In a case that concluded after just 196 days, Intercurrency Software LLC’s patent infringement action against State Street Bank and Trust Company, State Street Corporation, and Charles River Development (d/b/a Charles River Systems, Inc.) was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas on August 20, 2024. The dispute centered on three U.S. patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — covering financial software technology, with Intercurrency targeting Charles River’s widely deployed investment management and order execution platforms. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs under the joint stipulation.

The swift resolution via joint stipulation of dismissal, before Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss was ruled upon, signals a negotiated exit rather than a litigated defeat or victory for either side. For IP strategists, in-house counsel at financial technology firms, and patent practitioners operating in the investment management software space, this outcome highlights the strategic calculus around asserting fintech patents in the Eastern District of Texas and the leverage dynamics created by pending dispositive motions.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The three asserted patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — cover computer-implemented systems and methods for managing multi-currency financial data, investment records, and related transaction processing within institutional investment workflows. The patents address how software tracks, reconciles, and reports financial positions across different currencies and asset classes in real time. Their real-world application targets the kind of investment book-of-record and order management functionality that platforms like Charles River’s solutions provide to asset managers and hedge funds.

• • US10776863B1
• • US11449930B1
• • US10062107B1

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Garteiser Honea PLLC (lead: Christopher A. Honea)
Defendant Counsel: Gillam & Smith, LLP; Ropes & Gray LLP (Boston); Ropes & Gray LLP (New York) (lead: Kevin John Post)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The case was filed on February 6, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent assertion entities for its patent-plaintiff-friendly procedures, experienced patent dockets, and the presiding oversight of Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the most prolific patent trial judges in the federal judiciary. Filing in this district also signals a deliberate venue strategy by Intercurrency’s counsel at Garteiser Honea PLLC, a firm with deep roots in E.D. Texas patent litigation.

At just 196 days from filing to closure, the case resolved well before any trial or substantive merits ruling. The pivotal procedural event was Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 19), which remained pending at the time of dismissal and was subsequently denied as moot. The joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — filed at Dkt. No. 45 — indicates the parties reached a private resolution, most likely a settlement or licensing agreement, rather than Intercurrency suffering or winning a contested ruling. The ‘with prejudice’ designation forecloses any refiling of these same claims against these defendants on these patents.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Court accepted the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, ordering all of Intercurrency Software’s claims against State Street Bank and Trust, State Street Corporation, and Charles River Development dismissed with prejudice. No damages were awarded publicly, no injunctive relief was issued, and no merits determination was made on the underlying infringement allegations. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, and all pending motions — including Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss — were denied as moot.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The dismissal with prejudice arose from a negotiated joint stipulation rather than a court-adjudicated infringement finding, with several procedural and strategic factors shaping the outcome:

• Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 19) created significant early pressure on Intercurrency’s infringement claims, signaling substantive legal challenges to at least one element of the case before discovery could advance.
• The ‘with prejudice’ dismissal is legally significant: Intercurrency Software is permanently barred from reasserting the three asserted patents against these specific defendants on the same claims, eliminating future litigation risk for State Street and Charles River on this patent set.
• The mutual cost-bearing provision — each party absorbing its own fees — is a hallmark of negotiated settlement exits and suggests neither party conceded wrongdoing or prevailed in the traditional sense, consistent with a licensing or covenant-not-to-sue arrangement.
• The rapid 196-day closure, before claim construction or substantive discovery, indicates the parties calculated that a negotiated resolution was economically preferable to continued litigation costs and patent validity risk.

Legal Significance

1. 1. The dismissal establishes no claim construction record for US10776863B1, US11449930B1, or US10062107B1, meaning these patents retain their full scope of ambiguity and could be asserted against other parties in the investment management software market without adverse claim narrowing from this proceeding.
2. 2. Defendants’ filing of a Renewed Motion to Dismiss — rather than an Answer — suggests counsel identified potentially dispositive § 101 eligibility or pleading-sufficiency arguments, a recurring challenge for fintech software patents that future defendants facing these patents should investigate as a primary defense strategy.
3. 3. The outcome does not create binding precedent on the validity or enforceability of the asserted patents, leaving open the possibility that Intercurrency or its successors could assert these patents against other institutional investment technology providers, including competing IBOR and OEMS vendors.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When representing fintech defendants against software patent assertions in E.D. Texas, filing a well-reasoned Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or § 101 early — as defense counsel did here — creates meaningful settlement leverage before expensive discovery commences.
• The absence of a claim construction record from this case means practitioners monitoring US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 should conduct independent claim mapping exercises, as no court-narrowed interpretation constrains future assertion targets.
• Negotiating a joint stipulation with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing is a clean exit mechanism that preserves client resources and eliminates re-litigation risk — counsel should build this option into early case strategy discussions whenever a pending dispositive motion tips the balance.
• Garteiser Honea PLLC’s use of E.D. Texas for fintech patent assertion is a consistent filing pattern worth tracking; attorneys advising institutional financial technology clients should monitor the firm’s docket for early warning of similar campaigns against comparable platforms.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house IP teams at investment management software vendors should audit their products against US10776863B1, US11449930B1, and US10062107B1 — even though State Street resolved this dispute, the patents survive fully intact and may be asserted against other IBOR, OEMS, or investment data management platforms.
• The rapid settlement here underscores the value of maintaining pre-litigation patent watch programs that flag newly issued fintech patents and their prosecution history, enabling faster FTO assessments before products reach market and before litigation risk materializes.

For R&D Teams:

• Engineering teams building multi-currency investment record management, order execution, or portfolio accounting systems should conduct freedom-to-operate reviews against the Intercurrency patent family, particularly for features involving real-time currency reconciliation, investment position tracking, and cross-asset class reporting.
• Design-around strategies for the three asserted patents should consider alternative data architecture approaches to investment book-of-record functionality — since no claim construction narrowed these patents in litigation, the full breadth of their claims remains a potential risk for competing product implementations.