qerranews 
A US federal judge has dismissed the Bancor patent lawsuit against Uniswap, giving the decentralized exchange an important early legal victory. The ruling strengthens Uniswap’s legal standing and raises broader questions about patent rights in decentralized finance (DeFi).
However, the case is not fully over yet.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning Bancor-affiliated entities have 21 days to amend their claims before the decision becomes final.
US Judge Rules Patents Are Abstract Ideas
Judge John G. Koeltl of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued the ruling on Feb. 10. He granted Uniswap’s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Bprotocol Foundation and LocalCoin Ltd.
The lawsuit alleged that Uniswap infringed patents related to a constant product automated market maker (AMM) system. This model is widely used in decentralized exchanges to calculate token prices and manage liquidity pools.
According to the court, the patents focus on the abstract idea of calculating currency exchange rates.
The judge explained that currency exchange is a “fundamental economic practice.” Therefore, it cannot qualify for patent protection under US patent eligibility law.
The ruling applied the Supreme Court’s two-step test for determining whether an invention is patentable. Under this test, abstract ideas are not eligible for patent protection unless they include an “inventive concept” that transforms them into something significantly more.
In this case, the court found no such inventive concept.
Blockchain Use Does Not Make It Patentable
Bancor argued that implementing the pricing formula on blockchain infrastructure made the invention patentable.
However, the judge rejected that argument.
He stated that using blockchain and smart contracts in predictable ways does not make an abstract idea patent-eligible. Simply limiting an economic formula to a specific technological environment is not enough.
This part of the Uniswap patent case could have wider implications for DeFi innovation. Many decentralized finance protocols rely on automated market maker models. If such models were easily patentable, innovation across the sector could slow down.
Instead, the ruling suggests courts may remain cautious about granting patents over core DeFi mechanisms.
Complaint Failed to Show Direct Infringement
In addition to patent eligibility issues, the court also found problems with the infringement claims.
The judge said the plaintiffs failed to plausibly show that Uniswap’s publicly available code included the specific reserve ratio constant mentioned in the patents.
As a result, the court dismissed claims of direct infringement.
Furthermore, the court dismissed allegations of induced and willful infringement. The complaint did not clearly demonstrate that Uniswap knew about the patents before the lawsuit was filed. Without prior knowledge, willful infringement claims cannot stand.
These findings further weakened the Bancor patent lawsuit.
Dismissal Without Prejudice Explained
Although this decision favors Uniswap, it is not final.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice. This means Bancor-affiliated entities have 21 days to file an amended complaint. If they fail to do so, the dismissal will convert to one with prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice would prevent the plaintiffs from refiling the same claims in the future.
Shortly after the ruling, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams reacted on X, saying, “A lawyer just told me we won.”
A lawyer just told me we won https://t.co/IakITk0F3Q
— Hayden Adams 🦄 (@haydenzadams) February 11, 2026
While the statement reflects optimism, the legal process is still technically open.
What This Means for DeFi and Crypto Patents
The Uniswap lawsuit is being closely watched across the crypto industry. At its core, the case raises an important question: Can foundational DeFi mechanisms be patented?
Automated market makers are essential to decentralized exchanges. They allow users to trade tokens without centralized intermediaries. If courts allowed broad patents on AMM designs, other protocols might face similar legal challenges.
Instead, this ruling signals judicial skepticism toward patent claims covering widely used economic formulas.
If the dismissal ultimately becomes final, it could set an important precedent in future crypto patent infringement cases.
For now, Uniswap has secured an early procedural win. Whether the Bancor patent dispute continues depends on whether the plaintiffs amend their complaint within the given timeframe.
Conclusion
The judge’s decision to dismiss the Bancor lawsuit against Uniswap marks a significant moment in the evolving relationship between intellectual property law and decentralized finance.
The court ruled that the patents claim abstract ideas and lack an inventive concept. It also found that the complaint failed to properly allege infringement.
Although the dismissal is not yet final, the ruling boosts Uniswap’s legal standing and provides temporary relief in the ongoing AMM patent dispute.
The next 21 days will determine whether this legal battle continues — or comes to a close.