Amadora Systems v. Regions Financial: ATM Patent Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
Amadora Systems LLC asserted three ATM-related patents against Regions Financial Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties reached a private agreement and filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice just 132 days after filing — a resolution pace that suggests early commercial settlement.
Three ATM patents, one rapid settlement in East Texas
Amadora Systems LLC filed suit against Regions Financial Corporation on July 31, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the country’s most active patent trial judges. The complaint alleged infringement of three patents — US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — all directed at automated teller machine technology, with the accused product identified as Regions’ ATM fleet.
The case closed on December 10, 2024, when the court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. All claims that were or could have been asserted were extinguished, subject to the terms of a private agreement between the parties. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, a provision that is neutral on its face but consistent with a negotiated financial settlement rather than a unilateral capitulation.
The 132-day duration is notably short for a multi-patent infringement action in E.D. Texas and suggests the parties reached commercial terms before significant merits litigation. The underlying agreement remains confidential, so whether a license, lump-sum payment, or other consideration was exchanged is unknown from the public record. The lead consolidated case was explicitly kept open by the clerk, indicating Amadora is pursuing parallel actions against other defendants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 132 days
132 days — well below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice bars all future claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. By stipulating to this outcome, both parties agreed that no claim asserted — or that could have been asserted — in this case may be re-filed. The court’s order reinforces this finality explicitly, closing the member case while the consolidated lead case remains open.
Permanent bar on re-filingAmadora forfeits future ATM claims against Regions
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Amadora Systems permanently relinquishes the right to assert these three ATM patents against Regions Financial and its affiliated entities on the accused products. The quid pro quo — almost certainly a financial or licensing consideration — is embedded in the confidential agreement referenced in the order but not disclosed in public filings. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other defendants.
Rights resolved, patents intactRegions secures certainty — at an undisclosed price
Regions Financial obtains a permanent release from the three asserted ATM patents, eliminating litigation risk and the threat of an injunction or ongoing royalty demand. The ‘own costs’ provision is neutral and does not signal that either party prevailed outright. The terms of the underlying agreement — whether a paid-up license, lump sum, or covenant not to sue — are shielded from public disclosure, which is typical for bank defendants seeking to avoid setting royalty precedents.
Patent risk extinguishedAmadora’s parallel campaign continues against other defendants
The court’s instruction to keep the lead consolidated case open is a material signal: Amadora is running a multi-defendant assertion campaign across the ATM technology space. Other financial institutions or ATM operators named in the consolidated series remain exposed. For the broader sector, the swift Regions resolution may indicate Amadora’s licensing terms are structured to encourage early settlement — raising the strategic cost of prolonged resistance for similarly-situated defendants.
Multi-defendant campaign activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amadora Systems LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Regions Financial Corporation | Company | Regions Financial Corporation — major U.S. regional bank operating a nationwide 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 | Corinne Stone Hockman | Attorney | Counsel for Regions Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Woodard Cook | Attorney | Counsel for Regions Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew William Cornelia | Attorney | Counsel for Regions Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McGuireWoods LLP | Law Firm | Representing Regions Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McGuireWoods LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Regions Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is expressly predicated on a private agreement between the parties, a formulation that distinguishes it from a simple abandonment. The ‘with prejudice’ designation, combined with the reference to ‘terms of an Agreement,’ strongly suggests a negotiated financial resolution. The court’s simultaneous instruction to close this member case while maintaining the lead case open confirms this is one settlement within a larger coordinated assertion strategy across multiple defendants.
US11922429B2, US10861020B2 & US9245270B2 — ATM technology patents
The three patents at issue — US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — span a generational range of ATM-related technology development, with application numbers suggesting filings across different innovation cycles. US9245270B2, drawing from application US11/482430, is the earliest-generation patent in the family, while US11922429B2 (from US17/098544) represents more recent innovation. Together they suggest a portfolio built to cover ATM transaction processing, user interaction, and related system architectures across successive technology generations.
For financial institutions operating large ATM networks, this patent family presents a meaningful assertion risk. The combination of an earlier foundational patent and two later continuation-style grants is a classic portfolio structure used to extend coverage as underlying technology evolves. Regions Financial’s nationwide ATM fleet made it a high-profile target, and the swift resolution suggests the claim scope was perceived as commercially credible by both parties. Competitors operating comparable ATM infrastructure should treat this portfolio as an active threat.
Should you run an FTO against US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2?
Any bank, fintech, or ATM hardware/software provider operating or upgrading automated teller machine systems should assess their exposure to this three-patent portfolio. The fact that Regions Financial — a major U.S. regional bank — settled rather than contest these patents on the merits suggests the claims may be broader than they appear on first reading. Product teams deploying new ATM interfaces, transaction workflows, or authentication systems are the most immediately at risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of all three patents against your product architecture, flag design-around opportunities, and surface prior art relevant to potential IPR filings. Given Amadora’s active consolidated litigation campaign, early FTO analysis is substantially cheaper than reactive settlement — and provides negotiating leverage if you are contacted.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11922429B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ATM patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Browse related ATM and financial technology patent assertions litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including cases with comparable assertion structures and outcomes.
What this case signals for the financial technology IP landscape
A 132-day resolution in E.D. Texas points to early commercial pragmatism — but Amadora’s campaign is far from over.
Early dismissal pace flags a structured licensing campaign
Resolving a three-patent infringement action in 132 days — before claim construction or any substantive motions — is consistent with a plaintiff running a pre-packaged licensing programme. Financial institutions facing similar assertions should assess whether early engagement is more cost-efficient than full litigation.
The consolidated lead case signals more defendants to come
The court kept the lead consolidated case open after closing the Regions member case. This structure typically indicates multiple defendants have been named. Banks and ATM operators in the Regions peer group should monitor the docket and evaluate their own exposure to the three asserted patents.
Amadora v Regions — key questions answered
Amadora Systems asserted three patents: US11922429B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2, all directed at automated teller machine technology. The accused product was Regions’ ATM fleet. The case was filed July 31, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
The parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice referencing a private agreement. The court granted the motion, permanently extinguishing all claims that were or could have been asserted. The specific terms of the agreement — financial or otherwise — are not disclosed in the public record.
It means the dismissal is final and the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims. The phrase ‘subject to the terms of an Agreement’ signals that the dismissal is the legal mechanism implementing a broader deal — typically a license, lump-sum payment, or covenant not to sue — negotiated privately between the parties.
Only the Regions member case is closed. The court’s order explicitly directed the clerk to keep the lead consolidated case open, indicating that Amadora has active claims against other defendants in the same consolidated action. The three asserted patents remain enforceable against third parties.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas is one of the most experienced patent trial judges in the country and manages a high-volume patent docket. His court’s scheduling pressures and trial readiness requirements create structural incentives for early settlement, which is consistent with the 132-day resolution observed in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.