Bancor sues Uniswap for infringement: The free and open spirit of the crypto world is gone?
On May 20, 2025, decentralized exchange (DEX) pioneer Bancor filed a blockbuster complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that industry giant Uniswap Labs and its foundation were seeking huge damages for the unauthorized use of its 2017 patented "Constant Product Automated Market Maker" (CPAMM) technology. Bancor claims that the technology, which was born in 2016, is the cornerstone of DeFi trading, and that Uniswap has made billions of dollars in profits since its launch in 2018. The next day, Uniswap Labs hit back, denouncing the lawsuit as a "attention-grabbing" farce, calling it nothing more than "the stupidest provocation" on the cusp of regulation. This patent battle around CPAMM is not only a head-to-head confrontation between Bancor and Uniswap, but also a turning point in the intellectual property rules of the DeFi industry. With the collision of technology ownership, open source spirit and commercial interests in the on-chain world, who will define the future of DeFi? Let's walk into this storm of code and court.
CPAMM: The Mathematical Magic of DeFi and the Roots of
the ControversyTo understand the core of this lawsuit, the technical nature of the "Constant Product Automated Market Maker" (CPAMM) is inseparable. CPAMM's core formula – x * y = k – is simple but subversive: x and y represent the number of two assets in the liquidity pool, respectively, k is a constant, and the proportion of assets in the pool automatically adjusts the price after trading, replacing the order book of traditional exchanges. This mechanism allows decentralized trading to be intermediary-free, cost-effective, and surprisingly efficient, making it the lifeblood of DeFi.
The feud between Bancor and Uniswap is a microcosm of the evolution of DeFi. In 2016, Bancor pioneered the concept of CPAMM, an attempt to replace the cumbersome mechanisms of centralized exchanges with smart contracts. Its whitepaper outlines a utopia of intermediary-free, fully on-chain transactions that attracted a cult hit from the early blockchain community. The launch of Bancor Protocol in 2017 was hailed as the "pioneering work of DeFi", but its complex design and high gas fees limited user growth.
The advent of Uniswap has changed the rules of the game. In 2018, founder Hayden Adams launched the v1 protocol, which quickly captured users with a minimalist UI and an efficient on-chain experience. Uniswap not only optimizes the implementation of CPAMM, but also inspires developer enthusiasm through open-source code and community governance. V2, V3 and even V4 iterations in early 2025 have further consolidated its market dominance. Uniswap's success is inseparable from CPAMM's mathematical elegance, but Bancor insists that that elegance stems from its patents.
The contrast in market data highlights the gap between the two. Uniswap has a daily trading volume of nearly $3.8 billion, far exceeding Bancor's $378,000 (DeFiLlama, May 20, 2025). Uniswap's UNI token fell nearly 2% to $5.87 after the news of the lawsuit, but its ecosystem remains solid. Bancor, on the other hand, has a sluggish price of its BNT token, and its market influence is far less than it once was. Is Bancor's lawsuit a helpless attempt to use the law to turn the tables around? Or is it a legitimate defense of the rules of DeFi innovation? The answer may lie in Uniswap's response.
Uniswap's "toughness" vs. DeFi's open-source argument
has not remained silent in the face of Bancor's accusations. On May 21, Hayden Adams posted on the X platform that the lawsuit was "probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen" and said that "I won't bother with it until the lawyer tells me we won." Uniswap Labs further refutes this, saying that Bancor is "gaining attention" against the backdrop of tighter crypto regulations in the United States, trying to use the lawsuit to reverse the market disadvantage.
Behind Uniswap's tough attitude is a defense of the open source spirit of DeFi. CPAMM's core formula x * y = k is not complex mathematics and can be inspired even by Vitalik Buterin's early discussions. Uniswap may argue that Bancor's patent lacks originality or that the way in which it is realized differs from the specific claims of Bancor's patent. More importantly, the rise of DeFi relies on an open-source culture, and code sharing and iteration are the cornerstones of industry innovation. Does Bancor's attempt to constrain on-chain technology with traditional patent law go against the decentralized spirit of Web3?
Bancor countered that IP protection is a necessary condition to incentivize innovation. Mark Richardson warned: "If companies like Uniswap can use other people's technology without constraints, innovation across the DeFi industry will suffer." Bancor emphasized that its patents cover the concrete implementation of CPAMM's on-chain transactions, rather than abstract mathematical formulas, and are legally original and enforceable. This debate will test how courts interpret traditional patent law in the decentralized context of blockchain.
The legal
landscape of this lawsuit is uncertain. Bancor needs to prove the originality of its 2017 patent and prove that the Uniswap implementation directly infringes the patent claim. Uniswap may challenge the validity of the patent, emphasizing that the concept of CPAMM was publicly discussed prior to 2016, or stating that the unique optimizations of its protocol do not constitute infringement. In addition, the decentralized nature of DeFi adds complexity to litigation: smart contracts run on global nodes, and how does the territoriality of patent rights apply? Will the court recognize the enforceability of patents for on-chain technology?
The market reaction is also worth watching. Following the news of the lawsuit, UNI price briefly fell 3.74% to $5.71 and trading volume fell 14.18%, reflecting investors' concerns about uncertainty. Bancor used the lawsuit to return to the spotlight, and the price of BNT fluctuated slightly, but the overall market performance remained weak. If Bancor wins the case, it could win huge damages and force other DEXs to reassess the cost of licensing the technology; If Uniswap wins, DeFi's open-source culture will be further strengthened, but it may also weaken the incentive for patents to incentivize innovation.
The regulatory backdrop adds another layer to the litigation. In September 2024, Bancor successfully circumvented a securities class action lawsuit due to a lack of jurisdiction in the United States. In February 2025, Uniswap emerged from the SEC's investigation and cemented its compliance image. In 2025, the year of the breakthrough of the stablecoin bill, regulators' focus on DeFi is intensifying, and this lawsuit could be a litmus test for testing the boundaries of blockchain intellectual property.
The Future of DeFi: Open Source or Patent?
The patent battle between Bancor and Uniswap is not only a feud between the two DEXs, but also a crossroads for the DeFi industry at the technical, legal and ethical levels. Referring to Amber Group's reinvention of the AI+crypto narrative through MIA, Bancor may hope to reinvigorate the brand through litigation and reverse the market decline. Similar to Visa's integration into Web3 through an on-chain strategy, Bancor attempts to redefine its role in the DeFi ecosystem using patents as leverage. However, the risk of patent wars lies in alienating the community – DeFi users are more inclined to support open-source projects than defenders of traditional laws.
From a broader perspective, the lawsuit could reshape the innovation model for DeFi. If patents become mainstream, developers need to assess the legal risks before developing the technology, which may inhibit the vitality of start-up projects. If the open source culture prevails, the reward mechanism for early innovators may be limited, affecting long-term R&D investment. The discussion on Platform X reflects a split in the community: some users support Bancor to defend their intellectual property, while others see its move as a betrayal of DeFi's original decentralization aspirations.
Bancor's lawsuit could also trigger a ripple effect. Are other DEXs, such as SushiSwap or Curve, also exposed to similar patent risks? Will the widespread use of CPAMM lead to more legal disputes? Legal analysts predict that a victory for Bancor could push the DeFi industry to develop a clearer IP framework; If the lawsuit is lost, the applicability of the patent in the blockchain space will be questioned.
Conclusion: Bancor's patent lawsuit against Uniswap,a rule-based game in the on-chain world
, is like a pebble thrown into the surface of a DeFi lake, stirring up ripples in technology, law and culture. The mathematical beauty of CPAMM has made decentralized trading shine from a dream to a reality; Today, it is the focus of controversy in the courts. In the conflict between the spirit of open source and commercial interests, the battle between Bancor and Uniswap is not only about the amount of compensation, but also about the soul of DeFi: how should innovation be defined, protected and inherited?
The outcome of this lawsuit may determine whether DeFi continues to embrace borderless code-sharing or steps into commercialization with patent barriers. Whether it's developers, investors, or on-chain users, we're witnessing the rules of a new era. The battle between Bancor and Uniswap has been ignited, which side are you on? Who will define the future?