Intercurrency Software v. Paybis Ltd. — Dismissed With Prejudice After 243 Days
Intercurrency Software LLC filed suit against cryptocurrency and currency exchange platform operator Paybis Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three fintech patents covering currency trading systems. The case resolved via joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after 243 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Three fintech patents, one joint stipulation: how this E.D. Texas dispute ended
On April 17, 2024, Intercurrency Software LLC filed a patent infringement action against Paybis Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00253), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Intercurrency asserted three patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — covering currency exchange platform technologies, targeting Paybis’s trading platforms and systems. Paybis, a cryptocurrency and fiat currency exchange operator, was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, one of the most prominent patent litigation firms in the country.
The case closed on December 16, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and counterclaims that were raised or could have been raised. Crucially, the dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Intercurrency is permanently barred from reasserting these three patents against Paybis on any grounds covered by this action. Neither party was awarded costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees.
At 243 days, the resolution is consistent with a case that settled or was otherwise privately resolved before meaningful merits litigation — no trial date was reached and no claim construction order appears in the public record. The simultaneous ‘own costs’ arrangement and with-prejudice finality strongly suggest the parties reached a confidential commercial agreement, the terms of which are not reflected in public filings. What drove Paybis to accept a with-prejudice dismissal — or Intercurrency to agree to it — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 243 days
243 days — resolved before trial, consistent with early negotiated resolution in E.D. Texas patent matters
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice — a final resolution
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a consensual procedural tool requiring agreement from all parties. When filed with prejudice, as here, it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Intercurrency cannot refile these claims against Paybis in any U.S. court. The court’s role is ministerial — it accepts and acknowledges the stipulation rather than ruling on the merits.
Permanent bar on refilingWith prejudice: Intercurrency’s claims are permanently extinguished
Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which preserves the right to refile — a with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future assertion of these patents against Paybis based on conduct covered by this action. This is an unusually final outcome for a plaintiff to accept voluntarily. It may signal that a licensing agreement or other commercial resolution was reached, or that Intercurrency concluded further litigation was not commercially viable given Paybis’s defence posture.
No refiling permittedPaybis secures permanent dismissal — but pays its own defence costs
Paybis, represented by Fish & Richardson, achieved the most protective outcome short of a merits win: permanent dismissal of all claims that were or could have been raised. The ‘own costs’ arrangement, however, means Paybis absorbed its own legal fees — a notable concession given the strength of a with-prejudice result. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which each side accepted a clean break without financial transfers appearing in the public record.
Clean exit, own costs borneFintech platforms facing assertion risk from currency exchange IP portfolios
This case illustrates continued assertion activity targeting cryptocurrency and fiat exchange platforms using foundational fintech patents. The three Intercurrency patents cover trading platform architectures and currency exchange workflows — technology broadly relevant to any operator in the digital payments or crypto exchange space. The with-prejudice outcome clears Paybis specifically but leaves these patents potentially assertable against other platforms operating in the same space.
Patents remain live vs. third partiesFull 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 | Paybis Ltd. | Company | Paybis Ltd. — cryptocurrency and fiat currency exchange platform operatorSearch 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 Paybis Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Paybis Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Riley James Green | Attorney | Counsel for Paybis Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Paybis Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Paybis Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order does not adjudicate the merits of infringement or validity — it accepts the parties’ joint stipulation as a procedural matter under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The with-prejudice qualifier carries the operative legal weight: it forecloses any future assertion of the three patents against Paybis based on conduct within the scope of this action, creating a res judicata bar. The ‘denied as moot’ disposition of all pending relief requests confirms no substantive ruling survived the dismissal. The own-costs arrangement is standard in stipulated dismissals but notable here given the defendant’s high-calibre representation.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1 & US10062107B1 — Currency Exchange Platform Technologies
The three asserted patents — US10776863B1 (App. No. 16/113289), US11449930B1 (App. No. 17/019359), and US10062107B1 (App. No. 11/736583) — cover systems and methods relating to digital currency exchange and trading platform architecture. The ‘583 application has a notably early filing date, suggesting the foundational claims may have priority reaching back to early online currency exchange technology. All three are granted US patents held by Intercurrency Software LLC and remain in force.
For operators of cryptocurrency exchanges, fiat currency conversion platforms, and digital payments infrastructure, these patents represent meaningful assertion risk. The patents’ focus on trading platform systems and currency exchange workflows means any platform processing multi-currency transactions or digital asset conversions should evaluate claim scope carefully. The fact that Intercurrency pursued Paybis — a significant crypto exchange operator — suggests it views its portfolio as commercially relevant to modern exchange architectures, not merely legacy software implementations.
Should your platform run an FTO against US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1?
If your organisation operates a cryptocurrency exchange, fiat currency trading platform, or multi-currency payments system with transaction flows or interface architectures similar to Paybis’s trading systems, these three patents warrant a freedom-to-operate review. The with-prejudice dismissal confirms Intercurrency actively enforces this portfolio and that potential targets include established digital asset exchange operators. R&D and product teams building new currency conversion features or exchange platform modules should treat these patents as live assertion risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against your platform’s technical architecture, flagging potential overlap in currency exchange workflows, trading system methods, and platform data handling. Eureka’s prior art analysis can also identify invalidating references that Fish & Richardson may have developed in this matter — providing a head start on any future challenge strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fintech patent cases in E.D. Texas: currency exchange and trading platforms
Cases involving software method patents asserted against cryptocurrency and digital currency exchange platforms in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the fintech and crypto exchange IP landscape
This E.D. Texas dismissal reflects a broader pattern of patent assertion targeting digital currency and payments platforms using software-method patents.
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 fintech and software patent cases. Plaintiffs seeking assertive scheduling and plaintiff-friendly procedural norms regularly file here. Cryptocurrency and payments platform operators should maintain active watch on E.D. Texas filings involving their core technology.
With-prejudice voluntary dismissals often mask confidential settlements
When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice and each bears its own costs, it typically signals a negotiated resolution whose terms are commercially sensitive. The structure protects both sides — the plaintiff avoids adverse rulings on validity or infringement, while the defendant secures permanent closure. The absence of a cost award is consistent with a clean mutual release.
Intercurrency v Paybis — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on December 16, 2024, after 243 days. Intercurrency Software LLC had asserted US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 against Paybis’s trading platforms. Each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling was entered.
US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 relate to currency exchange platform systems, digital trading architectures, and online currency transaction methods. App. No. 11/736583 for the ‘107 patent suggests an early priority date in online currency exchange technology. All three remain in force and were asserted against Paybis’s trading platforms and systems.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Intercurrency from suing Paybis Ltd. again on the same patents for conduct within the scope of this action. However, the three patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Intercurrency retains full rights to assert the portfolio against other defendants in the digital currency and payments space.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is a preferred venue for patent assertion entities and NPEs due to its historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling, case management, and procedural norms. Garteiser Honea PLLC, Intercurrency’s counsel, regularly files patent cases in E.D. Texas.
The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal and a mutual ‘each party bears its own costs’ order is consistent with — though does not confirm — a confidential settlement or licensing agreement. This structure is commonly used when parties reach a commercial resolution they wish to keep private. The public record does not disclose any financial terms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.