Amadora Systems v. Bank of Texas: Three ATM Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Amadora Systems LLC asserted three patents covering ATM transaction technology against Bank of Texas (BOKF, N.A.) in the Eastern District of Texas. The case resolved in 303 days with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, subject to the terms of a confidential agreement between the parties.
ATM patent dispute reaches confidential resolution in under a year
Amadora Systems LLC filed suit on July 31, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of three ATM-related patents — US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — against Bank of Texas, a division of BOKF, N.A. The accused product was identified as the ‘Exemplary BOKF ATM,’ placing the dispute squarely within the bank’s ATM infrastructure and transaction-processing operations.
The case closed on May 30, 2025, when the Court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to a confidential agreement. All claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Amadora Systems cannot re-file the same claims against Bank of Texas. Notably, the Court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, suggesting the settlement did not include a fee-shifting provision in Amadora’s favour.
The 303-day resolution is relatively swift for a three-patent E.D. Tex. infringement action, suggesting the parties reached commercial terms without prolonged claim construction or trial proceedings. The case is designated a ‘Member Case’ within a series of consolidated actions, and the verdict confirms that the Lead Case remains open — indicating Amadora Systems may have filed parallel suits against other financial institutions over the same patent portfolio, some of which are still active.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 303 days
303 days from filing to dismissal — below the median for multi-patent E.D. Tex. infringement suits
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any re-filing of the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Amadora Systems cannot reassert the three patents-in-suit — US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — against Bank of Texas for the same accused ATM products. The dismissal was stipulated jointly and granted by Judge Gilstrap under a confidential inter-party agreement, consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a court-imposed outcome.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissalAmadora forecloses future action against BOKF — but retains the patents
While the dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Amadora’s ability to re-sue Bank of Texas on these patents, Amadora retains ownership of US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2. The confidential agreement likely included a licence or lump-sum payment. The Lead Case remaining open suggests Amadora continues to pursue other defendants, and the settlement with BOKF may signal a willingness by targets to resolve quickly rather than litigate claim construction.
Patents survive; BOKF claim extinguishedBank of Texas obtains finality — no lingering infringement exposure on these patents
Bank of Texas secures a dismissal with prejudice, eliminating any future infringement exposure from Amadora on the asserted ATM patents. The own-costs order avoids any fee-shifting obligation under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would require a finding of an ‘exceptional case.’ BOKF’s six-attorney defence team — spanning Findlay Craft, Womble Bond Dickinson, and Frederic Dorwart — suggests the bank mounted a serious litigation posture that may have accelerated settlement terms in its favour.
Full finality; no fee award against BOKFConsolidated structure signals a broader ATM patent campaign by Amadora
The Court’s explicit instruction to keep the Lead Case open while closing this Member Case confirms that Amadora’s litigation campaign extends beyond Bank of Texas. Other financial institutions operating ATM networks should assess exposure to US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2. The swift, pre-trial resolution — with each party bearing its own costs — is consistent with a licence-fee settlement model frequently deployed by patent assertion entities targeting regional banks and financial services firms.
Broader campaign likely ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amadora Systems LLC | Company | ATM and financial transaction technology patent assertion entity — holder of US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A. | Company | Bank of Texas, a division of BOKF, N.A. — regional bank operating ATM networks across Texas and OklahomaSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Amadora Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Amadora Systems LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Wayne Leimbach | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Horton Wright , III | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick Sandman | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Penina Michlin | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William McKenzie Ragland , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Frederic Dorwart Lawyers PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text reveals a jointly stipulated motion — both Amadora Systems and Bank of Texas actively sought the dismissal, distinguishing this from a unilateral withdrawal. The phrase ‘subject to the terms of the Agreement between the Parties’ confirms a binding side agreement governs the resolution, almost certainly a confidential licence or settlement payment. The Court’s decision to deny all other pending relief as moot, while keeping the Lead Case open, underscores that this Member Case was resolved in isolation and that the broader patent campaign against other ATM operators continues.
US11922429B2, US10861020B2 & US9245270B2 — ATM transaction technology patents
The three patents-in-suit span two decades of application filings, from US11/482430 (US9245270B2, mid-2000s priority) through US16/666469 (US10861020B2) to US17/098544 (US11922429B2), forming a continuation-family structure typical of patent assertion portfolios. Together they appear to cover ATM transaction processing workflows, user interface interactions, and financial self-service terminal operations. The earliest priority date suggests the foundational claims were conceived during a period when ATM software architectures were transitioning to networked, software-driven platforms.
For the financial services sector, a patent portfolio spanning early- and late-stage ATM transaction processing represents meaningful assertion risk. Regional banks and credit unions operating proprietary ATM fleets — rather than relying solely on network-licensed infrastructure — may be particularly exposed. The assertion against BOKF’s ATM division, combined with the consolidated multi-defendant structure, is consistent with a portfolio monetisation strategy targeting institutions that deployed or upgraded ATM systems without securing broad third-party IP clearance.
Should your organisation run an FTO against US11922429B2 and the Amadora ATM portfolio?
Any financial institution, ATM network operator, or fintech provider deploying self-service terminal software or transaction-processing platforms should assess freedom-to-operate against Amadora’s three-patent portfolio. The combination of an active Lead Case, a dismissed Member Case, and a continuation-family structure across two decades of filings suggests Amadora may assert continuation or divisional patents against new targets. R&D and product teams evaluating ATM software upgrades or new transaction-interface deployments should treat this portfolio as a live risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 against your ATM product architecture, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related continuation applications that could generate future assertions. Monitoring Amadora Systems’ patent activity and the Lead Case docket through Eureka provides early warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11922429B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ATM and fintech patent assertion cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving ATM transaction technology patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, including other Amadora Systems consolidated member cases.
What this case signals for the ATM and financial services IP landscape
Amadora’s multi-defendant consolidated structure in E.D. Tex. suggests a coordinated patent assertion campaign against banks operating ATM networks.
E.D. Tex. remains a preferred venue for financial technology patent assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in Marshall continues to attract patent assertion entity cases involving fintech and banking infrastructure. Financial institutions with ATM operations in Texas should anticipate continued exposure. The consolidated case structure used here allows a single plaintiff to resolve individual defendants efficiently while maintaining pressure on others.
Pre-trial settlement with own-costs order limits fee-shifting risk for both sides
The mutual own-costs resolution avoids the § 285 ‘exceptional case’ determination that a contested trial might trigger. For defendants in similar patent assertion entity suits, early resolution with own-costs terms can be commercially rational — particularly when the alternative is prolonged claim construction litigation over a multi-patent portfolio in a plaintiff-friendly venue.
Amadora v Bank — key questions answered
Amadora Systems asserted three patents: US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2. All three relate to ATM transaction technology. The accused product was described as the ‘Exemplary BOKF ATM,’ targeting Bank of Texas’s self-service terminal infrastructure.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulated motion filed by both parties. The dismissal was conditioned on the terms of a confidential agreement, strongly suggesting a negotiated settlement — likely a licence or lump-sum payment. A with-prejudice dismissal means Amadora cannot re-sue Bank of Texas on the same patents for the same products.
The Court’s order explicitly refers to this as a ‘Member Case’ within a consolidated series. The Lead Case was kept open despite this Member Case being closed, indicating Amadora filed parallel suits against multiple financial institutions over the same ATM patents. Consolidation allows the court to manage common claim construction issues while resolving individual defendants separately.
Bank of Texas was represented by six attorneys across three law firms: Findlay Craft PC (Eric Findlay and John Wright III), Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP (David Leimbach, Patrick Sandman, and Penina Michlin), and Frederic Dorwart Lawyers PLLC (William McKenzie Ragland Jr.). The multi-firm defence team reflects the seriousness with which BOKF approached the litigation.
No. The Court specifically directed the Lead Case to remain open, meaning other defendants in the consolidated series are not affected by the BOKF settlement. Financial institutions that are co-defendants in the Lead Case continue to face active litigation. The BOKF resolution may, however, provide a settlement benchmark that other defendants can reference in their own negotiations with Amadora.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.