Mantissa v. Fiserv: Settlement Ends 6-Year Card Control Patent Dispute

Updated on Dec. 8, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

After six years of litigation, Mantissa Corporation and Fiserv Solutions, LLC have reached a settlement in a patent infringement case involving mobile card control technology. The Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case with prejudice on June 4, 2025, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees—a resolution that followed a significant Federal Circuit ruling casting doubt on Mantissa’s patent claims.

The case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658B2, covering systems for controlling financial account usage through user-defined parameters. Mantissa alleged that Fiserv’s CardValet® mobile application infringed this patent. The settlement comes at a pivotal moment for fintech patent litigation, where mobile card controls have become an industry-standard feature.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Mantissa Corporation owns the ‘658 patent, claiming methods for identity protection and fraud prevention through user-controlled account restrictions. Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Fiserv, Inc. (NASDAQ: FISV) is a global financial services technology leader. Fiserv Solutions, LLC and Fiserv, Inc. were both named as defendants.

The Patent at Issue

US9,361,658B2, titled “System and Method for Enhanced Protection and Control Over the Use of Identity,” describes technology allowing users to protect against identity theft by placing limitations on financial account usage. Key claimed features include ON/OFF account status, authorized transaction categories by merchant type, and geographic boundaries for permitted transactions.

💡 Key Insight: The term “transaction partner” was added during prosecution without specification support—a claim construction vulnerability that proved fatal to Mantissa’s assertions.

The Accused Products

• iDovos® system — Mantissa’s commercial implementation
• CardValet® application — Fiserv’s mobile card management platform enabling cardholders to control spending limits, merchant categories, and geographic restrictions

CardValet has been widely deployed by financial institutions, making this Illinois district court patent case commercially significant.

Litigation Timeline

⚖️ May 10, 2019: Mantissa filed suit alleging patent infringement in Northern District of Illinois

⚖️ Venue Strategy: Illinois provided consistency with parallel First Financial litigation (Case No. 1:17-cv-09174)

⚖️ Case Stayed: Pending Federal Circuit appeal in Mantissa v. First Financial

⚖️ February 14, 2024: Federal Circuit affirmed indefiniteness finding, invalidating key claims (Case No. 22-1963)

⚖️ June 4, 2025: Chief Judge John F. Kness entered final dismissal with prejudice

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded. The dismissal with prejudice bars refiling.

The Federal Circuit’s Impact

The settlement followed the February 2024 ruling in Mantissa v. First Financial (No. 22-1963). The Federal Circuit found “transaction partner” indefinite because:

• The term appeared nowhere in the original specification
• It was added in a preliminary amendment filed nine years after the priority application
• Neither “seller” nor “party to a transaction” constructions resolved the ambiguity

Mantissa had agreed to be bound by claim constructions across parallel cases. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP.

⚖️ Legal Note: Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, claims must inform skilled artisans with “reasonable certainty” about invention scope. Undefined terms introduced during prosecution face heightened patent validity scrutiny.

Strategic Observations

🔬 For Patent Holders: This case illustrates risks when claim language lacks firm specification support.

🔬 For Accused Infringers: Indefiniteness challenges can dispose of cases without reaching infringement merits.

🔬 For R&D Teams: Conduct FTO analysis against the full patent landscape. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Mantissa Fiserv patent case analysis reveals important 2025 fintech patent trends. The settlement allows Fiserv to continue offering CardValet without licensing obligations.

Mobile card control functionality (instant lock/unlock, spending controls, real-time alerts) has become standard in consumer financial services. This resolution removes patent uncertainty from the product category.

📊 Settlement Pattern: Dismissal with prejudice and split costs suggests negotiated resolution following adverse appellate ruling.

For financial institutions evaluating card control applications, this outcome provides clarity regarding the ‘658 patent. Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Claim terms introduced without specification support face indefiniteness risk
• Parallel litigation requires coordination; adverse rulings may bind across cases

📊 For IP Professionals:

• Monitor parallel litigation for strategic intelligence
• Stipulated dismissals with split costs often indicate settlement without clear winner

🔬 For R&D Leaders:

• Card control features remain commercially deployable
• Independent FTO analysis remains essential for each product

FAQ

What patent was involved in Mantissa v. Fiserv? US9,361,658B2, covering user-controlled financial account restrictions for identity protection.

Why did the case settle? The dismissal followed a Federal Circuit ruling finding key claim terms indefinite in related litigation.

How does this affect mobile card control products? The indefiniteness finding suggests similar products may have freedom to operate, though independent analysis remains essential.

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP for litigation tracking and IP strategy insights.

Case Reference: Mantissa Corp. v. Fiserv Solutions, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-03204 (N.D. Ill.)
Related Appeal: Mantissa Corp. v. First Financial Corp., No. 22-1963 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
Court Docket: PACER – Northern District of Illinois

DISCLAIMER: This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information presented is based on publicly available case data and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified patent attorney. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Readers should consult with licensed legal professionals regarding specific legal questions or matters. Past case outcomes do not guarantee similar results in future litigation.