has responded to GAIN’s claims.
On December 14, 2022, OANDA filed its response with the New Jersey District Court.
Let’s recall that in this lawsuit 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.
In its latest Court filing, OANDA argues that, contrary to GAIN’s claim that OANDA has had complete information for a year and has lacked diligence in acting on it, the record shows that GAIN’s production is still incomplete, and that GAIN has consistently resisted OANDA’s efforts to obtain critical technical documents.
According to the plaintiff, GAIN is thus demanding that the Court preclude OANDA from amending its infringement contentions using source code and technical documents produced to date, while at the same time continuing a year-long effort to obstruct OANDA from obtaining the discovery critical to understanding that source code and technical data.
OANDA says that once GAIN actually provides a complete set of technical documents that allows OANDA to understand the function of GAIN’s non-public backend systems, OANDA will be able to efficiently review GAIN’s source code and conduct a necessary 30(b)(6) deposition. Then, and only then, will OANDA be in a position to seek leave to amend its infringement contentions, if necessary.
OANDA adds that, while GAIN states that permitting any amendment by OANDA to its infringement contentions would be “prejudicial”, GAIN does not explain what prejudice it would actually suffer, much less identify some prejudice that could possibly justify a blanket preclusion order.
OANDA concludes that the Court should deny the relief sought by GAIN in its Letter.
