Intercurrency Software v. Bitstamp: Three Trading Platform Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Intercurrency Software LLC filed suit against crypto exchange Bitstamp Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering consolidated currency trading and asset display methods. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in under eight months, with each side bearing its own costs.
Eight-month EDTX enforcement action ends by joint agreement
Intercurrency Software LLC filed this patent infringement action on 28 March 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the most patent-experienced federal judges in the country. The complaint asserted three US patents: US10776863B1 (consolidated trading platform), US11449930B1 (displaying trading assets in a preferred currency), and US10062107B1 (trading assets in different currencies), all directed at multi-currency trading and asset display technology. The defendant, Bitstamp Ltd., is a Luxembourg-headquartered cryptocurrency exchange operating globally.
The case closed on 22 November 2024, 239 days after filing, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims with prejudice and directing each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No claim construction hearing, summary judgment, or trial was recorded on the public docket, suggesting the matter resolved before substantive proceedings advanced significantly.
The speed of resolution — under eight months in a technically complex multi-patent case — is consistent with an early licensing negotiation or commercial settlement, though the public record is silent on the specific terms. The with-prejudice designation protects Bitstamp from future suit on these patents, which typically commands a meaningful concession from the plaintiff. Whether other cryptocurrency exchanges have received or may receive similar demands from Intercurrency Software on these three patents is not known from available public information.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 239 days
239 days — resolved well under the median EDTX patent case timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation, no court merits ruling
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared, producing an immediate dismissal without any judicial finding on the merits. The court merely accepts and acknowledges the parties’ joint notice. No claim construction, infringement finding, or validity ruling was issued — the case ends by mutual consent, not adjudication.
Procedural exit, no merits rulingWith-prejudice dismissal: Intercurrency cannot re-sue Bitstamp on these patents
The ‘with prejudice’ designation is a critical qualifier for Intercurrency Software. It permanently bars Intercurrency from reasserting US10776863B1, US11449930B1, or US10062107B1 against Bitstamp for the same claims. This suggests the parties reached a resolution — financial or otherwise — sufficient for Intercurrency to accept this finality. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing arrangement was part of the settlement.
Re-filing barred against BitstampBitstamp exits with no admission of liability and no fee award
Bitstamp, represented by Fish & Richardson, secured a clean exit: no infringement finding, no injunction, no damages award, and no adverse fee ruling. The own-costs provision means Bitstamp absorbs its own legal spend — Fish & Richardson defence costs typically run high in EDTX actions. Whether Bitstamp secured a licence or simply negotiated a walk-away is not apparent from the public docket.
No liability, no fee shiftingThree live patents remain enforceable against other trading platforms
The dismissal resolves only the Bitstamp dispute. All three Intercurrency patents remain in force and could be asserted against other cryptocurrency exchanges, FX platforms, or consolidated trading systems. Competitors operating similar currency conversion and multi-asset display technologies — particularly those not yet named in litigation — should treat this case as an enforcement signal rather than a resolution of the broader patent risk.
Ongoing risk for other platformsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Currency trading platform patent licensing entity — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bitstamp, Ltd. | Company | Luxembourg-based cryptocurrency exchange operating global digital asset trading servicesSearch 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 Bitstamp, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Bitstamp, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Bitstamp, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for Bitstamp, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bitstamp, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Bitstamp, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely administrative — it records the parties’ mutual agreement and directs the clerk to close the case, without resolving any disputed fact or legal question. The with-prejudice qualifier is the operative legal term: it extinguishes Intercurrency’s right to assert the same claims against Bitstamp in any future proceeding. The own-costs provision signals that neither party extracted a fee-shifting concession, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested outcome.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Multi-Currency Trading Platform Technologies
The three asserted patents form a coherent family around the technology of presenting and executing trades involving assets denominated in, or convertible between, multiple currencies. US10776863B1 covers a consolidated trading platform architecture; US11449930B1 addresses how trading assets are displayed to users in their preferred currency; and US10062107B1 covers methods of executing trades across differing currency denominations. The application dates span from US11/736583 through to US17/019359, indicating a prosecution history that tracks the evolution of multi-currency digital asset trading.
These patents sit at the intersection of financial technology and user-interface design for trading systems — a space that has seen substantial growth with the rise of cryptocurrency exchanges offering fiat and digital asset pairs. Any platform that consolidates multi-currency trading views, converts displayed values into a user’s preferred denomination, or executes cross-currency asset transactions may fall within the scope of these claims. The fact that Intercurrency pursued Bitstamp — a major global exchange — suggests confidence in claim coverage and the potential for broader enforcement across the sector.
Should your trading platform run an FTO against US10776863B1 and related patents?
Any company operating a cryptocurrency exchange, FX trading platform, or consolidated multi-asset trading interface that displays prices in user-preferred currencies or facilitates cross-currency trade execution should treat these three Intercurrency patents as a material FTO risk. The Bitstamp enforcement demonstrates that Intercurrency is actively monetising this portfolio, and the with-prejudice dismissal — without public licensing terms — leaves open whether other exchanges have been or will be targeted.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related patent families from the same applicant. For R&D teams designing multi-currency display or trading execution modules, running an FTO before feature launch is substantially cheaper than defending an EDTX infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: multi-currency trading platform IP in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore related fintech patent infringement actions involving currency trading platform technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the fintech and crypto exchange IP landscape
A swift EDTX filing and rapid with-prejudice exit is a pattern consistent with structured licensing enforcement — and the three patents remain live.
EDTX remains the venue of choice for fintech patent enforcement
Filing before Judge Gilstrap in Marshall sends a credible signal to defendants. Bitstamp’s decision to engage Fish & Richardson — a top-tier patent litigation firm — and resolve within 239 days suggests the commercial calculus favoured settlement over a protracted EDTX trial. Other exchanges should model similar timeline and cost scenarios.
Three patents still in force: the Bitstamp case may be the opening move
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only one defendant. Intercurrency Software’s portfolio covering consolidated trading, preferred-currency display, and cross-currency execution remains actionable. Platforms with analogous feature sets — particularly those not yet contacted — should audit their exposure before receiving a demand letter.
Intercurrency v Bitstamp — key questions answered
Intercurrency Software asserted three US patents: US10776863B1 (consolidated trading platform), US11449930B1 (displaying trading assets in a preferred currency), and US10062107B1 (trading assets in different currencies). All three relate to multi-currency trading platform technology.
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on or before 22 November 2024. Judge Gilstrap accepted the stipulation. The with-prejudice designation means the dismissal was by mutual agreement, permanently barring Intercurrency from re-asserting the same claims against Bitstamp. The public record does not disclose the specific commercial terms that led to the joint filing.
No. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the claims against Bitstamp Ltd. All three patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — remain in force. Intercurrency Software retains the right to assert these patents against any other party, including other cryptocurrency exchanges, FX platforms, or trading software providers.
The own-costs provision means neither party sought or obtained fee shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or other grounds. Bitstamp will not recover its Fish & Richardson legal fees from Intercurrency, and Intercurrency will not recover its costs from Bitstamp. This is a neutral financial close — each side absorbs its own litigation spend.
Plaintiff Intercurrency Software LLC was represented by Christopher A. Honea of Garteiser Honea PLLC. Defendant Bitstamp Ltd. was represented by Alexander Hale Martin, Lance Eric Wyatt Jr., Neil J. McNabnay, and Noel Franco Chakkalakal of Fish & Richardson LLP and Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.