Intercurrency Software v. Bybit Fintech: Currency Trading Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Intercurrency Software LLC asserted three US patents covering consolidated trading platforms and cross-currency asset display methods against cryptocurrency exchange Bybit Fintech Limited in the Eastern District of Texas. The case resolved in 253 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice — permanently extinguishing the plaintiff’s claims against Bybit on these patents.
Three Currency Trading Patents Ended Before Defendant Could Respond
On 20 February 2024, Intercurrency Software LLC filed suit against Bybit Fintech Limited in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of three patents: US10776863B1 (consolidated trading platform), US11449930B1 (displaying trading assets in a preferred currency), and US10062107B1 (trading assets in different currencies). Bybit, a major cryptocurrency derivatives exchange, was accused of deploying a platform that allegedly embodied these patented trading and currency-display methods.
The case closed on 30 October 2024 — 253 days after filing — when Intercurrency Software filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims with prejudice. Critically, Bybit had not yet filed an answer or summary judgment motion, satisfying the procedural threshold for a unilateral Rule 41 dismissal. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The sub-nine-month resolution — before any substantive defence filing — suggests the parties likely reached a private arrangement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms or licence. The with-prejudice designation is the legally significant outcome: Intercurrency Software permanently surrendered its right to re-file the same claims against Bybit on these three patents in any US court. What drove the early exit — whether a licence, commercial agreement, or strategic reassessment — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 253 days
253 days — resolved before defendant answered or moved for summary judgment
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows unilateral exit — but only before the defendant responds
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order if the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. Bybit had filed neither, so Intercurrency Software could act unilaterally. Choosing to dismiss with prejudice — rather than without — is a deliberate election that goes beyond what the rule requires. It signals the plaintiff affirmatively chose to extinguish its own claims permanently, not merely pause them.
Voluntary, unilateral dismissalWith prejudice bars re-filing — a permanent waiver of these claims against Bybit
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, barring the plaintiff from re-asserting the same claims against the same defendant in any US federal court. Intercurrency Software could have dismissed without prejudice — preserving the option to re-file within the limitations period — but explicitly chose not to. This distinction is commercially significant: Bybit now has a permanent shield against these three patents from this plaintiff, regardless of future platform changes.
Permanent bar on re-filingIntercurrency Software walks away — but the patents themselves survive
The dismissal extinguishes only the claims against Bybit. US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 remain in force and enforceable against other parties. The plaintiff retains full rights to assert these patents against competing trading platforms and exchanges that have not settled or been dismissed. The early exit before any claim construction or invalidity ruling also means no adverse legal findings attach to the patents.
Patents remain live vs. othersEarly dismissal preserves patent strength — other exchanges remain exposed
Because the case ended before any Markman hearing or validity challenge, the three patents emerge without any narrowing constructions or weakening prior-art rulings. For other cryptocurrency and multi-currency trading platform operators, the risk profile of these patents is unchanged. The with-prejudice exit is consistent with a licence or commercial resolution with Bybit — a pattern that typically signals ongoing licensing activity by the patent holder in the broader sector.
Licensing risk persists for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Financial software IP licensor — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bybit Fintech Limited | Individual | Bybit Fintech Limited — global cryptocurrency derivatives exchange and trading platform operatorSearch 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 | Benjamin Joseph Behrendt | Attorney | Counsel for Bybit Fintech LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey G. Homrig | Attorney | Counsel for Bybit Fintech LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Latham & Watkins, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bybit Fintech LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s acceptance of the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice confirms procedural compliance — Bybit had not answered or moved for summary judgment, making unilateral dismissal available to Intercurrency Software. The with-prejudice designation in the notice, expressly acknowledged by Judge Gilstrap, operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. The mutual cost-bearing order is standard for voluntary dismissals but forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion by Bybit under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No substantive patent rulings attach.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Cross-Currency Trading Platform Patents
The three asserted patents form a coherent family covering the mechanics of multi-currency trading interfaces. US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289) covers a consolidated trading platform architecture. US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359) claims methods for displaying trading assets denominated in a user’s preferred currency. US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583), with its earlier application date, covers foundational methods for executing trades across different currency pairs. Together, they address the core UX and transactional infrastructure of modern crypto and FX trading platforms.
These patents are strategically positioned to cover functionality that is near-universal in cryptocurrency exchanges and multi-currency trading platforms — consolidated portfolio views, preferred-currency denomination toggles, and cross-currency execution engines. Because the earliest priority application (US11/736583) predates many current crypto exchange architectures, the patents potentially capture designs implemented without knowledge of the prior art. Bybit’s exposure as a major derivatives exchange illustrates the breadth of the potential assertion universe across the sector.
Should your trading platform run an FTO against US10776863B1 and its family?
Any operator of a cryptocurrency exchange, FX trading platform, or multi-currency brokerage interface that offers consolidated portfolio views, preferred-currency display, or cross-currency trade execution should assess exposure against this three-patent family. The fact that Bybit — a top-tier global exchange — resolved before filing any substantive defence suggests the claims have sufficient surface coverage to compel early commercial resolution rather than litigation risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against your platform’s feature set, identify relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface any continuation or divisional applications still pending in this family. For crypto exchange and fintech product teams, running this analysis now — before a demand letter arrives — is materially cheaper than responding post-filing in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Currency Trading Platform Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Other patent infringement actions asserting multi-currency trading and fintech platform patents before Judge Gilstrap and the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the cryptocurrency trading platform IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit before any defence filing is a recurring signature of NPE licensing strategy in fintech and trading platform IP.
Early dismissal without a ruling leaves patent scope fully intact
No claim construction, no invalidity finding, no narrowing. All three Intercurrency Software patents exit this litigation with the same legal force they entered with. For competing trading platforms and crypto exchanges, this means the infringement risk is unchanged and should not be dismissed simply because Bybit resolved its exposure.
With-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas typically signals a private resolution
When plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas dismiss with prejudice before the defendant answers — and each party bears its own costs — this pattern is commercially consistent with a licence or settlement payment. The public record does not confirm this, but IP teams at crypto exchanges and multi-currency trading platforms should treat this case as part of an active licensing campaign, not a one-off.
Intercurrency v Bybit — key questions answered
Intercurrency Software LLC voluntarily dismissed all patent infringement claims against Bybit Fintech Limited with prejudice on 30 October 2024, approximately 253 days after filing. The dismissal was filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Bybit answered or moved for summary judgment. Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and closed the case. No substantive rulings on the asserted patents were issued.
Intercurrency Software asserted three US patents: US10776863B1 (consolidated trading platform, App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (displaying trading assets in a preferred currency, App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (trading assets in different currencies, App. No. US11/736583). The patents collectively cover multi-currency trading platform interfaces and cross-currency transaction methods.
Dismissed with prejudice means Intercurrency Software permanently waived its right to re-assert these three patents against Bybit Fintech in any US federal court. The dismissal functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes as between these parties. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable — Intercurrency Software may still assert them against other trading platforms and exchanges that have not separately resolved their exposure.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice — filed before the defendant answered, with each party bearing its own costs — is commercially consistent with a private licence or settlement agreement. This pattern recurs in NPE-driven patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The with-prejudice election goes beyond what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) requires, suggesting a deliberate decision rather than a procedural default.
Yes. The three patents emerged from this litigation without any adverse claim construction, invalidity finding, or narrowing ruling. Their full scope remains legally intact. Operators of consolidated multi-currency trading platforms, crypto exchanges offering preferred-currency display features, or platforms executing cross-currency trades remain potentially exposed. The early resolution with Bybit does not reduce the risk for other parties and may suggest active licensing outreach across the sector.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.