Uniswap has secured a major legal victory after a U.S. court ruled in its favour in a patent infringement lawsuit linked to Bancor, a DeFi protocol and automated market maker (AMM).
The case questioned the core technology behind Uniswap’s AMM system, which is the mechanism that allows users to trade tokens without traditional intermediaries.
Founder Hayden Adams confirmed on X that his legal team had won the case, calling it a significant moment not just for Uniswap but for the broader DeFi ecosystem ON Wednesday.
The decision reinforces confidence in decentralized trading models and could set an important precedent for how blockchain innovation and open-source financial protocols are treated in future legal disputes.
What was the case about?
The lawsuit started back in May 2025, when the Bprotocol Foundation and LocalCoin Ltd., entities connected with Bancor, filed a patent infringement complaint in a New York federal court against Uniswap Labs and the Uniswap Foundation.
Plaintiffs contend that the automation of the trading of tokens on Uniswap was conditioned on the use of technology that was patented back in 2017. The allegations further included claims that the decentralized exchange employed an essential part of Bancor’s invention without permission.
The patent focused on the automated market maker model of a constant product, also known as the x*y=k formula, which is applied broadly in token pricing within liquidity pools and powering many decentralized exchanges.
The Bancor-linked entities had claimed that Uniswap had used the patented mechanism without permission since its launch in 2018.
The lawsuit, in its turn, sought financial damages, accusing the platform of having benefited for years from technology they believe was used without a license.
The case wasn’t just an end-to-end showdown between the two companies but equally resulted in a conversation on the intellectual property and even the way open-source blockchain projects are controlled and regulated.
Why was the case dismissed?
According to those with knowledge of the matter, the court held that the allegations did not satisfy the legal standard for patent infringement, particularly due to the open-source nature of the Uniswap software.
Additionally, judges found it difficult to argue about exclusive ownership when the technology was freely available and widely used.
Legal analysts believe that the case has the potential to be a significant precedent because it shows that it is possible that simple systems, like those based on simple mathematical formulas for dealing with finance, are not necessarily easy to patent if they have become the standard through collaboration.