CheckWizard v. Independent Bank: Voluntary Dismissal Ends Fintech Patent Case

Updated on Dec. 9, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

In a swift resolution to fintech patent litigation, CheckWizard LLC voluntarily dismissed its infringement claims against Independent Bank Group, Inc. with prejudice on May 22, 2025. Notably, the case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap concluded just 105 days after filing—significantly faster than typical patent litigation timelines.

Specifically, the dispute centered on US10140514B1, which covers mobile image capture and sharing technology with time-limited display features. This voluntary dismissal with prejudice permanently bars CheckWizard LLC from reasserting these claims, consequently suggesting a confidential settlement or strategic withdrawal.

For patent attorneys and IP professionals tracking Texas Eastern District patent cases, this outcome therefore offers valuable insights into early-stage resolution strategies and the continuing role of this venue in fintech patent disputes.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

CheckWizard LLC served as plaintiff and patent holder in this dispute. Meanwhile, Independent Bank Group, Inc. is a bank holding company that provides commercial and consumer banking services.

The Patent at Issue

US10140514B1 relates to systems for capturing and sharing images with mobile device users, including functionality for time-limited image display. As a result, this technology has significant applications in mobile banking, particularly for remote deposit capture and document verification features. Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP to analyze comparable fintech patent portfolios.

The Accused Products

CheckWizard LLC alleged that Independent Bank Group’s products relating to capturing and sharing images with mobile device users—including time-limited display features—infringed the asserted patent claims. However, specific product names were not disclosed in court filings.

Legal Representation

⚖️ Plaintiff: Rabicoff Law LLC, led by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff, represented CheckWizard LLC in this matter.

⚖️ Defendant: In contrast, The Mazingo Firm PC, with Jason Dwain Mazingo as lead counsel, defended Independent Bank Group, Inc.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The CheckWizard Independent Bank patent case followed an accelerated timeline:

📊 February 6, 2025: Complaint filed in Texas Eastern District Court, a venue historically significant for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and efficient case management.

📊 February–May 2025: Early case proceedings, including initial disclosures and scheduling conferences.

📊 May 22, 2025: Plaintiff filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 27) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

The 105-day duration represents a notably short litigation cycle. This expedited conclusion may indicate pre-litigation negotiations or rapid post-filing settlement discussions. Case documents are available via PACER. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP for comparative duration analysis.

💡 Key Insight: Voluntary dismissals with prejudice within 120 days often indicate confidential settlements reached during early discovery, before significant litigation costs accrue.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap accepted CheckWizard LLC’s voluntary dismissal, ordering:

• Member Case No. 2:25-CV-149-JRG dismissed with prejudice
• Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
• All pending relief requests denied as moot
• Case closed

The “with prejudice” designation permanently extinguishes CheckWizard LLC’s ability to refile these specific infringement claims against Independent Bank Group, Inc. on US10140514B1.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The dismissal mechanism—FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)—allows plaintiffs to dismiss without court order before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. This timing indicates:

🔬 No substantive rulings on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement occurred 🔬 No adverse findings against either party were entered 🔬 Resolution likely achieved through confidential agreement

Legal Significance

While this mobile banking patent infringement 2025 case produced no precedential ruling, several analytical observations emerge:

For patent validity analysis: The absence of an IPR challenge or invalidity defense on the record leaves US10140514B1’s claims untested. Future defendants facing this patent retain all validity challenges.

For claim construction: No Markman hearing occurred, leaving claim scope interpretation open for future disputes involving this patent family. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP to examine related prosecution histories.

Strategic Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Holders: Early resolution preserves patent strength—no adverse claim construction or validity findings remain on record. The patent holder retains the ability to assert this patent against other parties.

⚖️ For Accused Infringers: Prompt engagement with assertion counsel may yield favorable early resolutions, potentially avoiding substantial costs of claim construction and discovery phases.

🔬 For R&D Teams: Mobile image capture technology with time-limited sharing features remains an active patent landscape. Freedom-to-operate analysis warrants consideration of US10140514B1 and its family members for product development in mobile banking applications.

💡 Key Insight: The “each party bears its own costs” language is standard settlement terminology, suggesting a negotiated resolution.

Industry & Competitive Implications

This case reflects broader trends in fintech patent litigation:

Banking Sector Exposure: Financial institutions increasingly face patent assertions targeting mobile banking features. As digital transformation accelerates, patent risk in remote deposit capture, authentication, and image processing technologies warrants monitoring.

Settlement Economics: The rapid resolution demonstrates that early settlement may occur when business considerations and litigation costs factor into decision-making. Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP to identify potential risks.

Texas Eastern District Activity: This venue remains active for patent litigation, particularly for cases involving financial technology.

Key Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys

• ⚖️ FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals within 105 days typically indicate confidential settlements
• ⚖️ Texas Eastern District continues processing fintech patent disputes efficiently
• ⚖️ “With prejudice” dismissals conclusively resolve specific patent-defendant combinations

For IP Professionals

• 📊 Monitoring US10140514B1 for future assertion activity may benefit financial institutions
• 📊 Early engagement strategies can factor into litigation cost management

For R&D Teams

• 🔬 FTO analysis on mobile image capture/sharing with time-limited features warrants consideration
• 🔬 Documenting independent development and prior art supports defensive positioning

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP to track this patent family and related fintech litigation.

FAQ

What patent was involved in CheckWizard v. Independent Bank Group? US10140514B1, covering mobile image capture and sharing technology with time-limited display functionality.

Why was the case dismissed with prejudice? CheckWizard LLC voluntarily dismissed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with the specific reasons not disclosed in public filings.

Can CheckWizard LLC sue Independent Bank Group again on this patent? No. Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars reassertion of these claims against this defendant.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and general observations about patent litigation. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice regarding specific legal matters or patent disputes. Past case outcomes do not predict future results.

Subscribe for patent litigation updates. Contact qualified IP counsel for comprehensive case analysis.