Intercurrency Software v. Bitsgap Holding: Dismissed With Prejudice After 200 Days
Intercurrency Software LLC asserted three US patents covering cryptocurrency trading and currency exchange technology against Bitsgap Holding OU’s automated trading platform. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the case resolved by joint stipulation with prejudice in just 200 days — each party bearing its own costs.
Three crypto-trading patents, one fast exit: E.D. Texas dismissal with prejudice
Intercurrency Software LLC filed suit against Bitsgap Holding OU on 30 May 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of three patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — all relating to currency exchange and automated cryptocurrency trading systems. The accused product was Bitsgap’s online platform at bitsgap.com, a suite of algorithmic trading tools for cryptocurrency markets. Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided.
The case closed on 16 December 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Crucially, dismissal was with prejudice, meaning Intercurrency Software is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Bitsgap on these patents. All counterclaims were equally extinguished. The court ordered each side to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, leaving no public financial award on the record.
The 200-day resolution is notably short for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, where cases routinely extend well beyond a year. The joint and mutually agreed nature of the dismissal — combined with the with-prejudice designation and a mutual cost-bearing arrangement — is consistent with a confidential settlement reached before any substantive merits ruling. The specific commercial terms, if any, remain outside the public record. Notably, the Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00381-JRG was directed to remain open, suggesting related proceedings may continue.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 200 days
200 days — resolved well under the E.D. Texas median, suggesting early negotiated settlement
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation, not a court decision on the merits
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires consent from all parties who have appeared. Here, both Intercurrency Software and Bitsgap Holding signed the stipulation, signalling a fully negotiated exit. The court did not rule on infringement, validity, or claim construction — the merits were never adjudicated. The with-prejudice designation, however, carries the same res judicata weight as a final judgment on those specific claims.
Consensual — no merits rulingIntercurrency Software permanently releases its claims against Bitsgap
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Intercurrency Software’s right to refile the same patent claims against Bitsgap on US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1. The patents themselves remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 suggests neither party convinced the court — or each other — that the case warranted an ‘exceptional’ finding.
Claims barred vs. Bitsgap onlyBitsgap exits with permanent protection — at the cost of its own legal spend
Bitsgap Holding OU achieves a clean exit: all claims and counterclaims that were raised, or could have been raised, are permanently closed. Fish & Richardson’s team — four attorneys — delivered a with-prejudice resolution without a public merits loss. However, the mutual cost-bearing order means Bitsgap absorbs its own litigation expenses, and the specific consideration exchanged, if any, is not publicly disclosed.
Full res judicata protection securedLead case remains open — Intercurrency’s broader enforcement campaign continues
Judge Gilstrap’s order explicitly directs the clerk to keep Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00381-JRG open, suggesting Intercurrency Software is pursuing related defendants or claims in a parallel action. Other cryptocurrency trading platform operators should treat this dismissal as tactical — not as a signal that the asserted patents lack enforceability. Any company whose products overlap with automated crypto trading or currency exchange algorithms should monitor the lead case closely.
Watch lead case 2:24-CV-00381Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Cryptocurrency and currency-exchange software patent licensing entity — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bitsgap Holding OU | Individual | Bitsgap Holding OU — operator of bitsgap.com, an automated cryptocurrency trading and portfolio management platformSearch 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 | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Bitsgap Holding OUSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Bitsgap Holding OUSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Bitsgap Holding OUSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Riley James Green | Attorney | Counsel for Bitsgap Holding OUSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bitsgap Holding OUSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Bitsgap Holding OUSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s with-prejudice language — covering all claims and counterclaims ‘raised or that could have been raised’ — is maximally broad. It forecloses not only the specific infringement theories pleaded but any future claim Intercurrency Software might construct against Bitsgap on these three patents. The court’s acceptance of the stipulation without substantive comment confirms this was a procedural close, not a merits adjudication. The explicit direction to maintain the lead case open is a significant carve-out that limits the precedential scope of this dismissal to Bitsgap alone.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Cryptocurrency & Currency Exchange Software Patents
The three patents at issue — US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583) — span different application vintages, suggesting an evolving patent family strategy by Intercurrency Software. The earliest application (US11/736583) predates the modern cryptocurrency boom, while the later filings (US16 and US17 series) correspond to the period of explosive growth in algorithmic and automated crypto trading platforms.
For competing cryptocurrency platform operators, the breadth of a three-patent assertion covering exchange mechanics, trading algorithms, and currency conversion systems creates compound FTO exposure. The fact that Intercurrency Software simultaneously asserted all three in a single E.D. Texas action — and that the lead case remains open — suggests a coordinated enforcement strategy targeting the automated crypto trading sector. Any platform with grid trading bots, arbitrage engines, or cross-exchange currency conversion tools should treat these patents as an active risk vector.
Should your crypto trading platform run an FTO against US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1?
Product and engineering teams building automated cryptocurrency trading systems, arbitrage bots, portfolio management dashboards, or cross-exchange currency conversion APIs should treat these three patents as requiring active FTO analysis. Intercurrency Software has demonstrated a willingness to litigate in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue — and the lead case remaining open confirms enforcement is ongoing. Waiting for a cease-and-desist letter before conducting FTO analysis is a high-risk posture in this sector.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against your product’s feature set, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related continuation or family members that could extend the assertion risk. Eureka also monitors the E.D. Texas lead case docket so your IP team receives alerts when new defendants, claim construction rulings, or scheduling orders are filed — before they become a material business risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cryptocurrency platform patent cases in E.D. Texas and federal courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving cryptocurrency trading software, currency exchange algorithms, and automated trading platforms filed in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the cryptocurrency trading platform IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas over crypto trading patents leaves important questions open for the broader market.
Speed of resolution suggests a negotiated deal, not a litigation win
200 days from filing to dismissal is well below the E.D. Texas average. With-prejudice joint stipulations at this early stage typically reflect a private commercial resolution — whether a licence, a cross-licence, or a walk-away agreement. Competitors facing similar assertions should assess whether Intercurrency Software has established a licensing programme around these patents.
Three concurrent patents create layered infringement exposure for trading platforms
Intercurrency asserted US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 simultaneously. Multi-patent assertions in E.D. Texas raise claim construction complexity and settlement leverage. Any platform offering algorithmic or automated cryptocurrency trading tools should audit its product against all three patent families, not just the most recent grant.
Intercurrency v Bitsgap — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 16 December 2024 by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims and counterclaims were extinguished. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The court made no ruling on the merits of the patent infringement claims.
Intercurrency Software asserted three US patents: US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583). All three relate to cryptocurrency trading and currency exchange software systems and were asserted against Bitsgap’s automated trading platform at bitsgap.com.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal operates only as between Intercurrency Software and Bitsgap Holding OU. Intercurrency Software retains full rights to assert US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against any other party. The lead case (2:24-CV-00381-JRG) was explicitly kept open, suggesting ongoing enforcement against other defendants.
Judge Gilstrap’s order directed the clerk to maintain Lead Case 2:24-CV-00381-JRG as open while closing only Member Case 2:24-CV-00392. This indicates Intercurrency Software’s broader patent enforcement campaign in E.D. Texas is ongoing. Other defendants in the lead case, or parties in related technology spaces, remain exposed to the same three-patent assertion.
Fish & Richardson is a leading US patent litigation firm frequently retained by technology defendants in high-stakes E.D. Texas cases. The engagement of four attorneys from Fish & Richardson — including Neil McNabnay, a prominent Dallas-based patent litigator — suggests Bitsgap treated the assertion seriously. The with-prejudice resolution without a merits ruling is consistent with a negotiated outcome reached after substantive pre-trial preparation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.