Intercurrency Software v. Blockchain.com: Dismissed With Prejudice After 294 Days
Intercurrency Software LLC asserted three US patents covering consolidated trading platform methods and apparatus against Blockchain (Gb) Ltd. and Blockchain.com, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after approximately ten months, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Blockchain trading platform patents exit EDTX with prejudice after joint deal
Intercurrency Software LLC filed suit on August 16, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of three US patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — all directed to consolidated trading platform technology. The defendants, Blockchain (Gb) Ltd. and its US affiliate Blockchain.com, Inc., were accused of infringing through their cryptocurrency trading platforms and associated systems.
On June 5, 2024, the court accepted a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by both parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims that Intercurrency Software raised or could have raised against Blockchain.com were dismissed with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a symmetrical cost allocation that is consistent with a confidential settlement or a mutual walk-away arrangement.
The 294-day lifespan is notably short for a multi-patent EDTX infringement action, suggesting the parties reached a resolution well before any claim construction or trial schedule was fully engaged. The with-prejudice designation permanently extinguishes Intercurrency’s ability to re-assert these specific claims against Blockchain.com on the same patents. The public record does not disclose whether a financial settlement accompanied the stipulation, leaving the commercial terms opaque.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 294 days
294 days — roughly 10 months, shorter than the EDTX median patent trial cycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. ‘With prejudice’ is the critical qualifier: it functions as an adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Intercurrency Software from re-filing the same claims against Blockchain.com based on these three patents. The court does not evaluate the underlying merits — it simply accepts and acknowledges the parties’ agreed disposition.
Permanent bar on re-filingIntercurrency Software loses future enforcement rights against Blockchain.com
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Intercurrency Software permanently relinquishes its right to assert US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against Blockchain.com on any claims it raised or could have raised in this action. The patents themselves remain in force and could theoretically be enforced against other parties, but Blockchain.com has obtained a final resolution that shields it from further litigation on these specific claims by this plaintiff.
Patent survives; enforcement extinguished vs. Blockchain.comBlockchain.com secures permanent closure on these three patent claims
Blockchain.com and its UK affiliate emerge with a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning Intercurrency Software cannot reinstitute these claims in any US federal court. Combined with the mutual cost-bearing arrangement, Blockchain.com avoids any fee-shifting exposure. Whether any licensing payment or commercial term accompanied this resolution is not disclosed in the public record, but the defendants’ legal position is fully protected on the asserted patents.
Full res judicata protection securedEarly resolution limits precedent but raises PAE licensing risk signals
The rapid resolution — before claim construction — means no judicial interpretation of the trading platform patent claims was produced. This is commercially significant: other cryptocurrency exchange operators cannot rely on any EDTX claim construction as prior art clearance. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and with-prejudice terms are consistent with a confidential licensing resolution, which would suggest Intercurrency Software’s patents carry some licensing value in the sector.
No claim construction precedent createdFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Blockchain (Gb), Ltd. | Company | Blockchain (Gb) Ltd. and Blockchain.com, Inc. — global cryptocurrency trading platform operatorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Blockchain.com, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | 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 verdict text reflects a standard judicial acceptance of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation. The court’s language — ‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ and ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ — confirms finality: no claims survive, and res judicata attaches. The explicit phrase ‘raised or could have raised’ forecloses any future attempt to assert related theories against Blockchain.com on these patents. The court’s direction to close this member case while maintaining the lead case (2:23-cv-00370) open is a procedurally significant signal that Intercurrency Software’s broader patent campaign may be ongoing.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Consolidated Trading Platform Technology
The three patents asserted in this case — US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583) — are all US-granted patents with B1 designations, indicating they issued without prior publication as an application. The staggered application numbers span from at least 2007 (US11/736583) to 2020 (US17/019359), suggesting a multi-generation continuation strategy designed to maintain patent coverage as trading platform technology evolved. The subject matter covers apparatus and methods for consolidated trading platforms, which in the context of Blockchain.com’s products encompasses cryptocurrency exchange infrastructure.
The continuation architecture across these three patents is strategically significant: it suggests the patent holder deliberately pursued broadened or adapted claims to capture later-generation trading platform implementations. For cryptocurrency exchange operators and fintech trading infrastructure providers, this portfolio represents a meaningful assertion risk. The absence of any claim construction order means the full scope of the claims remains judicially untested, and the with-prejudice dismissal against Blockchain.com does not limit enforceability against other market participants operating similar consolidated trading systems.
Should your trading platform team run an FTO against US10776863B1 and related patents?
Any company operating a consolidated cryptocurrency trading platform, digital asset exchange, or multi-asset trading infrastructure in the US market should consider whether their systems fall within the claim scope of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, or US10062107B1. The absence of a Markman ruling in the Blockchain.com case means there is no judicial claim construction to rely on — product and engineering teams must assess risk purely against the patent text and prosecution history. This is particularly relevant for platforms that have developed or augmented trading systems after 2007.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of all three asserted patents against your platform’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may inform invalidity arguments, and surface related continuation applications that could extend the assertion risk. Eureka also enables monitoring of Intercurrency Software’s co-pending litigation (lead case 2:23-cv-00370) and any new filings by Garteiser Honea PLLC targeting trading platform operators — giving your IP team early warning before litigation reaches your organisation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar consolidated trading platform patent cases in EDTX
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting trading platform and fintech exchange technology claims in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the blockchain trading platform IP landscape
A swift, with-prejudice exit in EDTX before claim construction is a pattern worth tracking across the cryptocurrency and fintech trading IP sector.
With-prejudice dismissal forecloses re-assertion — but only against these defendants
Intercurrency Software’s three trading platform patents remain active and enforceable against third parties. Other cryptocurrency exchange operators, DeFi platforms, and trading infrastructure providers are not protected by this dismissal. Any company operating a consolidated trading platform with features resembling those claimed in US10776863B1, US11449930B1, or US10062107B1 should treat this case as a signal to assess their exposure.
No claim construction means no public interpretation of the patent scope
The case closed before Judge Gilstrap issued any Markman ruling. This leaves the claim boundaries of all three patents entirely undefined by a court. For competitors and their counsel, this heightens the uncertainty of any FTO opinion relying solely on the patent text — particularly given EDTX’s historically plaintiff-friendly claim construction environment under Judge Gilstrap.
Intercurrency v Blockchain — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means Intercurrency Software is permanently barred from re-asserting the same patent claims against Blockchain.com in any US federal court. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and constitutes a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no court evaluated the substantive merits of the infringement claims.
Intercurrency Software asserted three patents: US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583). All three relate to consolidated trading platform apparatus and methods and were asserted against Blockchain.com’s cryptocurrency trading platforms and systems.
The court’s order dismissing case 2:23-cv-00369 explicitly directed the Clerk to maintain lead case 2:23-cv-00370 as open. This is consistent with EDTX multi-defendant case consolidation practice, where a member case involving one defendant can be resolved independently while the lead case — potentially involving other defendants or related claims — continues. The public record does not specify which parties or claims remain active in 2:23-cv-00370.
Intercurrency Software was represented by Randall T. Garteiser of Garteiser Honea PLLC, a law firm with a well-documented history of patent assertion filings in the Eastern District of Texas. No defendant counsel is identified in the available case record.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only protects Blockchain (Gb) Ltd. and Blockchain.com, Inc. from future claims by Intercurrency Software on these three patents. The patents remain in force and fully enforceable against any other party. Other cryptocurrency exchange operators, DeFi platforms, or consolidated trading infrastructure providers are not shielded by this resolution and should assess their own exposure independently.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.