CheckWizard v. PlainsCapital Bank: Mobile Image Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
CheckWizard LLC asserted US10140514B1 — a patent covering the capture and time-limited sharing of images via mobile devices — against regional bank PlainsCapital Bank in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after 182 days, with each side bearing its own costs, suggesting a confidential resolution.
Mobile image patent ends in joint dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas
CheckWizard LLC filed suit against PlainsCapital Bank on February 6, 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of US10140514B1. The patent, arising from application US15/182992, covers the capture and sharing of images using mobile devices, including functionality for sharing on a time-limited basis — technology relevant to mobile banking check deposit and document capture workflows.
The case concluded on August 7, 2025 when the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, formally closing the case. Crucially, the dismissal is with prejudice, meaning CheckWizard is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against PlainsCapital Bank. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means neither party extracted a fee-shifting order.
At 182 days, the resolution timeline suggests the parties reached an agreement before substantial litigation costs accumulated — no trial or claim construction hearing appears to have occurred. The combination of with-prejudice dismissal and each party bearing its own costs is a pattern consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm the existence or terms of any such agreement. The specific financial terms, if any, remain entirely undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 182 days
182 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases, consistent with early settlement
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation closes the case permanently
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties who have appeared. Here, both CheckWizard and PlainsCapital Bank agreed to dismiss the case. The ‘with prejudice’ designation means the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — CheckWizard is legally precluded from bringing the same patent claims against PlainsCapital Bank again in any court.
Permanent bar on refilingCheckWizard surrenders its right to refile against this defendant
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, CheckWizard permanently extinguished its infringement claims against PlainsCapital Bank under US10140514B1. However, the dismissal does not invalidate the patent itself — US10140514B1 remains in force and could still be asserted against other defendants. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means CheckWizard did not recover litigation expenses, though a confidential payment from the defendant cannot be ruled out.
Patent survives; claims extinguishedPlainsCapital Bank achieves permanent resolution on these claims
PlainsCapital Bank secured a with-prejudice dismissal, providing lasting certainty that CheckWizard cannot refile these specific infringement claims. Represented by Baker & McKenzie, the bank avoided any formal finding of infringement or validity ruling. Each party bearing its own costs is consistent with a negotiated exit, though PlainsCapital Bank’s litigation spend with a global firm was likely significant relative to the case duration.
No infringement findingUS10140514B1 remains an active enforcement risk for other mobile banking providers
Because the dismissal is between these two parties only, US10140514B1 retains full enforceability against the broader market. Banks and fintech companies deploying mobile check deposit, document capture, or time-limited image sharing features should note that no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was obtained here. CheckWizard retains the right to assert this patent against other financial institutions operating similar mobile image workflows.
Ongoing risk for mobile banking sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CheckWizard | Individual | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10140514B1 covering mobile image captureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Plains Capital Bank | Company | PlainsCapital Bank — Texas-based regional bank and financial services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for CheckWizardSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for CheckWizardSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing CheckWizardSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing CheckWizardSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dorian Ojemen | Attorney | Counsel for Plains Capital BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John G. Flaim | Attorney | Counsel for Plains Capital BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker & McKenzie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Plains Capital BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker & McKenzie LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Plains Capital BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation language — accepted and acknowledged by Judge Gilstrap — confirms a bilateral, consensual exit under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The ‘dismissed with prejudice’ designation carries the legal weight of a merits adjudication for preclusion purposes, permanently barring CheckWizard from reasserting these claims against PlainsCapital Bank. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no substantive rulings on infringement or validity were issued, leaving the patent’s legal status entirely unchanged.
US10140514B1 — Mobile device image capture and time-limited sharing
US10140514B1 was granted from application US15/182992 and covers the capture and sharing of images using mobile devices, including functionality that limits the duration for which shared images remain accessible. This technical domain sits at the intersection of mobile camera functionality, secure document transmission, and ephemeral data sharing — capabilities that are deeply embedded in modern mobile banking infrastructure, particularly remote check deposit and customer document verification workflows.
For the financial services sector, this patent’s relevance extends well beyond check deposit. Any mobile banking feature that captures, transmits, or temporarily displays an image — including identity verification, document upload, and payment confirmation screens — may fall within the claim scope. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means the patent retains presumptive validity, and competitors cannot draw comfort from this outcome when assessing their own exposure.
Should your mobile banking app run an FTO against US10140514B1?
Any bank, credit union, or fintech deploying mobile check deposit, document capture, or time-limited image sharing features should treat US10140514B1 as a live FTO risk. The patent has been actively asserted in litigation, the case resolved without any invalidity finding, and the technology it covers is standard across retail mobile banking apps. Product and IP teams launching or updating mobile image features should conduct a formal FTO review before go-live.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid, AI-assisted claim mapping against your product’s technical specification. Upload your feature documentation and Eureka will surface relevant prior art, identify claim limitations that may or may not read on your implementation, and generate a structured FTO report — accelerating the analysis that would otherwise take weeks of manual review by outside counsel.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10140514B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile image and banking technology patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving mobile device image capture and banking technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the mobile banking patent IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas suggests CheckWizard may be running a structured licensing campaign targeting mobile image functionality in financial services.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for patent assertion against banks
Filing before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas is a deliberate strategic choice. The district’s established patent docket and plaintiff-friendly reputation for case management make it an effective pressure point for licensing-focused plaintiffs. Banks and fintechs with mobile image workflows should monitor new filings in this district closely.
With-prejudice, own-costs dismissal is a signature settlement pattern
When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice and each bears its own costs, the public record is silent on whether a payment changed hands. This structure is commonly used to conceal licensing fees. IP teams at regional banks should treat this outcome as a signal that similar demands may follow, not as a sign the patent lacks commercial teeth.
CheckWizard v Plains — key questions answered
CheckWizard LLC filed a patent infringement action against PlainsCapital Bank in the Eastern District of Texas on February 6, 2025, asserting US10140514B1. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on August 7, 2025 after 182 days. Each party bore its own costs. No merits rulings on infringement or validity were issued.
US10140514B1 covers the capture and sharing of images using mobile devices, including features that limit the duration of image accessibility. This directly implicates mobile check deposit, document capture, and identity verification workflows standard in retail banking apps. The patent arose from application US15/182992 and retains presumptive validity following the dismissal.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars CheckWizard from reasserting the same patent claims against PlainsCapital Bank. It operates as a final adjudication for preclusion purposes. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable — CheckWizard retains the right to assert US10140514B1 against other defendants in the mobile banking or fintech space.
The public record does not confirm or deny any financial settlement. However, the combination of a with-prejudice dismissal and a mutual cost-bearing arrangement is a common structure used to conceal licensing payments. Neither party is required to disclose private settlement terms, so the financial resolution — if any — remains entirely undisclosed.
CheckWizard was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC and DNL Zito, with attorneys Benjamin Charles Deming and Isaac Phillip Rabicoff. PlainsCapital Bank was represented by Baker & McKenzie LLP (Dallas office), with attorneys Dorian Ojemen and John G. Flaim. The case was presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.