Intercurrency Software v. BVNK Services: Three-Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 153 Days
Intercurrency Software LLC filed a patent infringement action against BVNK Services Limited in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three software patents covering currency exchange and transaction platforms. The case closed just 153 days after filing when Intercurrency voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs.
Currency exchange patent suit ends with a permanent bar on re-filing
On 23 May 2024, Intercurrency Software LLC filed suit against BVNK Services Limited in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of three US patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — each directed at software and systems for currency exchange and cross-border transaction processing. The accused products were identified as BVNK’s platforms and systems, which provide crypto-enabled payment infrastructure to enterprise clients.
The case closed on 23 October 2024 when Intercurrency filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice, formally dismissing all claims against BVNK with prejudice. Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Intercurrency is permanently barred from reasserting these three patents against BVNK on the same claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
At 153 days, the case resolved before any substantive claim construction or merits briefing would typically occur in E.D. Tex., suggesting the parties reached some form of private resolution — or that Intercurrency assessed litigation risks and opted to withdraw before incurring further costs. The public record is silent on whether any licensing agreement or commercial arrangement was reached. The with-prejudice designation, however, is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff that is not typical of a settlement-neutral exit.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 153 days
153 days — resolved well under the median E.D. Tex. patent case timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral early exit
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal here was filed with prejudice, which is unusual for a unilateral notice — it signals a deliberate, permanent relinquishment of the asserted claims against BVNK rather than a tactical pause. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally closing the case.
Voluntary dismissal, with prejudiceIntercurrency cannot re-sue BVNK on these patents
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Intercurrency Software is permanently barred from asserting US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against BVNK Services in any future action on the same claims. This is a substantive concession that goes beyond a neutral exit — it forecloses any future leverage over BVNK on these specific patents absent different claims or continuation patents.
Permanent bar on re-assertionBVNK secures permanent protection from these three patents
BVNK Services Limited obtained a durable outcome without litigating to judgment. The with-prejudice dismissal effectively immunises BVNK’s platforms and systems from future infringement claims by Intercurrency under these three patents. With each party bearing its own fees, BVNK absorbed its own legal costs but avoided any damages exposure or injunctive risk. The case’s resolution before any answer was filed also means no invalidity arguments were placed on the record.
Defendant protected, no damagesCrypto payment platforms and currency exchange IP risk
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of software patent assertions against fintech and crypto infrastructure providers in E.D. Tex. The swift resolution — 153 days — and with-prejudice exit suggests BVNK may have presented a credible defence, or the parties reached a confidential commercial arrangement. Competitors in the crypto-enabled cross-border payments space should note that these three Intercurrency patents remain active and could be asserted against other platforms in future proceedings.
Fintech patent risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Currency exchange software IP licensing entity — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BVNK Services Limited | Individual | BVNK Services Limited — crypto-enabled cross-border payment infrastructure 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 | Bruce Charles Morris | Attorney | Counsel for BVNK Services LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kane Russell Coleman & Logan, PC (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing BVNK Services LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal filed by Intercurrency Software before any answer was served. The with-prejudice designation — explicitly stated in both the notice and the court’s order — carries preclusive effect equivalent to a judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata. BVNK is shielded from future suits by Intercurrency on the same claims under these three patents. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard for consensual early exits and does not indicate fault or prevailing-party status on either side.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — currency exchange software systems
The three asserted patents — US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583) — span a range of filing dates and generations, suggesting an intentional portfolio build around currency exchange software. US10062107B1 represents the earliest filing and likely covers foundational methods, while US10776863B1 and US11449930B1 reflect more recent continuations or improvements in transaction processing. All three are utility patents granted to Intercurrency Software LLC.
These patents are asserted against BVNK’s crypto-enabled payment infrastructure, which provides stablecoin and fiat currency bridging for enterprise clients. The technical overlap between legacy currency exchange methods and modern crypto payment rails is a contested but commercially significant frontier. Holders of software patents in this space — particularly those with broad method claims covering conversion, settlement, or exchange logic — can present material risk to fintech platforms that process multi-currency transactions at scale. Competitors should treat this portfolio as live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1?
Any company developing or deploying currency exchange software, crypto payment infrastructure, stablecoin settlement systems, or multi-currency transaction APIs should consider an FTO assessment against this portfolio. The fact that Intercurrency has already demonstrated willingness to assert these patents in active litigation — and targeted a crypto payments platform specifically — indicates these are not dormant rights. Product teams building conversion logic, exchange-rate processing, or cross-border settlement modules are in the primary risk zone.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across all three patents simultaneously, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and surface any continuation or divisional applications still pending in the Intercurrency family. Eureka’s claim charting tools let you assess whether your specific implementation falls within the claim language before committing to product release — reducing downstream litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar currency exchange and fintech software patent cases in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving currency exchange and payment software patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, with comparable assertion and dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the fintech and crypto payments IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Tex. carries strategic weight beyond the parties involved.
With-prejudice dismissals in E.D. Tex. are not neutral outcomes
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this early — before any answer or substantive motion — it typically signals either a private resolution or a reassessment of claim strength. Unlike a without-prejudice exit, this permanently closes the door on these patents against BVNK. Other fintech defendants facing similar assertions should note the pattern: early pressure + credible defence can accelerate resolution.
Intercurrency’s remaining portfolio still threatens the payments sector
The dismissal resolves only the BVNK dispute. US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 remain granted and enforceable against third parties. Crypto payment platforms, digital wallet providers, and currency conversion API vendors operating in the same technical space should conduct FTO analysis against these patents before scaling commercial activity.
Intercurrency v BVNK — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Intercurrency Software from asserting US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against BVNK Services on the same claims. It carries the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, meaning BVNK cannot be sued again by Intercurrency under these patents on these 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 currency exchange and transaction processing software. The accused products were identified as BVNK’s platforms and systems.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00382), a jurisdiction known for its patent-friendly procedural environment and experienced patent bench. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent trial judges in the US federal court system by volume of cases handled.
No. The court’s order specified that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages were awarded and no fee-shifting order was entered under 35 U.S.C. § 285. BVNK absorbed its own legal costs but faced no financial liability to Intercurrency Software as a result of this litigation.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between Intercurrency Software and BVNK Services. US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 remain granted, active US patents and can be asserted against other companies operating in the currency exchange, crypto payment, or multi-currency transaction software space. Companies in these sectors should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.