Intercurrency Software v. BG Limited & Bitget: Dismissed With Prejudice in 196 Days
Intercurrency Software LLC asserted three US trading platform patents against crypto exchange operator BG Limited and its Singapore affiliate in the Eastern District of Texas. The case resolved in under seven months via a plaintiff-filed Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice — each party bearing its own costs, and a related lead case remaining open.
Trading platform patent suit ends swiftly, but lead case survives
Intercurrency Software LLC filed this infringement action on 17 April 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting three patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — against BG Limited and its Singapore affiliate, Singapore Bitget Pte Ltd. The accused products are the Bitget trading platforms and systems, suggesting the patents relate to software architectures underpinning digital currency exchange or multi-currency trading workflows.
The case closed on 30 October 2024 when Intercurrency filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), requesting dismissal with prejudice against both defendants. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally dismissing all claims with prejudice. Critically, no attorneys’ fees or costs were awarded to either side — each party bears its own litigation expenses, which is the default absent an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
At 196 days, the resolution is notably swift for an Eastern District patent case, suggesting a settlement or licensing arrangement likely preceded the voluntary dismissal — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The court’s order specifically directs closure of this member case (2:24-CV-00256) while maintaining the lead case (2:24-CV-00381) as open, indicating Intercurrency’s broader litigation campaign against other defendants continues. The precise trigger for this particular dismissal remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 196 days
196 days — resolved faster than the median Eastern District patent case (~2 years)
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 closure means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is filed unilaterally by the plaintiff before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. When filed with prejudice, it operates as a final judgment on the merits — Intercurrency is permanently barred from re-asserting the same three patents against BG Limited and Singapore Bitget. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, which is the standard Eastern District procedure.
Permanent bar on re-filingIntercurrency forfeits future claims against Bitget on these patents
By choosing dismissal with prejudice, Intercurrency Software permanently surrendered its right to pursue BG Limited and Singapore Bitget on US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1. This is a significant concession, though it may reflect a confidential licensing agreement rather than a legal defeat. The no-cost-shifting term suggests neither side extracted exceptional litigation leverage — consistent with an arms-length resolution.
Claims extinguished against BitgetBitget entities gain permanent immunity on three asserted patents
BG Limited and Singapore Bitget Pte Ltd exit this litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal — the strongest possible procedural protection short of a court judgment. They cannot be re-sued by Intercurrency on these three patents. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause also means no financial exposure from fee recovery. However, the survival of the lead case signals Intercurrency’s campaign against other parties in the trading platform space is ongoing.
Full immunity, no cost awardLead case 2:24-CV-00381 remains live — broader exposure persists
The court’s explicit instruction to keep the lead case open is commercially significant. Intercurrency is not retreating from its patent enforcement strategy — it has resolved one member case while continuing the broader action. Companies operating trading platforms or multi-currency exchange systems similar to Bitget should monitor 2:24-CV-00381-JRG for claim construction rulings that could clarify the scope of the three asserted patents.
Broader campaign ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Currency trading software IP licensor — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BG Limited | Individual | BG Limited and Singapore Bitget Pte Ltd — operators of the Bitget crypto trading platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Singapore Bitget Pte Ltd | Company | Search 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the plaintiff’s notice closely, accepting and acknowledging the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) filing rather than issuing an independent merits ruling. The with-prejudice designation is plaintiff-elected and carries res judicata effect against Bitget on all three patents. The explicit directive to close this member case while maintaining the lead case open confirms this is a partial resolution within a broader coordinated campaign — the substantive patent questions remain unadjudicated.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — currency trading platform systems
The three patents asserted — US10776863B1 (app. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (app. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (app. US11/736583) — all issued as B1 grants, indicating they issued without any prior publication, typically characteristic of US-origin continuations or original applications. The application serial numbers span different filing cohorts, suggesting a patent family built over time to cover evolving trading platform architectures. The technical domain appears to be software systems for currency exchange or multi-currency trading workflows.
Intercurrency Software’s assertion of all three patents in a coordinated Eastern District multi-defendant campaign signals a deliberate portfolio enforcement strategy targeting digital trading infrastructure. For crypto exchange operators and fintech platform developers, the breadth of the family — covering multiple application vintages — raises the risk that design-arounds addressing one patent may not clear the others. The survival of the lead case means these patents will likely receive judicial scrutiny on claim scope, making early monitoring commercially critical.
Should you run an FTO against US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1?
Any company developing or operating a digital currency trading platform, multi-currency exchange system, or fintech order-routing infrastructure should assess freedom-to-operate against this three-patent family. Intercurrency has demonstrated willingness to assert these patents in federal court against major international crypto exchange operators — the active lead case confirms enforcement is ongoing. Product teams integrating currency conversion, trade execution logic, or exchange-matching systems face the most direct exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each claim of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may narrow claim scope, and flag prosecution history estoppel from the three distinct application families. With a live related case before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District, claim construction developments could shift your risk profile rapidly — Eureka’s litigation monitoring keeps your FTO analysis current.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fintech trading platform patent cases in Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving software patent assertions against digital trading platforms before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas follow distinct litigation patterns worth benchmarking.
What this case signals for the fintech trading platform IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice dismissal in an Eastern District multi-defendant campaign often signals a licensing resolution. The surviving lead case warrants close monitoring.
Multi-defendant fintech campaigns: member case dismissals often signal licensing
When a plaintiff in a multi-defendant Eastern District campaign dismisses one member case with prejudice — especially without cost-shifting — a confidential licence is the most common explanation. Trading platform operators facing similar assertions from Intercurrency should assess whether the Bitget resolution creates a benchmark licensing rate or settlement posture.
Each-party-pays terms remove fee-shifting leverage for both sides
The absence of any attorney fee award under § 285 means neither side established an ‘exceptional case.’ For defendants in future Intercurrency actions, this suggests the plaintiff’s litigation posture is not frivolous — raising the bar for an early fee-based dismissal strategy. For Intercurrency, it confirms it did not sustain sanctions risk in this member case.
Intercurrency v BG — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice. Intercurrency Software filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice requesting dismissal with prejudice against both BG Limited and Singapore Bitget Pte Ltd. The Eastern District of Texas court accepted and acknowledged the notice on 30 October 2024, permanently barring Intercurrency from re-asserting the same three patents against the Bitget entities.
Intercurrency asserted three US patents: US10776863B1 (app. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (app. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (app. US11/736583). All three are B1-designation grants covering currency trading platform systems and methods, and were asserted in relation to the Bitget trading platforms and systems.
Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal notice specifically requested this arrangement and the court’s order confirmed it. No fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was ordered, meaning neither side established an exceptional case entitling it to recover litigation costs from the other.
Only the member case (2:24-CV-00256) is closed. The court’s order explicitly directs that the lead case (2:24-CV-00381-JRG) remain open. This indicates Intercurrency’s broader patent enforcement campaign — likely involving other defendants — continues before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
It provides permanent immunity from Intercurrency’s claims on all three asserted patents. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered. The with-prejudice designation converts the voluntary dismissal into a final judgment on the merits, giving BG Limited and Singapore Bitget Pte Ltd a res judicata bar against any future re-assertion of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, or US10062107B1 by Intercurrency.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.