Intercurrency Software v. OFX Group: Dismissed With Prejudice in 98 Days
Intercurrency Software, LLC asserted four U.S. patents covering currency exchange software against OFX Group Limited’s mobile OFX app in the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after just 98 days — before OFX filed any answer — with each party bearing its own costs.
Four currency-software patents, one swift exit: inside the OFX dismissal
Filed on 19 December 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, this infringement action saw Intercurrency Software, LLC assert four U.S. patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 — against OFX Group Limited, targeting the mobile OFX app. The case was docketed as a member case under lead docket 2:24-CV-00976-JRG, indicating Intercurrency was running a coordinated, multi-defendant campaign in the same district.
On 27 March 2025, just 98 days after filing, Intercurrency filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted the notice, dismissing all claims against OFX Group with prejudice. Critically, OFX had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, meaning Intercurrency retained the procedural right to file unilaterally — but chose the with-prejudice variant, permanently surrendering its infringement claims against this defendant.
A dismissal with prejudice at such an early stage — before any substantive motion practice — is commercially notable. It typically suggests the parties reached a private resolution, Intercurrency reconsidered the strength of its position against OFX specifically, or a licensing arrangement was reached outside the public record. The lead case (2:24-CV-00976) and member case 2:24-CV-01059 remain open, indicating litigation continues against other defendants asserting the same patent portfolio.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 98 days
98 days — well below the median patent case duration in E.D. Texas, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before answer
Because OFX had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, Intercurrency could file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without court approval under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). By electing ‘with prejudice,’ Intercurrency went beyond the default (which would be without prejudice) and permanently barred itself from re-filing the same infringement claims against OFX on these four patents in any court.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceIntercurrency permanently relinquishes claims against OFX
A with-prejudice dismissal is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, meaning Intercurrency cannot reassert US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, or US11620701B1 against OFX Group for the same accused conduct. The public record does not disclose any licence fee or settlement payment, though a private arrangement is consistent with this outcome. Intercurrency’s broader campaign continues against other defendants.
Claims permanently extinguishedOFX exits litigation without admitting infringement
OFX Group secured a full exit from the litigation before incurring the cost of substantive defence — no answer, no motion practice, no trial. The dismissal with prejudice provides OFX with strong legal closure: Intercurrency cannot return on the same patents and same accused product. The cost-bearing order (each party its own fees) confirms no fee-shifting was awarded, leaving no public financial obligation on either side.
Full exit — no admission of infringementLead case still live — four patents remain active litigation risk
The dismissal of OFX does not extinguish the broader patent portfolio risk. Lead case 2:24-CV-00976 and member case 2:24-CV-01059 remain open, meaning Intercurrency continues to assert the same four currency exchange software patents against other defendants. Competitors operating in the international payments and currency conversion space should monitor the surviving cases for claim construction rulings or validity challenges that could affect the portfolio’s enforceability.
Portfolio risk persists in surviving casesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Currency exchange software IP licensor — holder of US10776863B1 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | OFX Group Limited | Company | OFX Group Limited — global online currency exchange and international payments providerSearch 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 the plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and enters dismissal with prejudice — a legally final disposition equivalent to a judgment on the merits, precluding any future action by Intercurrency against OFX on the same patents and accused product. The order’s explicit direction to close this member case while maintaining the lead case and Case 2:24-CV-01059 confirms that the broader multi-defendant campaign survives. The absence of any fee award to OFX, despite the abrupt exit, is consistent with judicial practice where no answer has been filed.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1 & US11620701B1 — currency exchange software
The four patents asserted — US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019359), US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736583), and US11620701B1 (App. No. 17/948217) — span application dates from 2007 through to 2022, suggesting a family strategy that progressively broadened or updated claim coverage as the mobile payments market matured. All four are B1 grants, indicating they issued without post-grant amendment, which may reflect examiner acceptance of relatively narrow or specific claim language.
For international payments providers and fintech platforms offering currency conversion features, this portfolio represents a credible multi-vector assertion risk. The spread of application dates means different expiry windows, preventing a single patent from aging out of relevance. Any company operating a mobile currency exchange app — particularly one processing real-time spot rates, order placement, or multi-currency wallets — should assess whether its product workflows overlap with the independent claims of any of these four patents, especially given the lead case remains active.
Should your fintech product run an FTO against US10776863B1 and related patents?
Any company building or operating a mobile or web-based currency exchange, international money transfer, or multi-currency wallet product should treat this four-patent portfolio as an active FTO concern. The fact that Intercurrency is pursuing a multi-defendant campaign in E.D. Texas — with at least two cases still open — signals an active licensing and enforcement posture. Products offering real-time rate display, currency conversion order flows, or cross-border payment processing are plausibly within the asserted claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 against your product’s technical architecture, flag prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and monitor the lead case for claim construction orders that would narrow or expand enforceability. Proactive FTO analysis before a demand letter is materially cheaper than reactive litigation defence in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar currency exchange software patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving currency exchange and fintech software patents in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap, with comparable multi-defendant assertion strategies.
What this case signals for the fintech and currency exchange IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas, before any defence filing, rarely happens without commercial logic. Here is what IP professionals should take away.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often mask private licensing deals
When a plaintiff invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with prejudice — before the defendant even answers — it suggests either a reached agreement or a strategic retreat. Neither scenario is disclosed publicly. Companies in the cross-border payments space facing similar assertions should evaluate whether early engagement reduces total exposure versus full litigation.
E.D. Texas multi-defendant campaigns concentrate venue and amplify settlement pressure
Intercurrency filed multiple member cases under a single lead docket before Judge Gilstrap — a classic aggregation strategy. Even if individual members settle quickly, the lead case drives claim construction. Any defendant remaining in the lead case faces rulings that bind all related cases, raising the strategic cost of staying in litigation versus reaching early resolution.
Intercurrency v OFX — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice is legally equivalent to a final judgment on the merits. Intercurrency Software is permanently barred from reasserting US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, or US11620701B1 against OFX Group for the same accused conduct. OFX exits the litigation without any admission of infringement, and each party bears its own costs.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a with-prejudice dismissal before any defence filing is consistent with a private settlement or licensing arrangement, a strategic reassessment of the specific defendant’s exposure, or a business decision to concentrate resources on the surviving lead case. The dismissal with prejudice — rather than without — suggests a deliberate, final resolution rather than a procedural adjournment.
Intercurrency asserted four U.S. patents: US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019359), US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736583), and US11620701B1 (App. No. 17/948217). All four are B1 grants covering currency exchange software technology and were asserted against the mobile OFX app.
Yes. The dismissal of OFX Group applies only to member case 2:24-CV-01066. The court’s order expressly directs the clerk to maintain lead case 2:24-CV-00976 and member case 2:24-CV-01059 as open, meaning Intercurrency’s four-patent portfolio remains actively asserted against at least one other defendant in the Eastern District of Texas.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent judges in the country. E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its established patent litigation procedures and historically plaintiff-friendly reputation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.