Secure Mobile Transactions v. Charles Schwab: Payment Tokenization Patent Case Dismissed

Updated on Dec. 12, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

In a notable resolution for payment tokenization patent litigation, the Texas Eastern District Court granted a joint motion to dismiss in Secure Mobile Transactions LLC v. The Charles Schwab Corporation (Case No. 9:25-cv-00116). The dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims against multiple banking defendants marks a significant conclusion to this fintech patent infringement dispute that spanned 176 days.

This case involved three patents covering mobile payment security technology and targeted major financial institutions including Charles Schwab Bank, Regions Bank, Frost Bank, and Prosperity Bank. For IP professionals tracking Texas Eastern District patent cases, this outcome offers strategic insights for both patent holders and corporate defendants.

💡 Key Insight: The dismissal with prejudice bars Secure Mobile Transactions from refiling these specific infringement claims against these defendants—a significant term in the joint resolution.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Secure Mobile Transactions LLC asserted patents related to mobile payment and transaction security technologies against multiple financial institutions.

The Charles Schwab Corporation was named as defendant alongside Bank of Texas (Division of BOKF, N.A.), Charles Schwab Bank, Coamerica Bank, Frost Bank, Independent Bank d/b/a Independent Financial, Prosperity Bank, Regions Bank, WoodForest Financial Group, Inc., WoodForest Financial Services, Inc., and WoodForest National Bank.

The Patents at Issue

Three patents formed the basis of infringement allegations:

• US11288647B2 – Mobile transaction authentication systems
• US9792596B2 – Secure payment processing methods
• US10546285B2 – Tokenization framework implementations

These patents relate to the Payment Tokenisation Specification interoperable technical framework. Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Legal Representation

⚖️ Plaintiff’s Team: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, LLP deployed attorneys including Matthew J. Antonelli, Hannah D. Price, Larry Dean Thompson Jr., Rehan Mohammed Safiullah, and Zachariah Harrington.

⚖️ Defendants’ Team: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC and Greenberg Traurig LLP represented defendants, with James C. Yoon, Jamie J Yoo, Kathryn Elizabeth Albanese, and Lucy Yen.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

📊 Filing: April 8, 2025 – Plaintiff filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, a venue with experienced patent judiciary.

📊 Duration: 176 days represents a relatively swift resolution. Average patent infringement cases in this district often extend 18-24 months when proceeding through trial.

📊 Chief Judge: Michael J. Truncale presided over the matter.

📊 Resolution: October 1, 2025 – Joint Motion to Dismiss granted.

The compressed timeline indicates parties reached agreement before significant discovery or claim construction proceedings. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Per the Court’s order granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss:

• ✅ Plaintiff’s claims: Dismissed WITH PREJUDICE
• ✅ Defendants’ counterclaims/defenses: Dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE
• ✅ Attorneys’ fees: Each party bears own costs
• ✅ All pending motions: Denied as moot

💡 Key Insight: The asymmetric dismissal terms—with prejudice for plaintiff’s claims, without prejudice for defendants’ counterclaims—reflect the negotiated resolution structure.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case terminated as an Infringement Action via joint dismissal. The specific terms of any underlying agreement remain confidential per standard practice.

🔬 Procedural Posture: Resolution occurred before trial, with all pending motions rendered moot by the joint dismissal.

🔬 Multi-Defendant Coordination: The consolidated defense among numerous banking institutions reflects coordinated litigation strategy.

Strategic Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Holders:

• Early claim construction analysis is essential before assertion
• Multi-defendant campaigns may face consolidated opposition
• Consider freedom to operate implications of industry-standard technologies

⚖️ For Accused Infringers:

• Coordinated defense among co-defendants may reduce per-party costs
• Preserving counterclaims without prejudice provides flexibility

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Payment tokenization implementations exist in an active assertion landscape
• Maintain development documentation
• Consider patent landscape analysis before product launches

Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Secure Mobile Transactions v. Charles Schwab patent case reflects activity in financial technology IP disputes. Payment tokenization—used in mobile payment systems—remains an area of patent assertion activity.

For banking defendants, this outcome demonstrates resolution through negotiated dismissal. The involvement of Wilson Sonsini and Greenberg Traurig reflects the case’s significance to defendants.

Financial institutions implementing tokenization should continue monitoring related patent matters while maintaining FTO (freedom to operate) documentation. Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Dismissal with prejudice represents final resolution of plaintiff’s claims
• Texas Eastern District continues efficient patent case management
• Asymmetric dismissal terms offer negotiation flexibility

📊 For IP Professionals:

• Early-stage resolutions (176 days) reduce litigation expenditure
• Monitor related assertions in fintech patent landscape
• Review USPTO patent records for related filings

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Maintain development documentation
• Consider patent landscape analysis before product launches
• Monitor industry-standard technology patent assertions

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP.

FAQ

What patents were involved in Secure Mobile Transactions v. Charles Schwab? Three patents: US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2, covering mobile payment authentication and tokenization technologies.

What was the basis for dismissal in this case? The Court granted a joint motion to dismiss—plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, defendants’ counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.

How long did this litigation last? The case lasted 176 days, from filing on April 8, 2025 to dismissal on October 1, 2025.

Disclaimer: This article is 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 for legal decision-making. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice regarding specific patent litigation matters. Case outcomes depend on unique facts and circumstances, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.