Amadora Systems v. Truist Bank: 7-Patent ATM Dispute Settles in 184 Days
Amadora Systems LLC, a patent assertion entity, sued Truist Bank in the Eastern District of Texas over seven patents covering ATM hardware, software, and associated back-end systems. The case resolved via confidential settlement and was dismissed with prejudice after just 184 days — notably fast for a multi-patent infringement action before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Seven-Patent ATM Assertion Against Truist Ends in Confidential Settlement
On July 31, 2024, Amadora Systems LLC filed suit against Truist Bank in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00621) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of seven U.S. patents — US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — all directed at ATM hardware, associated software, and back-end banking transaction systems operated by Truist.
The case closed on January 31, 2025, when the court granted a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed jointly by both parties. The dismissal was entered pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subject to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting neither side extracted a costs award as a litigation lever.
The 184-day resolution timeline is notably compressed for a seven-patent assertion in the Eastern District of Texas, where contested cases before Judge Gilstrap routinely extend well beyond a year. The speed of settlement suggests either early-stage commercial resolution or meaningful litigation risk on both sides. The confidential nature of the settlement means royalty rates, licensing scope, and any injunctive terms remain undisclosed. A show cause order issued prior to settlement — triggered by the parties missing a court-imposed dismissal deadline — adds procedural texture but had no apparent effect on the final outcome.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 184 days
184 days — faster than the median E.D. Texas patent case, which typically runs 18–24 months to trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement-driven outcome means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice following confidential settlement
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently extinguishes the plaintiff’s ability to re-file the same claims against the same defendant. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, Amadora cannot reassert these seven patents against Truist in a future action. The court’s order explicitly states dismissal applies to all claims ‘that were or could have been asserted,’ closing off related theories as well.
Permanent bar on re-filingAmadora permanently barred from re-asserting these patents against Truist
With prejudice dismissal means Amadora Systems surrenders its right to pursue Truist again on these seven patents, regardless of future product changes. However, the confidential settlement likely includes a financial component — common in PAE-driven cases before Judge Gilstrap — which may represent a commercial return on the assertion. Amadora retains the right to assert the same patents against other banking defendants.
Settlement likely includes paymentTruist secures permanent peace on Amadora’s seven ATM patents
Truist Bank obtains a with-prejudice dismissal, providing legal certainty that Amadora cannot re-litigate these claims. The confidential settlement likely grants Truist a license or covenant not to sue covering the asserted patent portfolio. The cost-bearing order — each side covering its own fees — suggests no finding of exceptional case conduct or bad faith by either party at this stage.
Likely licensed or releasedRapid resolution signals settlement pressure in ATM patent assertions
The sub-200-day closure of a seven-patent action in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with a defendant calculating that early settlement costs less than full litigation. For other banks and ATM operators, Amadora’s remaining portfolio may represent ongoing assertion risk. The confidential settlement terms mean no public royalty benchmark was established, leaving the market without pricing transparency for this patent family.
No public royalty benchmark setFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amadora Systems LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10157385B2 and 6 related ATM and banking system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Truist Bank | Company | Truist Bank — major U.S. commercial bank operating ATM networks and associated transaction infrastructureSearch 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 | John Tilton | Attorney | Counsel for Truist BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lisa Chiarini | Attorney | Counsel for Truist BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter John Chassman | Attorney | Counsel for Truist BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reed Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Truist BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice confirms resolution under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning the dismissal is driven by party agreement rather than a merits adjudication. The phrase ‘all claims that were or could have been asserted’ is legally significant — it forecloses not only the claims actually pleaded but any related claims Amadora might have developed during discovery. The show cause episode, triggered by missed deadlines, is procedurally notable but does not affect the substantive outcome. Each party bearing its own costs suggests no exceptional-case finding was pursued or granted.
US10157385B2 and 6 further patents — ATM hardware, software, and back-end transaction systems
The seven asserted patents — US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — collectively cover the ATM technology stack, spanning physical hardware, embedded and associated software, and the back-end systems that process and authenticate transactions. Application filing dates range from the early 2010s through the late 2010s, suggesting a portfolio built incrementally to track the evolution of ATM and self-service banking technology.
This portfolio’s breadth — spanning hardware, software, and back-end infrastructure — is strategically significant. Assertion entities that bundle patents across technology layers are harder to design around, since a bank cannot easily replace only one component to achieve freedom to operate. For the financial services sector, this case reinforces the need for proactive FTO analysis covering both ATM terminal technology and the network and authentication systems that support it. Other major ATM operators — including large retail banks and independent ATM deployers — should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US10157385B2 and Amadora’s ATM patent portfolio?
Any organisation operating automated teller machines, self-service banking kiosks, or associated back-end transaction processing infrastructure in the United States should assess exposure to Amadora’s seven-patent portfolio. The asserted claims cover the full ATM stack, meaning partial design-arounds may not achieve freedom to operate. Financial institutions, ATM network operators, and technology vendors supplying ATM hardware or software to banks are all potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each patent’s independent claims against your ATM product architecture, identify prior art that may limit claim scope, and surface any inter partes review or post-grant proceedings that could affect enforceability. Given that the Truist settlement terms are confidential, there is no public licensing benchmark — making independent FTO analysis the only reliable way to quantify your organisation’s exposure to this portfolio before a demand arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10157385B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ATM and banking technology patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement actions asserting ATM, banking transaction, and financial technology patents in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap and comparable judges.
What this case signals for the banking and ATM technology IP landscape
A seven-patent ATM assertion resolved in under six months highlights the acute settlement pressure facing financial institutions in the Eastern District of Texas.
Eastern District of Texas remains a high-pressure venue for financial sector defendants
Judge Gilstrap’s docket and the venue’s plaintiff-friendly reputation create strong incentives for early settlement. Truist’s 184-day resolution — before significant discovery costs accumulated — is a pattern common among well-resourced financial institutions seeking to minimise litigation exposure from patent assertion entities operating multi-patent portfolios.
Multi-patent ATM assertions are a persistent risk for large U.S. banks
Amadora asserted seven patents covering the full ATM stack — hardware, software, and back-end systems. Banks operating large ATM networks face compounding infringement exposure when assertion entities bundle patents across the technology layer. Defensive landscaping of ATM and transaction-system IP should be a standing priority for in-house IP teams at financial institutions.
Amadora v Truist — key questions answered
Amadora Systems asserted seven U.S. patents: US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2. All relate to ATM hardware, software, and back-end banking transaction systems operated by Truist Bank.
The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 31, 2025, pursuant to a joint stipulated motion under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The dismissal was subject to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Dismissed with prejudice means Amadora Systems is permanently barred from re-asserting the same seven patents against Truist Bank in any future action. The court’s order also extinguishes claims that ‘could have been asserted,’ providing Truist with broad legal finality. The settlement agreement’s confidential terms likely include a license or covenant not to sue.
The court issued an Order to Appear and Show Cause (Dkt. No. 59) because the parties missed the court’s deadline for filing the dismissal paperwork. Both parties and their counsel acknowledged the error, apologised to the court, and committed to meeting all future deadlines. The show cause hearing was subsequently vacated when the court granted the dismissal motion.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal releases only Truist Bank. The seven patents remain enforceable against other ATM operators, banks, and financial technology vendors. The confidential settlement provides no public royalty benchmark. Other institutions operating ATM networks or related back-end transaction systems should consider proactive FTO analysis against this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.