Amadora Systems v. Texas National Bank: 7-Patent ATM Suit Dismissed in 34 Days
Amadora Systems LLC filed a seven-patent infringement action against Texas National Bank of Jacksonville targeting its ATM hardware, software, and back-end systems before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas. The case collapsed in just 34 days when the plaintiff voluntarily sought dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), leaving all claims unresolved on the merits.
Seven-Patent ATM Infringement Action Ends Before Substantive Litigation Begins
On July 31, 2024, Amadora Systems LLC, a patent-holding entity represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, filed suit against Texas National Bank of Jacksonville in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted seven US patents — US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — targeting the bank’s automated teller machines, associated hardware and software, and connected back-end banking systems.
Before any substantive motion practice or scheduling order could take hold, Amadora Systems filed a Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice on or around September 3, 2024. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the motion the same day, dismissing all claims that were or could have been asserted against Texas National Bank without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). All other pending relief was denied as moot and the clerk was directed to close the case.
The 34-day lifespan is consistent with early-stage resolution dynamics frequently seen in EDTX patent cases — most commonly driven by pre-suit settlement, an inability to sustain venue or service, or strategic repositioning ahead of a refiling. The public record is silent on whether any consideration was exchanged. Because dismissal was expressly without prejudice, Amadora Systems retains the legal right to reassert all seven patents against this defendant or others at a future date, which distinguishes this outcome sharply from a with-prejudice dismissal or a merits defeat.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 34 days
34 days — substantially faster than the EDTX median patent case lifecycle of several years
Dismissed without prejudice: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1): Plaintiff’s right to an early exit
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court here ‘accepted and acknowledged’ the motion — standard EDTX language confirming the dismissal is self-executing. No merits ruling was issued, meaning no claim construction, validity, or infringement finding exists on the record.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the critical distinction that keeps claims alive
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claims. Amadora Systems retains the right to refile against Texas National Bank or any other party it believes infringes these seven patents. This contrasts sharply with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would operate as a final adjudication on the merits. The public record is silent on whether a settlement or licensing agreement was reached — either is legally consistent with this outcome.
Claims remain viableTexas National Bank exits without admission — but exposure persists
The bank obtains immediate relief from this litigation and faces no infringement finding, no injunction, and no damages award. However, because dismissal was without prejudice, it cannot treat this as a final resolution of the patent risk. If Amadora Systems refiles — whether against this bank or uses a judgment in a parallel case as leverage — Texas National Bank may face the same seven patents again. Monitoring for refiling is prudent.
No prejudice to refilingRegional banks are active PAE targets: this case fits a pattern
Patent assertion entities asserting ATM and financial-technology patents against smaller regional banks are a recurring litigation pattern in EDTX. Seven patents asserted against a single community bank’s ATM infrastructure suggests a broad claim portfolio designed for licensing negotiations rather than full trial. The rapid dismissal without prejudice — before even an answer was filed — is consistent with either an early licence agreement or a strategic pause ahead of a broader campaign.
PAE licensing dynamicsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amadora Systems LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10157385B2 and 6 further ATM and banking system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Texas National Bank of Jacksonville | Company | Texas National Bank of Jacksonville — regional bank operating ATMs and associated banking softwareSearch 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 | James Elmore Hudson , III | Attorney | Counsel for Texas National Bank of JacksonvilleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Powell Jensen | Attorney | Counsel for Texas National Bank of JacksonvilleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crain Caton & James PC – Houston | Law Firm | Representing Texas National Bank of JacksonvilleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order employs standard EDTX Rule 41(a)(1) acknowledgment language — ‘accepts and acknowledges’ — confirming that no judicial discretion was exercised on the merits. The phrase ‘all claims that were or could have been asserted’ is deliberately broad, foreclosing any argument that unclaimed theories survive. Crucially, the without-prejudice qualifier means no claim preclusion attaches. Both parties are returned to their pre-suit positions, with Amadora Systems retaining full enforcement rights across all seven patents.
US10157385B2 and 6 further patents — ATM transaction processing and banking systems
The seven asserted patents — US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — span application dates from 2006 (US11/482430) through 2019 (US16/666469), suggesting a deliberately layered portfolio designed to maintain coverage across successive ATM technology generations. The portfolio appears to address ATM hardware architecture, transaction-processing software, and the back-end systems that connect terminal devices to banking infrastructure.
The breadth of this portfolio — seven grants covering multiple layers of ATM functionality — is strategically significant for any financial institution or fintech vendor deploying standard ATM infrastructure. Because no claim construction or invalidity ruling was issued in this case, the full scope of each patent remains legally intact. Competitors, ATM manufacturers, and core-banking software providers operating in this space should treat this portfolio as live enforcement risk until expiry or IPR cancellation.
Should your institution run an FTO against these 7 Amadora Systems patents?
Any regional bank, credit union, or fintech vendor deploying automated teller machines with integrated back-end processing software should assess exposure to this seven-patent portfolio. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves all patents fully enforceable. Institutions using third-party ATM hardware or white-label banking software — where the vendor, not the bank, controls the infringing implementation — should clarify indemnification obligations before the next demand letter arrives.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the seven patent claim sets against your specific ATM product stack, flagging independent claims most likely to read on standard transaction-processing architectures. Eureka’s prior-art identification layer can also surface invalidating references relevant to any future IPR challenge — giving your legal team a head start before Amadora Systems files its next action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10157385B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ATM and banking software patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving ATM hardware, financial transaction software, and patent assertion entities filing in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the fintech and ATM IP enforcement landscape
A 34-day lifecycle and seven asserted patents point to pressure-driven licensing tactics that smaller financial institutions need to prepare for.
Without-prejudice dismissal is not a clean bill of health for the defendant
Texas National Bank has no infringement finding to rely on, but also no res judicata shield. Amadora Systems can refile the same seven patents at any time. Banks with similar ATM infrastructure should treat this case as a forward-looking risk signal, not a resolved dispute. Monitoring Amadora’s litigation activity and patent portfolio is now commercially necessary.
Seven patents in 34 days suggests portfolio licensing, not trial preparation
Asserting seven distinct US patents covering ATM hardware, software, and back-end systems against a single community bank — then dismissing before an answer — is consistent with a licensing pressure model rather than genuine trial intent. IP counsel at regional banks and fintech vendors should assess exposure to this portfolio proactively, not reactively.
Amadora v Texas — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) means all seven patent claims were dropped before any answer was filed, with no merits ruling. Amadora Systems retains the right to refile the same claims against Texas National Bank or any other defendant in the future. No res judicata or claim preclusion attaches to this outcome.
Amadora Systems asserted seven US patents: US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2. The patents span application dates from 2006 to 2019 and are directed at ATM hardware, transaction-processing software, and back-end banking systems.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A 34-day dismissal without prejudice is consistent with several scenarios: an early licensing or settlement agreement, a strategic decision to refile in a different venue, or a recognition that the chosen defendant was too small to justify full litigation costs. No consideration or licence terms are disclosed in the docket.
No. A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying patent rights or create any preclusion against refiling. Texas National Bank has no infringement finding in its favour and no legal shield against a future action asserting the same seven patents. The bank should monitor Amadora Systems’ litigation activity and consider an FTO review of its ATM infrastructure.
Judge Gilstrap in EDTX is among the most experienced patent trial judges in the US, presiding over one of the highest-volume patent dockets nationally. Filing in EDTX is a deliberate strategic choice by patent assertion entities seeking a plaintiff-friendly venue with established patent litigation procedures. The rapid dismissal before any EDTX-specific scheduling order took effect suggests the venue choice may itself have been a negotiating lever.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.