Intercurrency Software v. Monex Group: Trading Platform Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Intercurrency Software, LLC asserted three fintech trading platform patents against Monex Group, Inc. — operator of Coincheck and TradeStation — in the Eastern District of Texas. The member case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after 183 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Three Fintech Patents, One Dismissal: Intercurrency v. Monex Unwound
On April 17, 2024, Intercurrency Software, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Monex Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted three patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — directed at trading platform technologies, targeting Monex’s Coincheck and TradeStation platforms and systems. The case was designated as a member case within a broader lead case docket.
On October 17, 2024 — exactly 183 days after filing — Intercurrency filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing its claims against Monex Group with prejudice. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, ordered the member case closed, and directed that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The lead case was directed to remain open, suggesting other defendants or proceedings may continue.
A with-prejudice dismissal at this early stage — before any merits ruling — typically signals a negotiated resolution or a strategic withdrawal, though the public record is silent on whether any commercial agreement accompanied the exit. The cost-sharing order suggests neither party secured a financial concession on fees. The rapid conclusion relative to a standard E.D. Texas litigation timeline, combined with the multi-defendant lead case structure, leaves open questions about parallel proceedings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 183 days
183 days — resolved well before typical E.D. Texas trial schedule
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal with prejudice
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Filing ‘with prejudice’ is an affirmative election that converts the dismissal into a final adjudication on the merits — barring Intercurrency from ever reasserting these three patents against Monex Group in any future action.
Final — no refiling permittedIntercurrency’s with-prejudice exit: a permanent relinquishment vs. Monex
By dismissing with prejudice, Intercurrency Software has permanently surrendered its right to sue Monex Group on US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1. Whether this reflects a confidential settlement, a licensing arrangement, or a strategic retreat is not disclosed in the public record. Intercurrency retains the patents and may continue asserting them against other defendants in the lead case or separate actions.
Patents survive — Monex claims extinguishedMonex Group acquires permanent shield on these three patents
The with-prejudice dismissal functions as a complete defence for Monex Group: Intercurrency cannot bring these same patent claims again, regardless of future product developments on Coincheck or TradeStation. The cost-sharing order means Monex recovers no attorneys’ fees, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigation win. Monex bears no formal adjudication of liability.
No liability finding — full res judicata protectionLead case remains open — other trading platform defendants still exposed
Judge Gilstrap’s order explicitly maintained the lead case as open, indicating Intercurrency’s assertion campaign continues against other defendants. Competitors and trading platform operators in the fintech space who have not yet resolved claims under these three patents face continued exposure. The Monex resolution timeline — 183 days — may serve as a benchmark for how quickly other member defendants can expect to resolve or negotiate exits.
Multi-defendant campaign ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Fintech patent assertion entity — holder of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Monex Group, Inc. | Company | Japanese financial group operating Coincheck crypto and TradeStation trading platformsSearch 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 accepting the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits solely as between Intercurrency Software and Monex Group. The explicit direction to maintain the lead case as open confirms that the dismissal is member-case specific and does not affect any remaining defendants. The cost-sharing order — each party to bear its own fees — is consistent with a negotiated exit and precludes any fee-shifting argument by either side.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Trading Platform System Patents
The three patents asserted — US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736583) — are all granted US patents held by Intercurrency Software, LLC. The application lineage spans from the 11/736583 filing through more recent continuations, suggesting a family of patents built around core trading platform and currency exchange system claims. The technology domain covers online trading, currency conversion, and multi-asset execution infrastructure — directly relevant to platforms such as Coincheck and TradeStation.
For fintech operators, this patent family represents a meaningful assertion risk. Intercurrency’s willingness to assert all three patents concurrently in a multi-defendant E.D. Texas campaign suggests a deliberate enforcement strategy rather than isolated opportunism. Competitors offering crypto exchange, forex, or multi-asset brokerage services should treat these patents as live threats, particularly given that the lead case remains open and additional member defendants may still be active on the docket.
Should you run an FTO against US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1?
Any company developing or operating an online trading platform — particularly those handling currency conversion, cryptocurrency exchange, or multi-asset order routing — should assess exposure to this patent family. The Monex case demonstrates that Intercurrency is actively enforcing these patents against major platform operators in E.D. Texas, and the lead case structure means additional defendants may still be in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your platform’s core functionality against the claim sets of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 simultaneously, flagging overlap in currency conversion logic, order execution workflows, and account management systems. Eureka also surfaces the full Intercurrency patent family, prosecution history, and any related applications that may pose continuation risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Fintech Trading Platform Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving trading platform and fintech system patents litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the fintech trading platform IP landscape
Intercurrency’s multi-defendant campaign in E.D. Texas signals active assertion of foundational trading platform patents across the fintech sector.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for fintech patent assertion
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entity filings against fintech and trading platform operators. Companies with exposure in cryptocurrency exchange or online brokerage technology should treat E.D. Texas filings as a standing risk, not an outlier — particularly where multi-defendant lead cases are deployed.
With-prejudice exits signal deal activity even without public disclosure
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice before any substantive motion practice typically indicates a negotiated resolution. Trading platform operators facing similar assertion should model early commercial resolution costs against the cost of prolonged E.D. Texas litigation, where average time-to-trial exceeds two years.
Intercurrency v Monex — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Intercurrency Software from reasserting US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against Monex Group. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits between those two parties, giving Monex a complete res judicata defence against any future claim on these patents.
Intercurrency Software asserted three patents: US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736583). All three cover trading platform system technologies and were directed at Monex’s Coincheck and TradeStation trading platforms and systems.
The accused products were Monex Group’s Coincheck and TradeStation trading platforms and systems. Coincheck is a Japan-based cryptocurrency exchange and TradeStation is an online brokerage platform, both operated within the Monex Group corporate structure.
Yes. Judge Gilstrap’s October 2024 order explicitly directed the Clerk to maintain the lead case as open while closing only the member case against Monex Group (No. 2:24-CV-00255-JRG). This indicates the broader litigation campaign by Intercurrency Software against other defendants continues in E.D. Texas.
Intercurrency Software was represented by Christopher A. Honea of Garteiser Honea PLLC, a Texas-based law firm known for patent enforcement work in the Eastern District of Texas. No defendant counsel information appears in the public record for this member case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.