Intercurrency Software v. Cryptense SAS: Three Crypto Trading Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Intercurrency Software LLC asserted three patents covering automated cryptocurrency trading systems against Cryptense SAS and its Kryll platform in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice just 176 days after filing — each side bearing its own costs.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 176 days
176 days — resolved well under the median E.D. Tex. patent case timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation ends the case permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires written consent from all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral plaintiff dismissal, both sides signed off here. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Intercurrency Software from re-asserting the same claims against Cryptense SAS on these patents.
Permanent bar on re-filingIntercurrency surrenders its infringement claims permanently
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Intercurrency Software LLC forfeits the right to pursue these three patents against Cryptense SAS in any future proceeding. The public record does not disclose settlement consideration, licensing terms, or any confidential agreement. Whether a private resolution underpins the dismissal cannot be confirmed from court filings alone — the ‘each party bears its own costs’ clause is consistent with both a clean walk-away and a confidential settlement.
Claims permanently extinguishedCryptense and Kryll obtain permanent res judicata protection
Cryptense SAS, represented by Fish & Richardson, secured a with-prejudice dismissal — the strongest available procedural shield short of a merits judgment. The Kryll platform cannot face renewed litigation from Intercurrency on these specific patents. Fish & Richardson’s engagement of four attorneys suggests Cryptense mounted a substantive defense, which may have contributed to the swift resolution at 176 days.
Res judicata protection confirmedCrypto trading platform patents remain in Intercurrency’s portfolio
The three patents — covering automated cryptocurrency trading and exchange systems — are not invalidated by this dismissal. Intercurrency Software retains full enforcement rights against other market participants. Operators of competing crypto trading platforms, algorithmic trading tools, or exchange aggregation services should treat this case as a signal that these patents are actively asserted, even if this particular action ended without a merits ruling.
Portfolio still live against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cryptense SAS | Individual | Search 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 Cryptense SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Cryptense SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Cryptense SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for Cryptense SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cryptense SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Cryptense SASSearch 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 joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), confirming that all claims asserted by Intercurrency Software against Cryptense SAS are dismissed with prejudice. The explicit ‘each party bears its own costs’ clause means neither side obtained a fee award. No claim construction, invalidity analysis, or infringement finding was issued — the underlying patent claims remain untested on the merits, preserving Intercurrency’s enforcement rights against all other defendants.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Automated Cryptocurrency Trading Platform Technology
The three asserted patents — US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583) — collectively cover automated cryptocurrency trading systems, exchange-layer technology, and portfolio management methods. The breadth of the portfolio, spanning applications filed across multiple generations of crypto infrastructure, suggests deliberate layered claiming designed to cover both foundational exchange mechanics and more recent automation approaches.
In a sector where algorithmic and automated trading platforms have proliferated rapidly, multi-patent portfolios targeting platform-layer functionality represent significant strategic leverage. Intercurrency’s willingness to enforce these patents in E.D. Tex. against a French company (Cryptense SAS) operating the Kryll platform indicates an intent to assert U.S. IP broadly against internationally-based operators serving U.S. markets. Competing platforms, white-label trading solution providers, and API aggregation services face material exposure if their core functionality overlaps with these claims.
Should your crypto trading platform run an FTO against Intercurrency’s patent portfolio?
Any company offering automated cryptocurrency trading features, strategy-building tools, bot-based execution, or multi-exchange API connectivity in the U.S. market should treat Intercurrency Software’s three-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patents are actively asserted against real commercial platforms — and that no court has yet narrowed or invalidated the claims. The absence of a merits ruling means claim scope is undefined and potentially broad.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your platform’s technical architecture against all three Intercurrency patents, identify claim elements most likely to be asserted, surface prior art candidates relevant to IPR petitions, and flag other patent holders in the automated crypto trading space. Running this analysis before U.S. market entry or a funding round is materially cheaper than defending in E.D. Tex.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Automated Cryptocurrency Trading Platform Disputes in U.S. Courts
Browse patent infringement cases involving automated cryptocurrency trading technology, algorithmic exchange platforms, and related fintech IP litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the cryptocurrency trading platform IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Tex. leaves three active crypto trading patents in play — and signals enforcement intent across the sector.
E.D. Tex. remains a preferred venue for crypto platform patent enforcement
Intercurrency’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas — before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the country’s most experienced patent jurists — follows a well-established plaintiff playbook. Companies operating crypto trading platforms with U.S. users should factor E.D. Tex. venue risk into their patent clearance strategies, regardless of where they are incorporated.
With-prejudice dismissal without a cost award suggests negotiated resolution
The combination of a joint stipulation, a with-prejudice bar, and a mutual cost-bearing clause is structurally consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement. Patent defendants who retain strong counsel early — as Cryptense did with Fish & Richardson — often reach faster, better-structured resolutions than those who engage defensively late.
Intercurrency v Cryptense — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Intercurrency Software from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Cryptense SAS. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata. Importantly, it does not invalidate the patents — Intercurrency retains full enforcement rights against other parties.
Intercurrency asserted three U.S. patents: US10776863B1 (App. No. US16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. US17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. US11/736583). All three relate to automated cryptocurrency trading platform technology. No claim construction order was issued, so the asserted claims and their scope remain publicly undefined.
No. The case was resolved by joint stipulation of dismissal before any substantive ruling. Judge Gilstrap’s order merely accepts and acknowledges the parties’ agreement. There was no Markman hearing, no invalidity finding, and no infringement determination — the patents remain fully enforceable against third parties.
The 176-day resolution is shorter than the typical E.D. Tex. patent case. The public record does not disclose the reason. Possibilities consistent with the record include: a confidential licensing or settlement agreement; Cryptense’s strong Fish & Richardson defense team presenting a credible invalidity or non-infringement position early; or a business decision by Intercurrency to resolve strategically. The mutual cost-bearing clause does not foreclose any of these explanations.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to Cryptense SAS and does not affect Intercurrency’s rights against other defendants. The three patents covering automated cryptocurrency trading systems remain active and were demonstrably enforced as recently as 2024. Platforms offering similar functionality — particularly automated strategy execution, multi-exchange trading bots, or exchange aggregation tools — face residual exposure and should consider FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.