U.S. Judge Dismisses Bancor Patent Suit Against Uniswap, Court Finds AMM Claims Abstract

A New York federal judge has thrown out a patent-infringement case brought by Bancor-affiliated entities against Uniswap, ruling on February 10, 2026 that the asserted patents are not eligible for patent protection because they describe abstract ideas. In practical terms, the decision removes an immediate legal overhang for Uniswap’s protocol codebase and lowers near-term litigation-driven disruption risk for teams building or operating around similar DeFi infrastructure.

U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl applied the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework and found that the challenged claims, including U.S. Patent 10,902,456, were directed to an abstract concept centered on calculating exchange rates. The court also concluded the patents lacked an “inventive concept” that would turn that abstract calculation into a patent-eligible technological implementation simply because it runs in a blockchain context.

Why the court treated the patents as abstract

The patents at issue were framed around automated market maker pricing logic that is widely expressed through constant-product formulas and ratio-based pool calculations. By characterizing the core mechanics as economic math rather than a concrete technical improvement, the ruling supports continued use of established AMM pricing approaches without immediate fear of injunctions or forced licensing negotiations.

Procedurally, the dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning it is not necessarily the final word if plaintiffs attempt to re-plead their case. The order includes a 21-day window for the plaintiffs—identified in filings as Bprotocol Foundation and LocalCoin Ltd.—to submit an amended complaint, after which the dismissal can convert to one with prejudice if no amendment is filed.

What this changes for operators and builders

For node operators, indexers, and client teams, the ruling reduces the probability of sudden legal-driven rewrites, emergency forks, or rushed client upgrades meant to route around alleged patent exposure. That lowered escalation risk helps preserve more predictable upgrade cycles and steadier operational planning for peer-to-peer infrastructure and synchronization workflows.

The decision is still a waypoint rather than a permanent closure, because plaintiffs may return with narrower or more technical claims. Even so, the court’s posture signals skepticism toward patents that mainly restate conventional pricing algorithms in a blockchain wrapper, which should inform how teams assess legal risk when building around standard AMM primitives.