Amadora Systems v. VeraBank: 7-Patent Transaction Security Suit Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Amadora Systems LLC asserted seven transaction security patents against VeraBank, N.A. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 303 days, each bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees — a resolution pattern consistent with a confidential settlement.
Seven-Patent Fintech Assertion Ends in Bilateral Closure at E.D. Texas
On July 31, 2024, Amadora Systems LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against VeraBank, N.A. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00622), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted seven U.S. patents — US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — all directed to transaction security apparatus and methods. VeraBank retained three law firms to mount its defence, signalling the bank’s intent to contest the assertions vigorously.
The case concluded on May 30, 2025 — 303 days after filing — when the court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. The order extinguishes all claims with finality: Amadora Systems cannot re-assert these patents against VeraBank on the same accused products or conduct. Crucially, the parties agreed to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, a term that eliminates any fee-shifting exposure under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and is structurally consistent with an underlying confidential agreement between the parties.
Resolution within 303 days, before any claim construction or dispositive motion ruling entered the public record, suggests the parties reached commercial terms relatively early in the litigation lifecycle. The absence of any public royalty figure, licensing term, or damages award means the strategic value of the settlement — if any — remains entirely confidential. What is known is that seven transaction security patents remain valid and enforceable, and Amadora Systems retains the right to assert them against other defendants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 303 days
303 days — below the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions proceeding to trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice forecloses all future claims on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Amadora Systems LLC cannot re-file these same claims against VeraBank based on the asserted patents and accused conduct. The dismissal was joint and stipulated, meaning both parties agreed — a hallmark of a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Rule 41 — final, no re-filingAmadora retains enforceable patents but closes the door on VeraBank
Amadora Systems LLC sacrifices any future litigation leverage against VeraBank specifically, but all seven asserted patents remain valid and in force. The company retains full freedom to assert these patents against other financial institutions or fintechs. The own-costs term eliminates any fee-shifting risk, suggesting Amadora negotiated commercially acceptable exit terms before the case reached expensive claim construction proceedings.
Patents intact — other defendants at riskVeraBank achieves permanent closure — but at undisclosed cost
VeraBank secures a with-prejudice bar against Amadora Systems re-asserting these seven patents in future litigation, providing the bank with long-term legal certainty over its transaction security infrastructure. The own-costs term prevents any fee award against either party. The nature and value of any underlying agreement remain confidential, consistent with standard settlement practice in E.D. Texas patent cases.
Permanent bar — confidential termsSeven live patents signal ongoing risk for the banking technology sector
The portfolio underlying this action — spanning transaction security apparatus and methods across multiple patent families — remains fully enforceable against third parties. Banks and fintech providers operating transaction authentication or payment security systems should treat Amadora Systems as an active assertion entity. The rapid, pre-claim-construction resolution against VeraBank suggests the portfolio may carry credible infringement reads on widely deployed transaction security architectures.
Active portfolio — sector-wide riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amadora Systems LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of 7 transaction security apparatus and method patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VeraBank, N.A. | Individual | VeraBank, N.A. — Texas-based commercial bank accused of infringing transaction security IPSearch 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 | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for VeraBank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for VeraBank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Horton Wright , III | Attorney | Counsel for VeraBank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William McKenzie Ragland , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for VeraBank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing VeraBank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law | Law Firm | Representing VeraBank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing VeraBank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice, characterising the resolution as subject to ‘the terms of an Agreement between the Parties’ — language that expressly contemplates a confidential underlying arrangement. The with-prejudice designation is dispositive: all seven patent claims are permanently extinguished as against VeraBank. The own-costs directive forecloses any § 285 exceptional-case fee motion, confirming a clean bilateral exit. No merits ruling, claim construction order, or infringement finding entered the record.
US10157385B2 and 6 further patents — transaction security apparatus and methods
The seven asserted patents — US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2 — are directed to transaction security apparatus and methods, covering a technology domain central to modern banking infrastructure. Application dates span from US11/482430 through to US17/098544, suggesting a continuation-rich portfolio built over an extended prosecution timeline and potentially sharing common priority claims across multiple family members.
A portfolio of seven transaction security patents prosecuted across a long filing window is structurally significant: continuation families of this depth often enable a patent holder to tailor claim scope to match evolving accused products, making design-arounds more difficult. For banks deploying real-time authentication, fraud detection, or payment security systems, the breadth of this portfolio — combined with its demonstrated willingness to assert — makes independent claim-by-claim FTO analysis a commercial necessity rather than optional due diligence.
Should your bank run an FTO against Amadora’s transaction security portfolio?
Any financial institution or fintech operating transaction authentication, payment authorisation, or fraud prevention systems in the U.S. market should assess exposure to Amadora Systems’ seven-patent portfolio. The VeraBank action demonstrates active assertion intent, and the ‘Member Case’ framing suggests additional defendants may be targeted. Product and engineering teams deploying transaction security infrastructure — particularly where authentication logic intersects with account verification flows — should prioritise claim mapping against this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to map claim language from all seven Amadora patents against your product architecture in a fraction of the time required by manual review. Eureka can surface claim-level overlap, identify relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag continuation applications that could expand the portfolio’s reach. Start with US10157385B2 and US9235841B2 as the likely anchor claims, then extend to the full family for comprehensive clearance.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10157385B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar transaction security patent cases in E.D. Texas federal court
Cases involving transaction security and authentication patent assertions by PAEs against U.S. financial institutions in the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Gilstrap presiding.
What this case signals for the transaction security and banking IP landscape
A seven-patent assertion resolved in under a year in E.D. Texas carries strategic weight for any bank or fintech deploying transaction security technology.
Pre-claim-construction settlements suggest credible infringement reads
When a multi-patent case resolves before claim construction, it typically signals that the defendant assessed litigation risk as unfavourable to a full contest. For transaction security vendors and banks, this is a warning: Amadora’s portfolio may read broadly enough on standard authentication and payment security systems to warrant an FTO review before asserting design-arounds.
E.D. Texas remains the jurisdiction of choice for patent assertion entities in fintech
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract high volumes of assertion-entity filings. Financial institutions without a robust patent monitoring programme face asymmetric discovery and scheduling burdens in this jurisdiction. Proactive portfolio mapping against Amadora’s seven-patent family is a prudent first step for any U.S. bank.
Amadora v VeraBank — key questions answered
Amadora Systems LLC filed a seven-patent infringement action against VeraBank, N.A. in the Eastern District of Texas on July 31, 2024. The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 30, 2025 — 303 days after filing — pursuant to a joint stipulation by both parties, subject to the terms of a confidential agreement. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Amadora Systems asserted seven U.S. patents: US10157385B2, US11922429B2, US9235841B2, US10504123B2, US9911124B2, US10861020B2, and US9245270B2. All are directed to transaction security apparatus and methods. The portfolio spans multiple application dates, consistent with a continuation family built across an extended prosecution timeline.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition that bars Amadora Systems from re-asserting the same patent claims against VeraBank based on the same accused conduct. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Amadora retains the right to assert these patents against other defendants — only VeraBank receives the permanent bar.
The court’s order refers to the above-captioned action as a ‘Member Case,’ language typically used in E.D. Texas to indicate that a case is part of a consolidated or related multi-defendant proceeding. This suggests Amadora Systems may have filed parallel actions against other financial institutions asserting the same transaction security patents, though the public record for this specific case does not identify co-defendants by name.
Amadora Systems was represented by Michael Scott Fuller of Garteiser Honea PLLC. VeraBank retained three firms: Findlay Craft PC (Eric Hugh Findlay and Gregory Blake Thompson), Mann, Tindel & Thompson (John Horton Wright III), and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP (William McKenzie Ragland Jr.). The multi-firm defence team is consistent with a defendant intending to mount a vigorous challenge to a large patent portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.