Intercurrency Software v. Coinrule: Trading Platform Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Intercurrency Software LLC sued Coinrule Limited in the Eastern District of Texas asserting three patents covering a consolidated trading platform apparatus and method. The case closed in just 151 days when Intercurrency voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice — before Coinrule had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Three Trading Platform Patents Extinguished in 151 Days
On May 23, 2024, Intercurrency Software LLC filed a patent infringement action against Coinrule Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Intercurrency asserted three U.S. patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — all directed to an apparatus and method for a consolidated trading platform. Coinrule, a UK-based automated cryptocurrency trading rules platform, was the sole defendant.
The case closed on October 21, 2024, when Intercurrency filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, confirming all of Intercurrency’s claims are permanently dismissed with prejudice. Crucially, Coinrule had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment at the time of dismissal, meaning the case ended entirely on procedural grounds with no merits adjudication.
A 151-day lifecycle from filing to closure is notably short even for pre-answer dismissals. The dismissal with prejudice — rather than without — is the defining feature: Intercurrency permanently forfeits the right to bring the same claims against Coinrule on these three patents. The public record does not reveal whether a settlement, licensing agreement, or commercial decision drove the voluntary exit, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, which is consistent with either a negotiated resolution or a unilateral strategic withdrawal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 151 days
151 days — resolved significantly faster than the E.D. Texas median patent case
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral pre-answer dismissal right
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. Intercurrency exercised this right, but chose to dismiss with prejudice — a self-imposed permanent bar. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, directing the clerk to close the case. No merits ruling was made on any of the three patents.
Voluntary — no merits adjudicationWith prejudice means the door is permanently closed against Coinrule
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, preventing Intercurrency from reasserting the same three patents against Coinrule in any future action. A dismissal without prejudice would have preserved that option. The public record is silent on what drove the choice to accept a with-prejudice outcome, which suggests either a negotiated term or a deliberate commercial decision to abandon enforcement against this defendant.
Permanent bar on refilingCoinrule exits without answering — and gains permanent protection
Coinrule never filed an answer, invalidity counterclaims, or a summary judgment motion. Despite this entirely passive posture, it achieves a with-prejudice dismissal — the strongest possible protection against future suit on these patents by this plaintiff. Coinrule bears no costs. The absence of any defendant law firm on record suggests Coinrule may not have been actively represented, or that proceedings were resolved before formal engagement.
Coinrule fully protectedPatent enforceability intact — but not against Coinrule
The three Intercurrency patents remain active and enforceable against other parties in the consolidated trading platform and crypto-automation sector. The with-prejudice dismissal is specific to Coinrule; it does not affect Intercurrency’s ability to assert these patents against other competitors or platforms. For third parties operating in automated trading technology, the patents remain a live enforcement risk worth monitoring.
Patents still live vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Trading platform software patent holder — asserting US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Coinrule Limited | Individual | Coinrule Limited — UK-based automated cryptocurrency trading rules and strategy 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice as filed, confirms dismissal with prejudice of all claims, and directs each party to bear its own costs. The explicit with-prejudice language creates res judicata effect, permanently extinguishing Intercurrency’s right to reassert these three patents against Coinrule. No substantive finding was made regarding infringement, validity, or claim scope. The costs order — neutral, with no fee-shifting — is consistent with pre-answer resolution and does not suggest any exceptional case designation.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Consolidated Trading Platform
The three asserted patents — US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736583) — all cover an apparatus and method for a consolidated trading platform. The family spans multiple application generations, with the earliest application (11/736583) suggesting foundational priority dating back considerably earlier than the grant dates. The technology domain covers platform-level aggregation and automation of trading operations, a space that encompasses both traditional securities trading tools and, more recently, cryptocurrency and algorithmic execution platforms.
This patent family sits at the intersection of fintech infrastructure and automated execution technology — a domain under significant commercial pressure as crypto and algorithmic trading platforms proliferate. For competitors building consolidated execution layers, multi-exchange routing, or rule-based automated trading tools, the breadth of a ‘consolidated trading platform’ apparatus claim warrants careful review. The fact that Intercurrency chose to assert all three patents together in a single action against a crypto-automation platform like Coinrule suggests these patents are positioned as a coordinated enforcement portfolio rather than isolated assets.
Should your trading platform team run an FTO against US10776863B1?
Any company developing consolidated trading interfaces, multi-exchange execution layers, algorithmic trading rule engines, or automated crypto trading platforms with U.S. market exposure should assess freedom-to-operate against this Intercurrency patent family. The with-prejudice dismissal against Coinrule does not limit enforcement against other parties, and the Eastern District of Texas filing history signals active enforcement intent. R&D teams building automated order routing, position management, or cross-platform trading aggregation features are most directly in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product architecture against the claim scope of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 simultaneously — identifying prosecution history, claim differentiation across the family, and prior art relevant to validity. Eureka can also flag other Intercurrency-linked patents and pending applications, helping in-house IP teams build a clearance opinion or design-around strategy before a demand letter arrives.
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 E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting trading platform and fintech automation patents before the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the automated trading platform IP landscape
A pre-answer with-prejudice exit rarely signals weakness alone — it raises questions about licensing, strategy, and the real value of these three patents.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice are rare — and often signal a deal
Plaintiffs who dismiss with prejudice before the defendant even answers typically do so because they have achieved their commercial objective — often a licensing agreement or commercial resolution. The absence of any public settlement record and the each-party-bears-own-costs order is consistent with either a paid licence or a strategic withdrawal. IP teams monitoring Intercurrency should track whether similar actions follow against other automated trading platforms.
Three asserted patents remain live enforcement tools against the broader market
US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 are unaffected by this dismissal beyond the specific Coinrule carve-out. Companies building consolidated or automated crypto trading platforms — particularly those with U.S. operations — should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. The Eastern District of Texas remains a plaintiff-favoured venue, and Judge Gilstrap’s docket suggests Intercurrency’s counsel is experienced in rapid, targeted filings.
Intercurrency v Coinrule — key questions answered
It means Intercurrency Software permanently waived its right to assert the same three patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — against Coinrule Limited in any future action. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no substantive ruling was made on infringement or validity.
Intercurrency asserted three U.S. patents: US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736583). All three are directed to an apparatus and method for a consolidated trading platform and appear to constitute a coordinated patent family across multiple application generations.
The public record does not state the reason. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order before the defendant answers. Choosing to do so with prejudice — a self-imposed permanent bar — typically suggests either a negotiated licensing or commercial resolution, or a deliberate strategic withdrawal. The each-party-bears-own-costs order does not clarify which scenario applies.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal is specific to Coinrule Limited. Intercurrency retains full enforcement rights against other parties on US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1. Companies developing consolidated or automated trading platforms with U.S. market exposure should continue to treat this patent family as an active enforcement risk.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00379) and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent judges in the country and a frequent presiding judge on NPE cases in that district. The case closed before any substantive proceedings took place.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.