Intercurrency Software v. Wirex Limited — Dismissed With Prejudice After 207 Days
Intercurrency Software LLC asserted four US patents covering consolidated trading platform technology against Wirex Limited in the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution reached in under seven months.
Four trading-platform patents, one stipulated end — no merits ruling
Filed on 23 May 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, this case saw Intercurrency Software LLC assert four patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 — against Wirex Limited, a cryptocurrency-focused payments and trading company. The patents cover apparatus and methods for a consolidated trading platform, technology central to multi-asset digital finance services.
The case closed on 16 December 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice 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. Critically, the dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Intercurrency Software is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Wirex based on the same underlying conduct. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The 207-day timeline from filing to closure is notably short for a four-patent infringement action in E.D. Texas, suggesting the parties reached a private resolution — likely a licence or cross-agreement — before significant claim construction or discovery expenditure. The public record is silent on any financial terms or licensing arrangements; the stipulation structure and mutual cost-bearing are consistent with a negotiated commercial settlement rather than a unilateral concession by either party.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 207 days
207 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice — permanent bar on re-filing
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from both parties and operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to re-file — this order permanently extinguishes Intercurrency Software’s ability to pursue the same claims against Wirex arising from the same conduct. The court accepted the stipulation without issuing a substantive ruling on patent validity or infringement.
Permanent bar on re-filingIntercurrency Software permanently relinquishes its claims against Wirex
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Intercurrency Software has surrendered any future litigation leverage over Wirex based on these four patents and the accused trading platform conduct. However, the patents themselves remain in force and the company retains the right to enforce them against other defendants. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests neither party viewed the case as sufficiently strong — or resolved it on terms that made fee recovery unnecessary.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersWirex secures permanent dismissal — potential licensing terms undisclosed
Wirex achieves certainty: no finding of infringement, no damages award, and a permanent bar against Intercurrency re-asserting these specific claims. Whether Wirex paid a licence fee or other consideration in exchange for the with-prejudice dismissal is not reflected in the public record. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation, and Wirex avoids any admission of liability or validity of the asserted patents.
No liability finding — terms undisclosedTrading platform IP risk persists — patents survive for assertion elsewhere
All four asserted patents remain active and enforceable. Intercurrency Software’s willingness to assert a four-patent portfolio against a UK-headquartered crypto-payments operator in E.D. Texas signals ongoing enforcement appetite in the consolidated trading platform space. Other fintech and crypto-exchange operators whose products involve multi-asset trading infrastructure should assess their exposure to this portfolio, particularly given Intercurrency’s use of specialist patent litigation counsel at Garteiser Honea.
Portfolio remains live enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intercurrency Software, LLC | Company | Consolidated trading platform patent assertion entity — holder of US10776863B1 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wirex Limited | Individual | Wirex Limited — cryptocurrency payments and multi-asset trading platform operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Intercurrency Software, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Intercurrency Software, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Intercurrency Software, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Baechler | Attorney | Counsel for Wirex LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Craig D. Leavell | Attorney | Counsel for Wirex LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wirex LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting the joint stipulation is procedural rather than substantive — it confirms dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) but makes no findings on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement. The reference to Paybis Ltd. in the verdict text alongside Wirex suggests this dismissal is part of a related multi-defendant enforcement campaign (Member Case No. 2:24-CV-00253-JRG), consistent with a broader licensing programme by Intercurrency Software across the consolidated trading platform sector.
US10776863B1 — Consolidated trading platform apparatus and methods
The four asserted patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 — collectively cover apparatus and methods for a consolidated trading platform, a technical domain encompassing multi-asset order management, currency conversion, and unified account access. The portfolio spans application numbers from US11/736583 through to US17/948217, suggesting a continuation-heavy prosecution strategy designed to extend claim coverage as the underlying technology evolved. The earliest application number in the portfolio indicates priority roots predating the widespread adoption of cryptocurrency trading infrastructure.
Strategically, a four-patent portfolio with continuation coverage across multiple application generations creates significant enforcement depth: each patent may capture different claim elements of a modern consolidated trading platform, making design-arounds more complex. Wirex’s core product — a multi-currency card and trading account combining fiat and crypto assets — represents precisely the type of integrated platform architecture that consolidated trading platform patents are drafted to capture. Other operators in the digital asset exchange, neo-banking, and multi-asset brokerage sectors face analogous exposure and should assess whether their platform architectures intersect with any claims in this portfolio.
Should your trading platform team run an FTO against this portfolio?
Any fintech, cryptocurrency exchange, or multi-asset brokerage whose product integrates order routing, currency conversion, and consolidated account management into a single platform interface should treat this four-patent portfolio as a live FTO priority. Intercurrency Software has demonstrated willingness to litigate in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue — and the portfolio’s continuation structure means claim scope may be broader than the lead patent alone suggests. Product and engineering teams building or acquiring consolidated trading infrastructure should commission an FTO before launch or major feature releases.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against all four asserted patents simultaneously, identify relevant prior art, and flag continuation risks across the portfolio. Rather than a manual claim-by-claim review, Eureka surfaces the specific claim elements most likely to intersect with consolidated trading platform architectures — giving IP counsel and R&D teams a prioritised risk picture in hours rather than weeks. Start with a patent family analysis on US10776863B1 to understand the full continuation chain.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776863B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar consolidated trading platform patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving consolidated trading platform and fintech software patents litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas — benchmarked by outcome and duration.
What this case signals for the fintech and crypto trading IP landscape
A four-patent assertion resolved in under seven months in E.D. Texas — here is what trading platform operators and fintech IP teams need to watch.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for fintech patent assertions
Intercurrency’s choice of Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with broader plaintiff-side trends in software and fintech patent litigation. Companies offering consolidated or multi-asset trading platforms should treat E.D. Texas filings as a live risk and ensure their prior art and invalidity positions are current.
With-prejudice exit protects Wirex but leaves the portfolio intact for others
The stipulated dismissal resolves Wirex’s exposure permanently, but all four patents — covering trading platform apparatus and methods — remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Fintech operators with similar product architectures should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the portfolio is inactive or commercially exhausted.
Intercurrency v Wirex — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Intercurrency Software from re-asserting the same patent claims against Wirex arising from the same conduct. No merits ruling was issued on validity or infringement. Each party bears its own costs. The four asserted patents remain enforceable against other defendants.
Intercurrency Software asserted four US patents: US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1. All four cover apparatus and methods for a consolidated trading platform. The portfolio spans multiple application generations, suggesting a continuation-based prosecution strategy designed to maintain broad claim coverage over evolving trading platform technology.
The Eastern District of Texas, and specifically Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s docket, is frequently selected by patent assertion entities and NPEs for software and fintech patent cases due to its historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling and case management practices. Intercurrency Software was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, a Texas-based IP litigation firm with significant E.D. Texas experience.
A 207-day resolution for a four-patent infringement action in E.D. Texas is notably short. Cases of this complexity typically proceed through claim construction and significant discovery before resolution. The rapid timeline, combined with a mutual cost-bearing stipulation, is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution — likely a licence or structured exit — reached before substantial litigation expenditure on either side.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the claims between Intercurrency Software and Wirex Limited. All four asserted patents — US10776863B1, US11449930B1, US10062107B1, and US11620701B1 — remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. Fintech and crypto trading platform operators with similar product architectures should assess their exposure independently.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.