CheckWizard LLC v. Hancock Whitney Corp. — Voluntarily Dismissed After 65 Days
CheckWizard LLC sued Hancock Whitney Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US10140514B1, a patent covering capturing and sharing images with mobile device users for a limited duration. The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal just 65 days after filing, before the defendant had answered the complaint.
Early voluntary exit in a mobile imaging patent dispute
CheckWizard LLC filed suit against Hancock Whitney Corp. on 6 April 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The single patent asserted was US10140514B1 (application no. US15/182992), covering the capturing and sharing of images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time. The defendant is a financial services corporation.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that the court accepted CheckWizard's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Docket No. 14) and ordered the claims dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs. The specific terms underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 10 June 2026, just 65 days after filing and before Hancock Whitney Corp. had filed an answer or moved for summary judgment. The early exit at the pre-answer stage is consistent with a resolution reached before substantive litigation commenced, though no further details are available from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 65 days
65 days — case resolved before defendant's answer was filed
US10140514B1 — Mobile device image capture and time-limited sharing
Product teams at banks, fintechs, and mobile platform developers building image-capture, document-scanning, or ephemeral media features should treat US10140514B1 as an active risk. The patent was asserted against a major financial institution — Hancock Whitney Corp. — and the case closed without any validity or infringement determination. If your mobile application captures images and shares them with time-limited access, an FTO review is warranted.
Official order — verbatim text
The court accepted CheckWizard's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and ordered dismissal before Hancock Whitney had answered. No merits findings, invalidity rulings, or claim constructions were issued. The cost-neutrality order — each party bearing its own expenses — is consistent with a plaintiff-initiated exit at the earliest procedural stage, though the underlying reasons are not disclosed in the available record.
Voluntary dismissal: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 voluntary dismissal at the pre-answer stage
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or moved for summary judgment. Here, the court accepted CheckWizard's notice and entered the dismissal. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal'; the docket order styles the dismissal as being with prejudice. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)The public record notes 'with prejudice' — but Basis of Termination is silent
A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims; a dismissal without prejudice preserves that right. The recorded Basis of Termination states only 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying either. The docket order text states the claims are dismissed with prejudice. Readers should consult the docket directly to confirm the operative terms and any implications for future enforcement of US10140514B1 against this defendant.
Prejudice status: consult docketCheckWizard exits before substantive defence is mounted
CheckWizard filed the dismissal notice before Hancock Whitney had answered, meaning no invalidity defences, claim constructions, or prior art arguments entered the public record. The patent US10140514B1 has not been adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding. The ability to enforce the patent against other parties is unaffected by this dismissal, subject to the prejudice question above.
Patent unadjudicated on meritsCost-neutral exit signals early-stage resolution dynamic
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, suggesting neither side extracted a cost award from the other. The 65-day timeline and pre-answer posture are consistent with a swift resolution, though no licensing or settlement terms are disclosed. For financial institutions and mobile-banking product teams, the patent remains potentially in force and available for future assertion.
Each party bears own costsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CheckWizard LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hancock Whitney Corp. | Company | /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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Eric Zeliger | Attorney | Counsel for Hancock Whitney Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Hines Borofsky | Attorney | Counsel for Hancock Whitney Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hancock Whitney Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the mobile image capture and sharing space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from CheckWizard LLC v. Hancock Whitney Corp. and the broader mobile imaging technology domain.
CheckWizard LLC's patent holdings in mobile imaging
CheckWizard LLC asserted US10140514B1 in this action. Understanding whether the entity holds continuation patents, related family members, or additional mobile imaging applications is critical for any company operating in this space. A portfolio map of CheckWizard's holdings can reveal the breadth of potential assertion risk.
Plaintiff portfolio scanFiling trends in mobile image capture and time-limited sharing
Ephemeral media and time-bounded image sharing is an active filing area driven by consumer apps, fintech check-deposit workflows, and enterprise document management. Tracking filing activity around CPC subclasses covering mobile imaging and conditional media access can surface emerging competitors and whitespace opportunities.
Mobile imaging filing trendsHancock Whitney Corp.'s mobile banking patent position
Hancock Whitney Corp. is a financial services corporation. Assessing its own patent filings in mobile banking, digital imaging, and app-based document capture can indicate whether it relies primarily on third-party technology or is building defensive IP in this domain. This informs competitive positioning for other banks and fintechs.
Defendant defensive IPAdjacent innovation near US10140514B1: design-around space
The claims of US10140514B1 focus on image capture and time-limited sharing via mobile devices. Adjacent areas — such as server-side expiry logic, AI-assisted image classification before sharing, or blockchain-verified access control — may represent lower-risk innovation paths for developers seeking to build comparable functionality without encroaching on the asserted claims.
Design-around whitespaceSimilar mobile imaging patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving mobile device image capture and ephemeral media sharing technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile imaging patent landscape
A 65-day lifecycle in the Eastern District of Texas raises important monitoring and FTO questions for mobile-feature product teams.
Pre-answer dismissals in EDTX often signal rapid out-of-court resolution
When a plaintiff files for voluntary dismissal before the defendant answers, it typically suggests the dispute was resolved through negotiation rather than litigation. The public record discloses no terms. Companies operating mobile image-capture or ephemeral-sharing features should monitor US10140514B1 for future assertion activity.
US10140514B1 remains unadjudicated — enforcement risk persists
Because the case ended before any claim construction, invalidity argument, or merits ruling, the patent's scope and validity have not been tested in court. This leaves the patent fully enforceable in future actions. Financial services firms with mobile banking or image-sharing features in their apps should consider an FTO review against this patent.
CheckWizard v Hancock — key questions answered
CheckWizard LLC asserted US10140514B1 (application no. US15/182992), a patent covering the capturing and sharing of images with mobile device users including for a limited duration of time. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on 6 April 2026.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that the court accepted CheckWizard's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ordering each party to bear its own costs. The case closed on 10 June 2026, 65 days after filing.
No. The case was voluntarily dismissed before Hancock Whitney Corp. filed an answer or any substantive motion. No claim construction, validity determination, or infringement ruling was issued. US10140514B1 was not adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding.
Because the docket order records the dismissal as being with prejudice, CheckWizard LLC would be barred from re-asserting the same claims against Hancock Whitney Corp. specifically. The patent itself remains unadjudicated and potentially enforceable against other parties. The specific terms of any underlying resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
CheckWizard LLC was represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Hancock Whitney Corp. was represented by Michael Eric Zeliger and Michael Hines Borofsky of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. Judge Robert W. Schroeder III presided in the Eastern District of Texas.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.