Intercurrency Software v. Cryptohopper: Three Crypto-Trading Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Intercurrency Software LLC asserted three US patents covering automated currency-exchange and trading-platform technology against Dutch crypto-bot operator Cryptohopper BV in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice after just 200 days, with each side bearing its own legal costs — a resolution that permanently closes Intercurrency’s claims against Cryptohopper.
Crypto-Trading Patent Dispute Ends Quickly With a Permanent Bar on Refiling
Intercurrency Software LLC, holder of a trio of patents directed at automated currency-exchange and trading-platform systems, filed suit against Cryptohopper BV — operator of the cryptohopper.com automated crypto-trading platform — in the Eastern District of Texas on 30 May 2024. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the country’s busiest patent-litigation dockets. Three US patents were in dispute: US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1, all asserting priority through application series covering currency-automation and exchange-platform technology.
After 200 days, both parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requesting dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims that were raised or could have been raised. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation on 16 December 2024, formally closing the member case while expressly directing the clerk to keep Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00381-JRG open — suggesting Intercurrency’s broader campaign against other defendants continues.
A 200-day lifecycle is notably short for a three-patent E.D. Texas infringement case, suggesting the parties likely reached a private resolution — though the public record is silent on any licensing terms or financial consideration. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future assertion of these specific claims against Cryptohopper, providing the Dutch company with a degree of certainty. What drove the settlement — claim-construction risk, invalidity arguments, or commercial negotiation — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 200 days
200 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases that reach claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared and filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical distinction: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Intercurrency from re-filing the same claims against Cryptohopper in any US court. The court’s role is ministerial — it accepts and acknowledges rather than independently adjudicates.
Permanent claim barIntercurrency permanently surrenders its claims against Cryptohopper
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Intercurrency Software LLC has permanently extinguished its right to sue Cryptohopper BV on all three asserted patents — and on any claims that could have been raised. This is a significant concession. It suggests either that the parties reached a private licensing or settlement agreement (undisclosed on the public record), or that Intercurrency assessed continued litigation as commercially unviable. The broader E.D. Texas lead case against other defendants remains open.
Claims permanently closedCryptohopper secures a permanent shield on these three patents
Cryptohopper BV, represented by Fish & Richardson, exits this litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal — meaning Intercurrency cannot reassert US10776863B1, US11449930B1, or US10062107B1 against the platform in US courts. Each party bears its own costs, so no attorneys’ fees were awarded. Whether Cryptohopper obtained an express license to the asserted patents is not revealed in the public record, but the dismissal provides meaningful certainty for its US-facing business operations.
No fee award; costs splitLead case open: other crypto-trading defendants remain exposed
The court expressly directed the clerk to keep Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00381-JRG open, indicating Intercurrency’s patent campaign is ongoing against at least one other defendant. Competitors in the automated crypto-trading and currency-exchange software space who have not yet settled should treat these three patents as live enforcement risks. The rapid resolution here — 200 days — may reflect Intercurrency’s willingness to license efficiently, consistent with an NPE monetisation strategy.
Broader campaign ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Automated currency-exchange software licensor — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cryptohopper BV | Individual | Dutch operator of the Cryptohopper automated cryptocurrency trading bot platform (cryptohopper.com)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 Cryptohopper BVSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Cryptohopper BVSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Riley James Green | Attorney | Counsel for Cryptohopper BVSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cryptohopper BVSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Cryptohopper BVSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the standard language for Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissals but includes two commercially significant details. First, the explicit ‘with prejudice’ designation — agreed by both parties — operates as a final adjudication, permanently barring re-assertion of all three patents against Cryptohopper. Second, the court’s instruction to keep Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00381-JRG open confirms this was a member-case resolution within a broader multi-defendant campaign, leaving Intercurrency’s enforcement programme intact against remaining defendants.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Automated Currency-Exchange & Trading Platform Technology
The three asserted patents — US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113,289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019,359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736,583) — collectively cover automated systems and methods for currency-exchange and trading-platform operations. The portfolio spans different application series, suggesting an incremental prosecution strategy designed to capture evolving implementations of the core automated-trading concept. The earliest application series (11/736,583) indicates a filing lineage predating much of the modern crypto-trading infrastructure, potentially lending the claims broad prior-art coverage relative to newer platforms.
For the automated cryptocurrency trading sector, a portfolio of this vintage and breadth presents a meaningful risk. Platforms offering bot-based trading, automated signal execution, or currency-exchange automation — functions central to Cryptohopper’s product — fall squarely within the technology space these patents are designed to cover. The continued prosecution across three distinct grants suggests Intercurrency has actively maintained and broadened its portfolio over time. Competitors in the crypto-trading space should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement vehicle, particularly given the open lead case.
Should you run an FTO against US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1?
Any company operating automated cryptocurrency trading platforms, currency-exchange bots, algorithmic trading signal systems, or related SaaS products with US users should treat Intercurrency Software’s three-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The with-prejudice dismissal against Cryptohopper does not extinguish the patents’ enforceability — it merely resolves one defendant. The ongoing lead case confirms active enforcement, and the broad application lineage raises the likelihood of claim coverage across standard platform architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against your platform’s feature set, flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope, and surface prior art that could support IPR petitions. With the E.D. Texas lead case still open, proactive FTO analysis now is materially cheaper than reactive litigation defence. Run your search directly in Eureka to get a claim-by-claim risk assessment tailored to your product architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Automated Trading & Currency-Exchange Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving automated cryptocurrency and currency-exchange technology asserted in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the automated crypto-trading IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas signals active patent monetisation — and active risk for other platforms in the automated trading space.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for crypto-tech patent assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket continues to attract patent plaintiffs targeting software-driven financial platforms. Companies operating automated trading or currency-exchange systems with US user bases should audit their exposure to similarly structured NPE claims, particularly given the court’s historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling orders and claim-construction timelines.
A with-prejudice exit in 200 days typically signals a private deal
When a patent plaintiff agrees to dismissal with prejudice before any substantive rulings — no Markman, no summary judgment — it is consistent with an undisclosed licensing agreement. Crypto-trading platforms negotiating with Intercurrency should note this precedent: early resolution appears to have been commercially achievable here, and may remain so in the lead case.
Intercurrency v Cryptohopper — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Intercurrency Software from re-asserting US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against Cryptohopper BV in any US court. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable — only the claims against this specific defendant are extinguished. Intercurrency’s lead case against other defendants (No. 2:24-CV-00381) remains open.
The public record does not definitively characterise Intercurrency Software LLC’s business model. However, the filing of a multi-defendant patent campaign in E.D. Texas, asserting software patents without an apparent competing product, is consistent with an NPE or patent monetisation entity structure. No product or operating business has been identified in the case record.
Intercurrency asserted US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — three US patents directed at automated currency-exchange and trading-platform systems. The patents span application series from as early as App. No. 11/736,583, suggesting a prosecution history predating modern crypto infrastructure, potentially lending them broad scope relative to contemporary automated trading platforms.
A 200-day resolution prior to any claim-construction hearing in E.D. Texas is notably fast for a three-patent case. This timeline is consistent with the parties having reached a private licensing or settlement agreement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. It may also reflect Cryptohopper’s robust defence posture through Fish & Richardson, which could have incentivised early resolution.
No. Judge Gilstrap’s order explicitly directs the clerk to keep Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00381-JRG open. The Cryptohopper resolution is specific to Member Case No. 2:24-CV-00393 and has no direct legal effect on the claims or proceedings against other defendants in Intercurrency’s broader litigation campaign. Those defendants remain subject to assertion of all three patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.