Intercurrency Software v. Ebury Partners: Currency Tech Patent Case Ends in Dismissal

Case Overview

A fintech patent infringement action filed in one of the nation’s most patent-plaintiff-friendly venues concluded swiftly and quietly — not with a verdict, but with a joint stipulation of dismissal. In Intercurrency Software LLC v. Ebury Partners UK Ltd. (Case No. 2:25-cv-01030), filed October 9, 2025, and closed February 19, 2026, the Eastern District of Texas saw both parties agree to walk away, with each bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees, in just 133 days.

The case centered on U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 — a currency exchange and global payment processing patent — asserted against Ebury Partners UK Ltd.’s global payment platforms and systems. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and fintech R&D teams, the case offers instructive signals: about venue strategy, pre-trial settlement leverage, and how swiftly high-value payment technology disputes can resolve when parties reach commercial alignment. This analysis dissects what happened, why it matters, and what strategic lessons practitioners should carry forward.

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 (Application No. 17/948,217), covering technology in the currency exchange and international payment processing space. As a B1-designated patent — indicating it issued without pre-issuance publication — the patent’s claims address software-implemented methods or systems related to multicurrency transactions. The asserted technology plainly maps to automated foreign exchange processing and global payment platform operations.

• • US 11,620,701 — Currency exchange and global payment processing technology.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case terminated via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (Dkt. No. 57), accepted and acknowledged by the court. All claims Intercurrency raised — or could have raised — against Ebury Partners were dismissed with prejudice. Critically, the parties agreed to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, with no damages disclosed and no injunctive relief entered.

A dismissal with prejudice is legally significant: Intercurrency is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims from U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 against Ebury Partners on the same grounds. This functions as a full release of the asserted patent claims against this specific defendant.

Legal Significance

No trial occurred. No claim construction ruling was issued on the public record. The dismissal reflects a pre-Markman resolution — the parties reached terms before the court interpreted the patent’s claims, which is the typical inflection point in patent litigation where settlement probability surges.

The absence of a fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (attorney fees in exceptional cases) is notable. Baker Botts, representing Ebury, did not pursue — or did not obtain — an exceptional case finding, suggesting the parties negotiated a clean exit rather than litigating culpability. This “walk away” fee structure is a hallmark of confidential licensing resolutions: the defendant may have secured a license or covenant not to sue in exchange for dropping the litigation, with both sides absorbing their own costs to avoid disclosure of financial terms.

While the dismissal carries no precedential value on patent claim construction or validity, it contributes to a developing pattern in fintech payment processing patent litigation: NPE assertions against international payment platforms frequently settle pre-Markman, particularly when the defendant has substantial litigation resources and the asserted patents cover broad software-implemented payment methods.

The consolidated case structure is strategically important. Intercurrency’s ability to maintain the lead case against remaining defendants — despite Ebury’s exit — means the patent’s validity and enforceability remain untested by judicial analysis. For defendants still in the lead case, this is a mixed signal: Ebury’s departure could reflect a favorable licensing deal, or simply reflect Ebury’s commercial calculus to resolve quickly.