Uniswap wins procedural victory as Bancor patents fail eligibility test

Uniswap wins procedural victory as Bancor patents fail eligibility test
Court rules Uniswap AMM patents cannot be protected under US law

​A New York federal judge has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Bancor-affiliated entities against Uniswap, ruling that the asserted patents claim abstract ideas and are not eligible for protection under US law. 

Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York found that the patents relate to the abstract concept of calculating cryptocurrency exchange rates, failing the Supreme Court’s two-step patent eligibility test, reports Cointelegraph.

The court said currency exchange is a fundamental economic practice and that applying pricing formulas does not become patentable simply because it runs on blockchain infrastructure. The ruling grants Uniswap a procedural victory, though it is not final. The case was dismissed without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs 21 days to file an amended complaint. If no revised filing is made, the dismissal will convert to one with prejudice, permanently ending the claim.

Court rules blockchain implementation not enough for patent protection

Bancor’s complaint alleged that Uniswap infringed patents covering a “constant product automated market maker” model used in decentralized exchanges. However, Judge Koeltl determined that implementing such pricing mechanisms through smart contracts and blockchain networks does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. 

The decision emphasized that limiting an economic concept to a particular technological environment does not satisfy patent law requirements. The court also found no “inventive concept” that would meaningfully differentiate the patents from long-standing financial principles. In addition, the judge ruled that the complaint failed to plausibly allege direct infringement. According to the memorandum, the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate how Uniswap’s publicly available code incorporated the specific reserve ratio constant described in the patents.

Plaintiffs may attempt an amended complaint

Beyond eligibility concerns, the court dismissed claims of induced and willful infringement, noting that the complaint did not plausibly show Uniswap had prior knowledge of the patents before litigation began. The dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility that Bprotocol Foundation and LocalCoin Ltd. could revise and refile their complaint. Shortly after the ruling, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams posted on X that “a lawyer just told me we won,” signaling confidence in the outcome. 

Neither side provided official comment immediately following the decision. The case highlights ongoing tensions over intellectual property rights in decentralized finance, where open-source protocols often intersect with claims of proprietary innovation. Whether the plaintiffs amend their filing may determine if the dispute continues or effectively concludes at this stage.

Recently we wrote that over the coming 5 to 7 trading days, UNI is expected to consolidate within the $3.00 – $3.68 range, with a sideways scenario being the likeliest based on current weekly indicators.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.
Weekly Top Bonuses
up to $2,500
deposit bonus for all clients
CLAIM BONUS
Your capital is at risk.