CheckWizard vs. Washington Federal: Voluntary Dismissal in Mobile Imaging Patent Case

Updated on Dec. 2, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

In a swift resolution noted by patent litigators, CheckWizard LLC’s infringement action against Washington Federal Bank, National Association concluded with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 79 days after filing. The case, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, involved allegations that the bank’s mobile imaging features infringed U.S. Patent No. US10140514B1 related to “capturing and sharing images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time.” This rapid termination—before the defendant filed an answer or motion for summary judgment—offers insights into patent assertion strategies and the procedural use of Rule 41 dismissals in modern patent infringement litigation.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

CheckWizard LLC is the plaintiff in this patent infringement action. The defendant, Washington Federal Bank, National Association, is a national banking association with customer-facing digital platforms that were allegedly implicated by the patent claims.

The Patent(s) at Issue

The sole patent in this dispute was US10140514B1, titled “Capturing and sharing images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time.” This patent relates to mobile imaging technology and systems for controlling the duration that shared images remain accessible. The patent’s prosecution history and claims can be reviewed on the USPTO Patent Center.

The Accused Product(s)

The case documentation references technology for “capturing and sharing images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time” as applied to Washington Federal Bank’s services. The specific commercial implementations were not detailed in the available docket entries.

Legal Representation

CheckWizard was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC and attorney Isaac Phillip Rabicoff. Defendant’s counsel information was not included in the publicly available case records at the time of dismissal. For current docket information, consult the PACER Case Locator.

💡 Key Insight: Voluntary dismissals with prejudice before defendant response terminate litigation permanently and may indicate strategic reassessment of case merits, saving substantial litigation costs.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

February 6, 2025: Case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who has extensive experience in patent matters. The Texas Eastern District remains an active venue for patent cases according to Federal Judicial Center statistics.

February – April 2025: The docket showed minimal activity, with no substantive motions filed before termination.

April 26, 2025: Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which the court accepted. The complete Federal Rules are available from the Cornell Legal Information Institute.

Duration Analysis: At 79 days from filing to termination, this case represents a pattern of rapid resolution without substantive rulings. Understanding these patterns is important for FTO (freedom to operate) planning and litigation budgeting in the Texas Eastern District Court.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court accepted CheckWizard’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice, ending the case permanently. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The dismissal was procedural under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court order if filed before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. CheckWizard elected to dismiss with prejudice, creating a final resolution barring refiling of the same claims.

Strategic considerations in such dismissals may include:

• Early case assessment revealing litigation challenges
• Changes in litigation priorities or resources
• Business decisions unrelated to case merits

The patent validity of US10140514B1 remains unchanged by this dismissal, as no validity challenges were filed.

Legal Significance

While not creating substantive patent law precedent, this case illustrates procedural dynamics:

1. Strategic Use of Rule 41: Plaintiffs maintain unilateral dismissal rights before defendant response, affecting litigation timing and strategy.
2. Eastern District of Texas Procedures: Even in this active patent venue, cases may terminate quickly through procedural mechanisms.
3. Finality of With-Prejudice Dismissals: These create claim preclusion under the doctrine of res judicata, as explained in the USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.

Strategic Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Holders:

• Consider early dismissal options if case merits or business priorities shift
• Document dismissal decisions for future portfolio strategy
• Recognize the finality of with-prejudice dismissals

⚖️ For Accused Infers:

• Monitor early case activity for potential rapid resolutions
• Consider timing of responsive pleadings in relation to plaintiff’s dismissal options
• Early resolution can minimize defense costs

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Track rapid-dismissal cases in your technology area as they may indicate enforcement patterns
• Update FTO analyses when cases dismiss without validity rulings
• Research patent landscapes for mobile imaging technologies on Patsnap Eureka IP

Industry & Competitive Implications

The mobile imaging technology sector continues to see patent activity across multiple industries. This case’s resolution highlights several considerations:

Financial Services Technology: Banks implementing mobile imaging features should be aware of existing patents in this space. The voluntary dismissal here doesn’t eliminate infringement risk for similar features at other institutions.

Patent Enforcement Patterns: The rapid dismissal may reflect portfolio management decisions by the patent holder. Other companies in this space should monitor for similar assertion activity.

Defensive Strategy Considerations: Companies developing mobile imaging capabilities should consider prior art research and claim construction analysis as part of their development process. Tools like Patsnap Eureka IP can help track competitive patent activity.

Key Takeaways

📊 For Patent Attorneys:

• Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides plaintiffs unilateral dismissal rights before defendant response
• Voluntary dismissal with prejudice creates claim preclusion
• Eastern District of Texas remains active for patent filings

📊 For IP Professionals:

• Monitor rapid-dismissal cases for strategic insights
• Update risk assessments when cases terminate without validity rulings
• Analyze patent landscapes for mobile imaging technologies on Patsnap Eureka IP

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Document design-around considerations for patentable features
• Engage IP counsel early when developing time-limited sharing features
• Use dismissal patterns to inform product development risk assessments

FAQ Section

What patent was involved in CheckWizard v. Washington Federal Bank?
The case involved U.S. Patent No. US10140514B1, titled “Capturing and sharing images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time.” View the patent on the USPTO website.

What was the basis for dismissal in this case?
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant filed an answer or motion for summary judgment.

How might this outcome affect patent litigation strategy?
The rapid dismissal highlights the importance of early case assessment and the strategic use of procedural rules in patent litigation management.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Case outcomes depend on specific facts and legal arguments. Consult qualified legal counsel for advice on particular patent matters.