CheckWizard LLC v. Banc of California: Dismissed With Prejudice in 6 Days
CheckWizard LLC filed a patent infringement action against Banc of California in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US10140514B1 covering mobile image capture and time-limited sharing. The case ended by voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 6 days after filing — before the defendant filed any response.
A 6-Day Patent Suit That Ended Before It Began
On August 21, 2025, CheckWizard LLC filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US10140514B1 against Banc of California. The patent covers capturing and sharing images with mobile device users for a limited duration of time — technology with clear relevance to mobile banking and check-deposit workflows.
Just six days later, on August 27, 2025, CheckWizard filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, ordering each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Banc of California had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment at the point of dismissal.
The speed of resolution — six days from filing to closure — is highly atypical and suggests the parties reached a private resolution, or that CheckWizard determined continued pursuit was not viable, almost immediately after serving the complaint. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any refiling of the same claims against this defendant, which is a notable concession by the plaintiff. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing terms or financial consideration changed hands.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 6 days
6 days — resolved before defendant answered or moved for summary judgment
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Plaintiff’s right to dismiss before answer
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, CheckWizard exercised that right — but chose to dismiss with prejudice, a more final step than the default, which would have been without prejudice. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal rather than issuing an independent ruling.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)With prejudice means no second bite at Banc of California
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits, barring CheckWizard from reasserting the same patent claims against Banc of California in any future action. This distinguishes the outcome from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The plaintiff voluntarily accepted this permanent bar — a significant concession whose commercial rationale is not disclosed in the public record.
Permanent bar on refilingBanc of California exits with no liability and no costs awarded
Banc of California was never required to answer the complaint and incurred no court-ordered costs — each party bears its own fees per the dismissal order. The bank faces no ongoing infringement exposure from CheckWizard on US10140514B1. Whether any confidential settlement or licensing arrangement underpins the dismissal cannot be confirmed from the public docket.
No liability, own costsMobile-image patent suits in banking: pattern to monitor
US10140514B1 covers mobile image capture and time-limited sharing — technology directly relevant to mobile check deposit and in-app document workflows used widely across retail banking. The rapid dismissal with prejudice against one defendant does not extinguish the patent’s enforceability against others. Financial institutions operating mobile banking platforms should assess their exposure to this patent and related portfolio claims.
Monitor for related assertionsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CheckWizard LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Banc of California | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for CheckWizard LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing CheckWizard LLCSearch 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 the voluntary dismissal rather than adjudicating the merits. The with-prejudice designation — chosen by plaintiff, not imposed by the court — is the operative legal consequence: it functions as a final judgment barring CheckWizard from reasserting the same claims against Banc of California. No infringement finding, claim construction, or invalidity ruling was made. The ‘own costs’ directive reflects standard practice under Rule 41 absent a fee-shifting agreement.
US10140514B1 — Mobile Image Capture and Time-Limited Sharing
US10140514B1 (application number US15/182992) covers systems and methods for capturing and sharing images with mobile device users, including sharing for a limited duration of time. This claim architecture is directly relevant to mobile check deposit (remote deposit capture) and in-app document scanning workflows, where images are captured, processed, and transmitted within a constrained session or time window — a core interaction pattern in retail banking mobile apps.
The patent’s scope creates meaningful risk for financial institutions and fintech platforms that enable mobile image capture as part of account onboarding, check deposit, or document verification workflows. As mobile RDC adoption has become nearly universal across retail banking, any patent covering the underlying image-capture-and-share mechanism commands attention. CheckWizard’s decision to assert this patent against a regulated bank in the Eastern District of Texas suggests a calculated enforcement posture that may extend to other institutions.
Should you run an FTO against US10140514B1?
Any bank, credit union, neobank, or fintech offering mobile check deposit, in-app document capture, or time-limited image sharing features should evaluate freedom-to-operate against US10140514B1. The patent’s claim language around mobile image capture and duration-limited sharing maps to workflows that are now standard across the industry. This case confirms the patent is being actively asserted against financial institutions.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US10140514B1 against your product’s technical implementation, surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and identify related patents in the CheckWizard portfolio that could give rise to future assertions. Running an FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — is materially cheaper than responding to litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10140514B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Mobile Image Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving mobile image capture and fintech patents in the Eastern District of Texas follow distinct filing and resolution patterns worth benchmarking against this action.
What this case signals for the mobile banking IP landscape
A six-day life cycle with a with-prejudice exit raises real questions about litigation strategy and patent portfolio dynamics in fintech.
Speed of dismissal suggests pre-litigation contact or rapid settlement
Cases resolved in under a week — before the defendant even answers — typically reflect either a pre-suit licensing negotiation that concluded quickly, or a plaintiff decision that the specific defendant was not worth pursuing. Either scenario signals that CheckWizard’s litigation strategy around US10140514B1 may be targeted and selective.
With-prejudice dismissal removes one defendant but not the patent threat
The patent US10140514B1 remains in force and enforceable against third parties. Banks and fintechs offering mobile image capture or time-limited document sharing features should treat this case as an early signal of assertion activity, not a resolved threat to the sector broadly.
CheckWizard v Banc — key questions answered
CheckWizard LLC filed a patent infringement action against Banc of California in the Eastern District of Texas on August 21, 2025, asserting US10140514B1. Six days later, CheckWizard voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Banc of California answered the complaint. Each party bears its own costs.
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice permanently bars the plaintiff from reasserting the same patent claims against the same defendant. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, which preserves the right to refile, the with-prejudice designation functions as a final judgment on the merits for that defendant. The patent itself remains enforceable against other parties.
US10140514B1 covers capturing and sharing images with mobile device users, including sharing for a limited duration of time. The patent is relevant to mobile check deposit, remote deposit capture, and in-app document scanning workflows common in retail banking and fintech applications.
No. The dismissal with prejudice entered on August 27, 2025 bars CheckWizard from refiling the same claims against Banc of California. However, CheckWizard retains the right to assert US10140514B1 against other defendants not covered by this dismissal order.
A dismissal this rapid — before the defendant even answers — typically suggests one of several scenarios: the parties reached a private settlement or licensing agreement; the plaintiff received consideration in exchange for the with-prejudice dismissal; or the plaintiff determined the defendant was not worth pursuing. The public record for this case does not disclose the underlying reason.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.