CheckWizard v. Independent Bank Group: Dismissed With Prejudice in 105 Days
CheckWizard LLC filed suit against Independent Bank Group in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of US10140514B1, a patent covering mobile image capture and time-limited sharing with other users. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 105 days after filing — with each party bearing its own costs.
A swift end to a mobile-imaging patent dispute in E.D. Texas
CheckWizard LLC filed this patent infringement action against Independent Bank Group, Inc. on February 6, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The suit centred on US10140514B1, a patent directed at capturing and sharing images with mobile device users, including functionality for time-limited image sharing. Independent Bank Group — a regional banking group — was accused of infringing through products or services incorporating that mobile imaging technology.
The case closed on May 22, 2025, when 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, formally closing the case. Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning CheckWizard permanently relinquished its right to assert the same claims against Independent Bank Group. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses — suggesting no compensatory settlement payment was publicly disclosed.
The 105-day duration is notably brief even by E.D. Texas standards, where cases frequently settle or resolve before substantive motion practice concludes. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a confidential settlement or a commercial decision by CheckWizard to discontinue enforcement. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement was reached, leaving the underlying commercial resolution opaque.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 105 days
105 days — resolved well before typical E.D. Texas district court trial timelines
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal bars all future claims on this patent
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a plaintiff-initiated termination that carries permanent legal effect. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, CheckWizard cannot refile this action or reassert the same claims of US10140514B1 against Independent Bank Group in any court. The court’s order accepting the dismissal confirms the finality — all pending relief was denied as moot and the clerk directed to close the docket.
Permanent bar on refilingCheckWizard permanently surrenders its claims against this defendant
By dismissing with prejudice, CheckWizard has extinguished its enforcement rights against Independent Bank Group on US10140514B1. This is the most consequential form of voluntary exit — the patent remains valid and enforceable against other parties, but Independent Bank Group is effectively immune from future CheckWizard assertions on this patent. Whether a licensing fee or other consideration was exchanged privately is not disclosed in the public record.
Claims extinguished vs. this defendantIndependent Bank Group exits with no liability and no fee award
Independent Bank Group achieved a full exit from the litigation without any finding of infringement or damages award. The mutual cost-bearing order means it receives no attorney-fee recovery despite the plaintiff-initiated termination — a typical outcome in early-stage PAE disputes resolved before claim construction. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal provides Independent Bank Group with a durable shield against re-assertion of these specific claims by CheckWizard.
Clean exit, no damagesUS10140514B1 remains live — other banking sector defendants remain at risk
The dismissal resolves only this specific defendant’s exposure. US10140514B1 remains in force and CheckWizard retains full enforcement rights against any other party deploying mobile image capture or time-limited sharing technology — including other financial institutions using mobile check deposit or in-app image sharing features. Regional banks and fintechs with similar product surfaces should assess their FTO posture against this patent.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CheckWizard | Individual | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10140514B1 covering mobile image capture and sharingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Independent Bank Group, Inc. | Company | Regional U.S. bank holding company offering retail and commercial banking servicesSearch 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 | Jason Dwain Mazingo | Attorney | Counsel for Independent Bank Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Mazingo Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Independent Bank Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the precise language of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming this was a unilateral plaintiff dismissal filed before the defendant had served an answer or motion for summary judgment — the procedural posture that permits dismissal without court approval. The with-prejudice designation, explicitly stated in both the notice and the court’s acceptance, transforms what would ordinarily be a plaintiff’s procedural right into a permanent waiver. The mutual cost-bearing instruction, rather than a fee award to the defendant, suggests the court saw no basis for exceptional-case treatment under § 285.
US10140514B1 — Mobile image capture and time-limited sharing technology
US10140514B1 protects methods and systems for capturing images using a mobile device and sharing those images with other mobile users, including the ability to impose time constraints on image availability. Filed under application number US15/182992, the patent sits at the intersection of mobile computing, image processing, and ephemeral content delivery — a technical domain that became commercially significant with the rise of mobile banking, social media image features, and in-app document capture workflows used in financial services.
For the financial services sector, the patent’s relevance centres on mobile check deposit and in-app document capture features, where a user photographs a document and submits it within a defined session or time window. Any bank or fintech offering mobile imaging functionality should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk. CheckWizard’s willingness to file in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-favourable venue — and the rapid resolution suggest an active licensing strategy rather than a one-off dispute.
Should your mobile banking product be cleared against US10140514B1?
Any development or product team building mobile image capture features — including check deposit, document upload, or time-limited media sharing — should assess freedom to operate against US10140514B1. The patent’s claims are relevant to a broad range of financial apps, lending platforms, and customer-facing banking interfaces that allow users to photograph and submit documents within a session. Given CheckWizard’s demonstrated enforcement posture in E.D. Texas, early FTO analysis is preferable to reactive litigation defence.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map their mobile imaging product features against the claims of US10140514B1 and its patent family in minutes. Eureka surfaces related granted patents, pending applications, and prior art that may support design-around strategies — giving your team an evidence base before a demand letter arrives rather than after.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10140514B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile imaging and fintech patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving mobile image capture and financial technology patents before Judge Gilstrap and the Eastern District of Texas follow recognisable PAE enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the mobile banking IP enforcement landscape
A fast with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas typically signals either a licensing deal or a deliberate enforcement pivot — both carry strategic implications for the broader sector.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for mobile-tech PAE assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entity filings in financial technology and mobile software. The 105-day lifecycle here is consistent with cases that settle privately before substantive motion practice — companies receiving demand letters in this domain should treat E.D. Texas risk as real and near-term.
Mobile check deposit and in-app imaging features carry growing patent risk
US10140514B1 covers image capture and time-limited sharing via mobile devices — a functionality now embedded across retail banking apps, mobile deposit workflows, and fintech platforms. Any financial institution or SaaS provider offering similar features should verify their engineering stack does not read on the claims of this patent or its family members.
CheckWizard v Independent — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice in Case No. 2:25-cv-00149 extinguishes CheckWizard’s right to sue Independent Bank Group again on US10140514B1. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable — CheckWizard can and may assert it against other defendants in the banking or fintech sector.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A 105-day with-prejudice dismissal is consistent with a confidential licensing payment, a commercial settlement, or a strategic decision to withdraw enforcement against this particular target. The mutual cost-bearing order suggests no exceptional-case fee award was warranted or sought.
US10140514B1 is a US patent covering methods and systems for capturing and sharing images using mobile devices, including time-limited sharing functionality. It is relevant to mobile check deposit features, in-app document capture, and any banking or fintech product that allows users to photograph and submit materials within a defined session window.
No. The dismissal with prejudice operates only in favour of Independent Bank Group as the named defendant. Other financial institutions, regional banks, or fintech companies deploying similar mobile imaging technology remain fully exposed to infringement claims from CheckWizard under US10140514B1. Each institution must assess its own FTO position independently.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case, CheckWizard used this mechanism to exit the litigation unilaterally. Adding ‘with prejudice’ to the notice elevated the dismissal from a procedural exit to a permanent waiver of claims against Independent Bank Group.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.