Intercurrency Software v. Thunes Asia: Currency Platform Patent Case Ends in Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

At the center of the dispute was **U.S. Patent No. US11620701B1** (Application No. US17/948217), which claims technology directed to a **platform for trading assets in different currencies**. This patent addresses the automated management and execution of multi-currency asset transactions — directly relevant to the real-time currency conversion and settlement infrastructure that cross-border payment networks like Thunes operate.

• • US11620701B1 — Platform for trading assets in different currencies

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded with **Plaintiff Intercurrency Software LLC filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal** pursuant to **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)**, resulting in dismissal **with prejudice** of all claims against Thunes Asia Pte. Ltd. The Court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal by written order. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted or sought at the time of resolution. No specific financial settlement terms were disclosed in the public record.

Procedural Mechanism: Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

Under **Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)**, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Thunes Asia had not yet answered the complaint, making this procedural mechanism available. Critically, the dismissal was filed **with prejudice** — meaning Intercurrency Software LLC permanently relinquished its right to re-assert these specific claims against Thunes Asia on the same patent.

This distinction matters significantly. A dismissal **without prejudice** would preserve the plaintiff’s option to refile. A dismissal **with prejudice** functions as a final adjudication on the merits and carries preclusive effect under res judicata principles. The voluntary election to accept this finality strongly suggests the parties reached a mutually acceptable resolution — most plausibly a **licensing agreement or structured settlement** — rather than an unconditional withdrawal.

Verdict Cause Analysis

No substantive legal rulings were issued in this matter. The court did not address patent validity, claim construction, infringement, or damages. Because the case resolved before any responsive pleading, there is no judicial record of how the claims of **US11620701B1** would have been interpreted against Thunes Asia’s currency trading platform.

The speed of resolution — roughly four and a half months from filing to dismissal — is consistent with patterns commonly observed in patent assertion entity (PAE) litigation, where defendants with robust IP defense resources, such as those represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, often prompt early resolution through licensing negotiation or credible invalidity challenges raised during pre-litigation discussions.

Legal Significance

While this case produced no precedential ruling, its procedural posture is itself instructive. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses future assertion of **US11620701B1** against Thunes Asia, providing the defendant with a permanent defense to any future infringement claims on this patent. For patent professionals tracking **fintech patent litigation trends**, the case illustrates how asserting patents in high-value technology corridors — particularly cross-border payments infrastructure — can generate rapid resolution even without reaching the merits.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders: Filing in the Eastern District of Texas before an experienced patent judge like Judge Gilstrap can accelerate resolution timelines. However, a with-prejudice dismissal permanently closes assertion avenues against a specific defendant — a significant concession that should be weighed carefully in multi-defendant campaign strategies.

For Accused Infringers: Early retention of experienced patent litigation counsel (evidenced here by Fish & Richardson’s involvement) can materially influence the trajectory and speed of resolution, even before a formal response is filed.

For R&D Teams: Currency trading platform architects and fintech engineers should conduct **Freedom to Operate (FTO) analyses** against patents like US11620701B1, which claims multi-currency asset trading infrastructure increasingly embedded in standard cross-border payment systems.