CheckWizard v. Bank of America: Mobile Image Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
CheckWizard filed suit against Bank of America in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US10140514B1, a patent covering mobile device image capture and time-limited sharing. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 50 days after filing — before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
A 50-day patent assertion that ended before defendant could respond
On 6 February 2025, CheckWizard filed an infringement action against Bank of America Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00146), presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent — US10140514B1 — covers technology for capturing and sharing images with mobile device users, including for a limited duration of time, a capability directly relevant to modern mobile banking and document-scanning workflows.
The case concluded on 28 March 2025 when CheckWizard filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, ordering that all claims against Bank of America are dismissed with prejudice and that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Because the defendant had neither answered nor moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff retained the procedural right to dismiss unilaterally.
The 50-day duration and prejudice designation are commercially significant. A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes CheckWizard’s ability to reassert these specific claims against Bank of America in future proceedings. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached, though the own-costs order and pre-answer timing are consistent with either an early licensing resolution or a strategic withdrawal following case evaluation.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 50 days
50 days from filing to dismissal — well below the median E.D. Tex. patent lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the FRCP 41 exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — unilateral plaintiff dismissal before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. CheckWizard exercised this right and elected to dismiss with prejudice — a voluntary but permanent relinquishment of the asserted claims against this defendant. The court’s role was limited to accepting and acknowledging the notice, not adjudicating any merits.
Pre-answer voluntary exitWith prejudice: the claim against Bank of America is permanently closed
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, barring CheckWizard from re-filing the same infringement claims against Bank of America. This is a materially stronger outcome for the defendant than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open to re-litigation. The public record does not clarify whether a settlement or licensing agreement accompanied the dismissal — both scenarios are consistent with the terms observed.
Permanent bar on re-filingCheckWizard closes this action but retains enforcement rights elsewhere
While the with-prejudice designation forecloses future action against Bank of America specifically, CheckWizard retains US10140514B1 and may assert it against other parties in the mobile banking and financial technology sector. The early pre-answer exit limits public disclosure of claim mapping or litigation strategy, which may be intentional. The own-costs arrangement suggests neither party extracted a fee-shifting victory.
Patent remains in forceRapid resolution limits precedent but signals patent activity in fintech
The case generated no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no merits finding — leaving US10140514B1’s scope legally untested in court. For competitors operating mobile check deposit, document scanning, or time-limited image-sharing features, the patent remains a live enforcement risk. The Eastern District of Texas filing and pre-answer resolution is a pattern consistent with assertion campaigns targeting multiple defendants sequentially.
Unresolved patent scopeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CheckWizard | Individual | Mobile image-capture technology licensor — holder of US10140514B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bank of America Corp. | Company | Bank of America Corp. — U.S. multinational banking and financial services corporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for CheckWizardSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing CheckWizardSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bank of America Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely administrative acceptance of CheckWizard’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice — no merits finding was made. The with-prejudice designation is plaintiff-elected, not court-imposed, and permanently bars re-assertion of these specific claims against Bank of America. The own-costs instruction forecloses fee-shifting for either party. Critically, the order’s silence on any underlying agreement leaves open whether a confidential licence or monetary settlement accompanied the dismissal, a fact material to valuing US10140514B1 in future negotiations.
US10140514B1 — Mobile device image capture and time-limited sharing
US10140514B1 (application number US15/182992) protects technology for capturing images using a mobile device and sharing them with other users, including functionality for limiting the duration of image availability. This class of invention sits at the intersection of mobile UX, data-sharing controls, and document workflow — capabilities now embedded in mobile banking applications such as check deposit, KYC document capture, and secure image transfer features.
For the financial services sector, where mobile image capture is a core customer-facing capability, US10140514B1 represents a non-trivial enforcement risk. The patent’s claims around time-limited sharing add a dimension relevant to privacy-by-design architectures. Because no court has construed its claims or ruled on its validity, the patent’s scope remains undefined — which typically increases uncertainty and licensing leverage for the holder in pre-litigation negotiations.
Should your mobile banking product be cleared against US10140514B1?
Any R&D or product team building mobile check deposit flows, document capture, or time-restricted image sharing features for financial services applications should assess exposure to US10140514B1. The patent’s survival of this litigation — without any invalidity challenge reaching a ruling — means it carries full presumptive validity. Banks, neobanks, and fintech infrastructure providers are all plausible targets if their products fall within the claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claims of US10140514B1, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface related patents in CheckWizard’s or affiliated entities’ portfolios. Run a clearance search before your next mobile image feature ships — especially if your roadmap includes time-limited media or document sharing in a banking context.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10140514B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile image-capture patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving mobile device image and document capture technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the fintech and mobile banking IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Tex. rarely signals the end of a patent assertion campaign — it often marks a pivot.
US10140514B1 remains enforceable: other mobile banking defendants should take note
No invalidity finding was made. No claim construction occurred. The patent exits this case legally intact and fully assertable. Banks and fintech firms operating mobile check deposit or image-sharing features should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against US10140514B1 before assuming this dispute is sector-wide resolved.
Pre-answer dismissals in E.D. Tex. often accompany confidential licensing resolutions
The 50-day timeline, own-costs order, and pre-answer filing are hallmarks of a case that reached a quiet resolution. Whether that was a licensing fee or a walk-away, the public record is silent. Defendants facing similar actions from CheckWizard or Rabicoff Law LLC should model both scenarios when setting litigation strategy.
CheckWizard v Bank — key questions answered
CheckWizard filed a patent infringement action against Bank of America in the Eastern District of Texas on 6 February 2025, asserting US10140514B1. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by CheckWizard on 28 March 2025 — just 50 days after filing — before Bank of America had answered the complaint. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring CheckWizard from re-filing the same infringement claims against Bank of America. However, CheckWizard retains US10140514B1 and may assert it against other defendants. The dismissal does not affect the patent’s validity or enforceability against third parties.
US10140514B1 (filed under application US15/182992) is a U.S. patent covering methods and systems for capturing and sharing images using mobile devices, including functionality for time-limiting the duration of image availability. The technology is directly relevant to mobile banking features such as check deposit, document capture, and secure image transfer workflows.
The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement or licensing agreement was reached. The 50-day pre-answer voluntary dismissal with prejudice and the own-costs order are consistent with both a quiet licensing resolution and a strategic withdrawal. No settlement terms have been made public.
No. Because the case was dismissed without any merits ruling, claim construction, or invalidity finding, US10140514B1 exits the litigation legally intact and fully assertable. Companies operating mobile image capture or time-limited sharing features in financial services applications remain potentially exposed and should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against the patent’s claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.