Intercurrency Software v. Airwallex: FX Platform Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Intercurrency Software, LLC asserted four US patents covering foreign exchange and currency transfer platforms against Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas. The case resolved by joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after 284 days, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Four FX patents, one joint exit: Airwallex walks away with prejudice bar
Filed on 9 December 2024 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, this infringement action saw Intercurrency Software, LLC assert four issued US patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 — against Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd., a cross-border payments fintech. The patents collectively cover FX and currency transfer platforms and systems, placing them squarely in the infrastructure layer of modern international payments technology.
The case closed on 19 September 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims against Airwallex with prejudice and denying all pending relief requests as moot. Crucially, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than an adjudicated outcome.
A resolution after 284 days is relatively swift for a four-patent EDTX infringement action, suggesting the parties likely reached a commercial understanding — whether a licence, covenant not to sue, or other business arrangement — before the case reached substantive motion practice. The public record does not disclose the financial terms, if any, of the underlying agreement. The with-prejudice bar means Intercurrency is permanently foreclosed from relitigating these specific claims against Airwallex in any US court.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 284 days
284 days from filing to dismissal — below the median EDTX patent case duration, suggesting early settlement or licensing resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint voluntary dismissal with prejudice
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismissal at any stage without a court order. Filing it ‘with prejudice’ is an affirmative election — it permanently extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to bring the same claims against the same defendant. Judge Gilstrap accepted the stipulation and denied all pending relief as moot, closing the docket entirely.
Permanent bar on re-filingIntercurrency is permanently barred from re-asserting these patents against Airwallex
A with-prejudice dismissal carries claim-preclusion effect: Intercurrency Software cannot refile any of the four asserted patents against Airwallex in any US federal court. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice exit. The fact that the parties filed jointly, and that no fee award was made, suggests Intercurrency may have received commercial consideration — though the public record is silent on terms.
Claim preclusion appliesAirwallex exits with a permanent litigation shield on these four patents
For Airwallex, the with-prejudice dismissal is the optimal litigation outcome short of invalidity. The company faces no ongoing exposure from Intercurrency on US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, or US11620701B1. Representation by Mayer Brown LLP — a Tier 1 patent litigation firm — alongside local Texas counsel signals Airwallex mounted a credible defence, likely influencing the speed and terms of resolution.
No further exposure — these patentsFX platform IP remains live: these patents can still be asserted against other operators
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the Airwallex dispute. Intercurrency’s four patents — covering FX and currency transfer platform technology — remain issued and presumptively valid. Other cross-border payments providers, FX infrastructure vendors, and banking-as-a-service platforms operating in similar technology spaces should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. The EDTX filing pattern is consistent with a broader assertion campaign.
Other operators remain at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Fintech IP licensor — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd. | Company | Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd. — global cross-border payments and FX platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Intercurrency Software, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Intercurrency Software, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barry Clayton McCraw | Attorney | Counsel for Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Geoffrey Patton Culbertson | Attorney | Counsel for Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nan Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mayer Brown LLP | Law Firm | Representing Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP (Texarkana) | Law Firm | Representing Airwallex (Singapore) Pty. Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of the joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) carries no merits adjudication — Judge Gilstrap made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The with-prejudice designation, however, operates as a final judgment for claim-preclusion purposes: Intercurrency is permanently barred from asserting these four patents against Airwallex. The mutual cost-bearing order removes any fee-shifting signal that might otherwise indicate which party held the stronger position at the time of resolution.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, US11620701B1 — FX & currency transfer platform patents
The four asserted patents — US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583), and US11620701B1 (App. No. US17/948217) — collectively protect technologies in the FX and cross-border currency transfer platform space. The application numbers span a significant date range, with US11/736583 suggesting foundational priority potentially dating to 2007, through to US17/948217 filed in late 2022, indicating a continuation-style portfolio built around a core technical architecture.
This type of multi-generational FX platform portfolio is strategically significant: later continuation patents can capture claims that track how the technology has evolved in commercial deployment, making it harder for defendants to design around the entire family. For fintech operators running cross-border transfer infrastructure — including correspondent banking integrations, real-time FX pricing engines, and multi-currency wallet systems — the breadth of this four-patent portfolio warrants careful monitoring and targeted FTO analysis before scaling US operations.
Should your FX platform team run an FTO against these four Intercurrency patents?
Any company building or operating cross-border payments infrastructure, FX conversion engines, multi-currency transfer platforms, or international remittance systems in the US market should treat these four patents as active FTO priorities. Intercurrency has demonstrated willingness to file in EDTX — a plaintiff-favourable venue — and has already resolved one action with a permanent bar, suggesting the portfolio has demonstrated licensing leverage. The risk is particularly acute for fintechs expanding US dollar corridors or launching FX treasury products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 against your product’s technical specification, identify prior art gaps, and flag claim language most likely to read on FX rate calculation, transfer routing, or currency conversion workflows. Eureka also monitors new filings in this patent family, alerting your team if continuation or divisional applications are published that could extend Intercurrency’s claim coverage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar FX & payments platform patent cases in EDTX and US district courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving FX, cross-border payments, and currency transfer platform technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas and related US district courts.
What this case signals for the cross-border payments IP landscape
A swift four-patent EDTX action resolved with prejudice points to active FX platform IP enforcement — and unresolved exposure for the broader sector.
EDTX remains the venue of choice for fintech patent assertion
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract fintech and payments patent cases. Intercurrency’s decision to file here — rather than Delaware or NDCA — is consistent with plaintiff-favoured scheduling norms and Gilstrap’s familiarity with complex software patents. Cross-border payments companies operating in the US should monitor EDTX filings closely.
With-prejudice exits often signal undisclosed licensing activity
When both parties jointly elect dismissal with prejudice and waive costs, the most commercially rational explanation is a negotiated licence or covenant not to sue. Absent a litigated win, plaintiffs rarely concede the with-prejudice bar without receiving value. IP teams tracking Intercurrency’s portfolio should note this pattern when assessing their own exposure to its FX platform patents.
Intercurrency v Airwallex — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Intercurrency Software from asserting the same four patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 — against Airwallex in any US federal court. The doctrine of claim preclusion applies. Intercurrency retains full rights to assert these patents against other parties.
Intercurrency asserted four US patents: US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583), and US11620701B1 (App. No. US17/948217). All four relate to FX and currency transfer platform technology. The application numbers suggest a portfolio spanning from an early priority date through to at least 2022.
The joint stipulation expressly provided that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Judge Gilstrap accepted this term without modification. This outcome is typical of negotiated resolutions and does not reflect a judicial finding on the merits. It also means neither party was exposed to fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
No — not from these four patents. The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Intercurrency’s ability to sue Airwallex on US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1. However, if Intercurrency obtains future continuation patents with different claim sets from the same patent families, the preclusion bar may not automatically extend to those new patent numbers.
The Eastern District of Texas — particularly Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s docket — is one of the most active venues for US patent infringement litigation. It is consistently favoured by patent assertion entities due to its plaintiff-friendly scheduling, experienced bench, and established case management procedures. Filing before Judge Gilstrap, who handles a significant share of EDTX patent cases, signals a plaintiff with litigation experience and familiarity with EDTX procedural strategy.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.