Case Collapses on Its Own Premise
Swan filed the original suit in California federal court after several executives and consultants left the company amid what court filings describe as significant operational and financial strain. Swan alleged misappropriation of proprietary assets tied to its bitcoin mining operations.
Proton denied the claims from the start. Defense attorneys argued that Swan never operated an independent mining business of its own. The operations in question, they said, were connected to a separate Tether-funded entity commonly referenced as 2040 Energy, not Swan itself.
That argument held. In related UK litigation, Swan conceded it does not own any of the alleged proprietary assets, documents, or trade secrets that formed the basis of the California case.
Attorneys Call It a Clear Vindication
Adam Trigg, partner at Bergeson LLP, said the outcome confirmed what his team argued from the beginning. “Swan was forced to admit this crucial fact and dismiss its own case,” Trigg said.
Amanda Russo, partner at Goodwin, called the dismissal a significant victory. “Swan’s case has finally been dismissed from a forum it never belonged in the first place,” she said.
Matthew Kanny, also a partner at Goodwin, noted the defense had already defeated Swan’s requests for a temporary restraining order and expedited discovery before the full dismissal came through.
Permanent Bar on Refiling
Proton stated that Swan is now permanently prohibited from pursuing these specific trade secrets claims in any venue, based on the concessions made in the UK proceedings. The company disclosed that it expects any future claims Swan might attempt to file to reach the same outcome.
Proton said it has addressed these matters through the courts and remains focused on its mining operations and growth strategy.
18 Months of Litigation
The lawsuit has been active since late 2024. Proton characterized the suit as retaliatory, filed after its personnel departed Swan during a period of internal financial difficulty. The California federal court dismissal on June 1 closes that chapter.
The case drew attention partly due to the Tether connection, with the underlying mining operations linked to a Tether-funded structure rather than Swan’s own balance sheet. That detail proved decisive.
For bitcoin miners, operators, and investors tracking corporate disputes in the space, the outcome signals that trade secrets claims without clear ownership documentation face real structural risk in federal court.
Swan Bitcoin founder Cory Klippsten pushed back on Proton’s characterization of the outcome, calling the dismissal announcement misleading. In an X post, Klippsten pointed to language in the court’s own ruling that cuts against Proton’s framing, noting the judge wrote that the court found “no indicia of bad faith on Plaintiff’s part” and that Swan’s claims were not “baseless,” adding that prior orders had “indicated the opposite.”
Klippsten also said the California dismissal does not end Swan’s pursuit of Zagury, noting that a separate JAMS arbitration demand filed against Zagury in March 2026 lays out detailed allegations of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference tied to what Swan’s filings describe as a coordinated plan to strip Swan of its mining operations and Tether partnership.
