CheckWizard LLC v. BankUnited Inc: Patent Suit Ends in 5 Days
CheckWizard LLC asserted US10140514B1 — a patent covering mobile image capture and time-limited sharing — against BankUnited Inc in the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice just five days after filing, before the defendant responded. Each party bears its own costs.
A five-day patent suit that raises more questions than it answers
On November 20, 2025, CheckWizard LLC filed an infringement action against BankUnited Inc in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Brantley Starr, asserting US10140514B1. That patent — applied for under application number US15/182992 — covers the capture and sharing of images via mobile devices, including sharing for a limited duration of time, a feature directly relevant to mobile banking and check-deposit workflows.
Just five days later, on November 25, 2025, CheckWizard filed a unilateral notice of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the procedural mechanism available before a defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — CheckWizard is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against BankUnited. Each party was designated to bear its own fees and costs.
The five-day duration is exceptionally brief and the public record is silent on what prompted this resolution. Possible explanations include a pre-litigation licensing agreement reached immediately after the complaint was served, a strategic reassessment of claim scope, or procedural considerations unique to this defendant. The fact that BankUnited never filed an appearance suggests the matter was resolved — or abandoned — entirely outside the court process.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 5 days
5 days — among the shortest District Court patent case lifespans on record
Dismissed with prejudice: what the FRCP 41 filing means for both sides
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, CheckWizard added ‘with prejudice’ — a voluntary elevation beyond what the rule requires — converting what is ordinarily a without-prejudice exit into a permanent bar against reasserting the same claims against BankUnited.
Plaintiff-initiated exitPermanent bar: CheckWizard cannot refile against BankUnited
By electing dismissal with prejudice, CheckWizard has forfeited its right to reassert US10140514B1 infringement claims against BankUnited in any future proceeding. This is an unusual choice for a plaintiff acting unilaterally — it suggests either a licensing deal was reached (making refiling unnecessary) or the plaintiff concluded this defendant was not a viable target. The public record does not disclose which.
Claims extinguished vs. BankUnitedBankUnited exits without responding — and without admission
BankUnited filed no answer, no appearance, and no motion. The dismissal with prejudice is entirely favourable from the defendant’s perspective: no liability finding, no declaratory judgment exposure, and no invalidity ruling on the patent. BankUnited’s mobile imaging practices remain unchallenged on the merits. Whether any confidential settlement terms underpin this outcome is unknown from the public record.
No liability, no merits rulingUS10140514B1 remains enforceable against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes claims only against BankUnited. CheckWizard retains the right to assert US10140514B1 against any other bank or fintech operating mobile image-capture or check-deposit features. Financial institutions using similar mobile imaging workflows should note that this patent has not been invalidated or narrowed — its enforceability is unchanged against the broader market.
Patent survives for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CheckWizard LLC | Company | Mobile imaging patent assertion entity — holder of US10140514B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BankUnited Inc | Company | BankUnited Inc — U.S. commercial bank, mobile banking services operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin C. Deming | Attorney | Counsel for CheckWizard LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for CheckWizard LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DNL Zito | Law Firm | Representing CheckWizard LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing CheckWizard LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Brantley Starr | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — language that is plaintiff-chosen and operates as a final merits bar against BankUnited specifically. The fee-sharing provision confirms no prevailing party was designated. Because BankUnited never appeared, there is no invalidity finding, no claim construction, and no binding precedent affecting the patent’s enforceability against third parties.
US10140514B1 — Mobile Image Capture and Limited-Duration Sharing
US10140514B1, filed under application number US15/182992, protects technology for capturing images with mobile devices and sharing those images — including for a limited or ephemeral duration — with other users. In a banking context, this maps directly onto mobile check deposit workflows and in-app image transmission features, where image capture quality, sharing control, and time-bounded access are core product attributes.
For financial institutions and fintech developers, this patent represents a direct risk vector across mobile banking apps that incorporate check scanning, document capture, or image-sharing flows. The patent has not been subject to IPR, inter partes review, or any merits-based invalidity ruling, leaving its claims fully intact. Any competitor or licensee operating in the mobile document imaging space — particularly under iOS or Android — should treat this patent as live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10140514B1?
Any bank, credit union, or fintech building or licensing a mobile check deposit, document scan, or image-sharing feature should assess freedom-to-operate against US10140514B1. The patent’s claims have not been narrowed by any court, and the with-prejudice dismissal against BankUnited does not extend protection to other defendants. If your product captures images on a mobile device and transmits them — particularly with any access-duration or expiry logic — this patent is directly relevant.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets R&D and IP teams map US10140514B1’s claim language against product feature specifications in minutes. Run a claim chart, identify design-around opportunities, and check for related continuations in the US15/182992 family — all before committing engineering resources. Early FTO analysis is significantly cheaper than defending or settling a patent assertion campaign.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10140514B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile imaging patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore patent infringement actions asserting mobile image capture and sharing technologies in U.S. district courts, including other N.D. Texas filings with comparable assertion patterns.
What this case signals for the mobile banking IP landscape
A five-day lifecycle and unilateral with-prejudice exit are rare signals that warrant attention from fintech and banking IP teams.
Short-lifecycle cases often reflect rapid licensing, not merit weakness
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice within days of filing — before any defendant response — the most commercially consistent explanation is a licensing agreement reached immediately post-service. IP teams at financial institutions should treat US10140514B1 as an actively monetised asset and audit mobile check-deposit and image-sharing features against its claims.
The Northern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for patent assertion
Filing before Judge Brantley Starr in N.D. Tex. is a deliberate venue choice consistent with plaintiff-friendly procedural norms. Banks and fintechs operating mobile imaging products should monitor N.D. Tex. dockets for assertion patterns involving this patent and related application family members.
CheckWizard v BankUnited — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means CheckWizard LLC permanently forfeited its right to sue BankUnited Inc on US10140514B1. BankUnited faces no liability on these claims and cannot be sued again by CheckWizard on the same patent. However, the patent itself is unaffected and remains enforceable against other parties.
US10140514B1 is a U.S. patent filed under application US15/182992 covering the capture and sharing of images via mobile devices, including sharing for a limited duration. In a fintech context this is relevant to mobile check deposit, document scanning, and in-app image transmission features common in retail banking applications.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A five-day lifecycle before any defendant response is consistent with a rapid pre-litigation licensing agreement reached after the complaint was served, or with a strategic decision to withdraw before BankUnited could mount an invalidity challenge. Neither scenario is confirmed by the available court documents.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal applies only to the claims against BankUnited Inc in case 3:25-cv-03196. CheckWizard LLC retains full enforcement rights against any other company. The patent has not been invalidated, narrowed, or subjected to inter partes review, so it remains a live risk for other financial institutions operating mobile imaging features.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action unilaterally — without court approval — by filing a notice before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. Dismissals under this rule are ordinarily without prejudice unless the plaintiff specifies otherwise. In patent cases it is frequently used to exit before an accused infringer can file an IPR petition or invalidity counterclaim, making the timing strategically significant.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.