Amadora Systems v. Bank OZK: Three ATM Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice in 70 Days
Amadora Systems LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas asserting three ATM-related patents against Bank OZK. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 70 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Fast Exit: Amadora’s Three-Patent ATM Suit Ends Before Discovery
On July 31, 2024, Amadora Systems LLC filed an infringement action against Bank OZK in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting three patents — US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — against Bank OZK’s ATM infrastructure. The asserted patents collectively span ATM transaction processing and related financial technology methods, and the accused product was identified as the ‘Exemplary Bank OZK ATM.’
The case closed on October 9, 2024 — just 70 days after filing — when Amadora filed a Notice of Dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims against Bank OZK with prejudice. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, directing the clerk to close the case and denying all pending relief as moot. Crucially, the dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning Amadora is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against Bank OZK on these patents.
A resolution in under 70 days — before any substantive court rulings — suggests the parties likely reached a private understanding, though the public record is silent on any settlement terms or licensing arrangement. The with-prejudice designation goes beyond a standard walk-away and typically signals either a negotiated resolution or a strategic concession. What remains unknown is whether any financial consideration changed hands, and whether Amadora’s broader enforcement campaign targeting similar banking institutions will continue.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 70 days
70 days — resolved well below the median E.D. Tex. patent case timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the FRCP 41 exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, the plaintiff exercised this right but elected to dismiss with prejudice — a self-imposed, permanent bar on refiling. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, a ministerial act confirming its validity.
Voluntary dismissal, with prejudiceAmadora permanently barred from suing Bank OZK on these patents
By dismissing with prejudice, Amadora Systems has surrendered its right to reassert US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 against Bank OZK in any future proceeding. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not disclose whether Amadora received any consideration — such as a licensing payment — in exchange for this permanent relinquishment.
No future claims against Bank OZKBank OZK exits with full immunity — and no cost award
Bank OZK achieves a complete resolution: all three patent claims against it are permanently extinguished and the with-prejudice dismissal prevents any re-assertion of the same patents in a new action. However, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, meaning Bank OZK cannot recover its litigation expenses despite the plaintiff’s exit. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is consistent with pre-answer resolution.
Claims extinguished, no cost recoveryATM patent enforcement: early dismissals mask broader campaign risk
A single with-prejudice dismissal against one bank does not constrain Amadora from pursuing the same ATM patents against other financial institutions. Banks and fintech operators that deploy ATM infrastructure should treat this case as a signal of active enforcement activity around these patents. The early exit before claim construction suggests the patents have not yet been tested on their merits in litigation, leaving their validity and scope commercially uncertain.
Ongoing enforcement risk for banking sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amadora Systems LLC | Company | Financial technology patent assertion entity — holder of US11922429B2, US10861020B2, US9245270B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bank Ozk | Company | Bank OZK — regional U.S. bank, accused of infringing ATM transaction processing patentsSearch 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 | Frederick Hart Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Bank OzkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason S. Jackson | Attorney | Counsel for Bank OzkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kutak Rock LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bank OzkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kutak Rock LLP – Little Rock | Law Firm | Representing Bank OzkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely ministerial — it accepts and acknowledges the FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice rather than issuing a merits ruling. The with-prejudice designation is plaintiff-imposed and carries full res judicata effect as to Bank OZK on these three patents. No claim construction, liability finding, or damages determination was made. The mutual cost-bearing directive confirms no party prevailed within the meaning of § 285, leaving the patents’ validity and infringement scope legally unresolved.
US11922429B2, US10861020B2 & US9245270B2 — ATM Transaction Technology Patents
The three asserted patents — US11922429B2 (App. No. US17/098544), US10861020B2 (App. No. US16/666469), and US9245270B2 (App. No. US11/482430) — span a generational range of ATM technology development, with the earliest application dating to the mid-2000s and the most recent granted in 2024. This multi-generational family suggests a continuation strategy designed to maintain enforceable claims as ATM technology evolved, potentially covering legacy and modern ATM deployments alike.
For financial institutions operating retail ATM networks, the breadth of a multi-patent family asserted against a single accused product — the ‘Exemplary Bank OZK ATM’ — suggests the patents may be drafted to capture core ATM transaction workflows rather than narrow peripheral features. This increases the commercial significance: institutions cannot easily design around one patent if the family collectively covers fundamental ATM operations. The patents have not been subjected to claim construction or IPR challenge in this proceeding, leaving their full scope commercially uncertain.
Should your ATM infrastructure be cleared against US11922429B2 and family?
Any bank, credit union, fintech operator, or ATM network deployer operating ATM hardware or software in the United States should consider whether US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 create infringement exposure. The fact that Amadora has already initiated litigation against a regional bank suggests an active enforcement posture. The accused product description — ‘Exemplary Bank OZK ATM’ — is broad enough to implicate standard ATM configurations widely deployed across the industry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all three patents, identify prior art that may support validity challenges, and flag continuation applications that could extend the family’s enforcement lifecycle. R&D and product teams evaluating ATM software upgrades, transaction processing modules, or self-service banking terminals should run an FTO analysis against this patent family before deployment to avoid unquantified litigation risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11922429B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ATM and Banking Technology Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Browse patent infringement actions involving ATM technology, financial transaction processing patents, and similar assertion campaigns filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the banking and ATM technology IP landscape
A 70-day with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Tex. raises more questions than it answers for banks facing similar ATM patent exposure.
With-prejudice exit typically signals a deal, not just a retreat
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this early — before any substantive rulings — it commonly suggests a negotiated resolution. Banks facing similar ATM patent assertions from Amadora Systems should assume the plaintiff has demonstrated willingness to resolve, and consider whether proactive licensing discussions reduce overall exposure.
Three asserted patents remain untested on the merits
No claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding was issued. US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 remain active and enforceable against other defendants. Any financial institution operating ATM infrastructure should treat these patents as live enforcement risk and consider an FTO analysis before assuming safety.
Amadora v Bank — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Amadora Systems from asserting US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 against Bank OZK in any future action. It does not restrict Amadora from suing other defendants on the same patents, nor does it affect the patents’ validity or enforceability against third parties.
No. The case closed after 70 days with no claim construction order, validity ruling, or infringement finding. The voluntary dismissal was filed before the defendant served an answer, meaning no substantive legal analysis of the patents was conducted by the court. The patents remain legally untested in this proceeding.
The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with the early-stage resolution. A fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding that the case is ‘exceptional,’ which typically follows full adjudication. Since the case resolved before any substantive ruling, there was no basis for such a finding, and the standard FRCP 41 dismissal default of each party bearing its own costs applied.
Garteiser Honea PLLC represented plaintiff Amadora Systems LLC in this action. The firm is known for patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Their involvement suggests a structured enforcement campaign; IP professionals monitoring the asserted patent family should track filings by this firm against other financial institution defendants.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice does not constitute a validity ruling. US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 remain presumptively valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and can be asserted against other defendants. The patents have not been subjected to IPR, PGR, or successful invalidity challenge in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.