Amadora Systems v. Frost Bank: Three ATM Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice in 132 Days
Amadora Systems LLC filed a patent infringement action against Frost Bank in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering automated teller machine technology. The case ended with a plaintiff-initiated dismissal with prejudice just 132 days after filing — each party bearing its own costs.
A swift exit: Amadora drops three ATM patent claims before any merits ruling
On July 31, 2024, Amadora Systems LLC filed suit against Frost Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00616), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted infringement of three patents — US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — directed at automated teller machine technology, with Frost Bank’s ATM network cited as the accused product. Amadora was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC; Frost Bank retained Baker Botts LLP.
The case closed on December 10, 2024, when Amadora filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, formally terminating all claims and causes of action against Frost Bank. Crucially, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a neutral cost allocation that neither rewards nor penalises either side. A dismissal with prejudice bars Amadora from re-filing the same claims against Frost Bank.
At 132 days, the case resolved well before any substantive milestones such as claim construction or summary judgment. The public record does not disclose the reason for dismissal — possibilities consistent with this timeline include a licensing agreement, a strategic retreat, or a negotiated resolution, though none can be confirmed from court records alone. The absence of fee-shifting suggests neither party pushed for sanctions or an exceptional-case finding, which is notable given the early termination.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 132 days
132 days — resolved before most E.D. Texas patent cases reach claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit before answer or summary judgment
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal here was filed with prejudice, meaning it carries the same res judicata effect as a final adjudication on the merits — Amadora cannot reassert these same patent claims against Frost Bank in a future action.
Voluntary dismissal, with prejudiceAmadora forfeits the right to re-sue Frost Bank on these three patents
By dismissing with prejudice, Amadora has permanently extinguished its infringement claims against Frost Bank on US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties, but Frost Bank has effectively obtained a final bar against future litigation by Amadora on these specific assertions. What drove Amadora to accept this outcome is not disclosed in the public record.
Claims permanently barred vs. Frost BankFrost Bank secures a permanent bar with no admission of liability
Frost Bank exits without any finding of infringement and without paying damages, royalties, or attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice dismissal means Amadora cannot relitigate these claims. Baker Botts successfully defended at an early stage — likely before substantive motion practice — and the neutral cost order suggests Frost Bank did not seek, or did not obtain, an exceptional-case designation under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No liability, no fee awardThree ATM patents remain live enforcement tools against other defendants
The dismissal resolves only Amadora’s claims against Frost Bank. US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 remain enforceable, and Amadora — or any future assignee — could assert them against other ATM operators or financial institutions. Any bank or fintech operating ATM networks covered by these patents should treat this case as a signal that active enforcement efforts are ongoing, and consider whether FTO clearance is warranted.
Patents remain active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amadora Systems LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 (ATM technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Frost Bank | Company | Frost Bank — Texas-based regional bank operating the accused ATM networkSearch 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 | Christa Joyce Brown-Sanford | Attorney | Counsel for Frost BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas Mark Kubehl | Attorney | Counsel for Frost BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Morgan Grissum Mayne | Attorney | Counsel for Frost BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Frost BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges Amadora’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, confirming dismissal with prejudice of all claims. The with-prejudice designation is outcome-determinative for Frost Bank: it carries the preclusive force of a final judgment, permanently barring re-litigation of these specific infringement claims. The court’s explicit instruction that each party bear its own costs rules out any fee-shifting under § 285, and the denial of all other pending relief as moot signals no substantive motions survived the dismissal.
US11922429B2, US10861020B2 & US9245270B2 — ATM technology patent portfolio
The three patents asserted by Amadora — US11922429B2 (application US17/098544), US10861020B2 (application US16/666469), and US9245270B2 (application US11/482430) — span a technology progression from an early 2006 application through to more recent continuations. This generational spread suggests a patent family strategy designed to maintain coverage as ATM technology evolved, with the most recent patent (US11922429B2) likely reflecting claims updated to capture current ATM implementations and digital banking interfaces.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, a three-patent portfolio spanning nearly two decades of ATM-related filings signals a deliberate effort to maintain forward-looking enforcement capability. Financial institutions and fintech companies operating ATM hardware or software — including transaction authentication, user interface, or network communication features — should assess whether their ATM products fall within the claim scope of any of these three patents. The assertion against Frost Bank’s ATM network specifically suggests the patents are being applied to commercially deployed consumer-facing ATM infrastructure.
Should you run an FTO search against US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2?
Any financial institution, independent ATM deployer, or banking technology vendor operating ATM networks should consider whether these three Amadora patents represent a live infringement risk. The fact that Amadora asserted all three patents simultaneously against Frost Bank’s ATM infrastructure suggests the claim scope is being read broadly. The 2006 priority date of US9245270B2 combined with the continuation strategy raises the question of how broadly the family’s claims were drafted — a question that only a thorough claim mapping exercise can answer.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 against your product’s technical features, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface related continuations or divisionals that may not yet have been asserted. For R&D teams developing next-generation ATM or self-service banking technology, running an FTO at the design stage is significantly less costly than a litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11922429B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ATM technology patent cases in E.D. Texas and related venues
Cases involving ATM and self-service banking technology patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap follow similar enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the ATM technology and banking IP landscape
A quick dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas rarely tells the full story — here is what IP professionals should read into it.
Early dismissals with prejudice often signal a negotiated resolution
A with-prejudice exit at 132 days — before claim construction and before any substantive motion practice — is consistent with a licensing arrangement or settlement. While the record is silent, the neutral cost allocation and absence of any fee motion suggest a relatively amicable conclusion rather than a capitulation. Patent teams at financial institutions should monitor Amadora’s future filings to assess enforcement patterns.
Baker Botts’ early engagement likely contributed to a swift resolution
Frost Bank retained Baker Botts LLP — a firm with deep patent litigation experience — promptly. Early involvement of experienced patent defence counsel in E.D. Texas cases, where scheduling orders move quickly, typically shortens the window between filing and resolution. This case resolved before a scheduling conference or claim construction order became a factor.
Amadora v Frost — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in Case No. 2:24-cv-00616 means all of Amadora’s infringement claims against Frost Bank on US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 are permanently terminated. Amadora cannot re-file the same claims against Frost Bank. The dismissal carries the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The dismissal was filed by Amadora under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) at 132 days — before claim construction. This timeline is consistent with a licensing agreement, settlement, or strategic withdrawal, but none can be confirmed from available court documents. The neutral cost order suggests a cooperative, rather than contested, exit.
Yes. The dismissal resolves only Amadora’s claims against Frost Bank. US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 remain issued, valid (unless challenged), and enforceable against other parties. The patents could be asserted against other ATM operators, fintech companies, or banking technology vendors.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This rules out any fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — meaning neither party sought or obtained an ‘exceptional case’ finding. It also suggests there was no sanctions motion or bad-faith finding. This is a standard neutral cost allocation typical of agreed dismissals.
US11922429B2 (app. US17/098544), US10861020B2 (app. US16/666469), and US9245270B2 (app. US11/482430) form a patent family with a priority application dating to 2006. The patents appear directed at ATM systems and transaction processing technology. The specific claim scope requires a full patent analysis — PatSnap Eureka can map the claims against specific ATM product features.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.