Digital Doors, Inc. v. Bank of Ann Arbor — Dismissed With Prejudice After 235 Days
Digital Doors, Inc. filed a four-patent infringement action against Bank of Ann Arbor in the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting patents covering Solution Guide technology. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41, with each side bearing its own legal costs — a structure consistent with a confidential settlement.
Four-Patent Bank Tech Suit Ends in Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice
Digital Doors, Inc. filed suit against Bank of Ann Arbor on April 10, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting infringement of four U.S. patents — US11379416B1, US10482069B1, US8849716B1, and US10380374B2 — each directed to technology underlying a product identified as ‘Solution Guide.’ The defendant, a regional Michigan bank, was represented by Fish & Richardson PC and Hooper Hathaway, signalling a well-resourced defence from the outset.
The case closed on December 1, 2025, via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(a)(1)(B). Dismissal with prejudice means Digital Doors permanently relinquished its right to refile the same claims against Bank of Ann Arbor. The cost-bearing provision — each party paying its own fees — is a standard hallmark of a negotiated resolution rather than a litigated outcome on the merits.
At 235 days, the case resolved well short of a typical district court trial timeline, which is consistent with early-stage settlement discussions or a licensing arrangement reached before substantial motion practice. The public record is silent on any financial terms or licensing agreement, and no claim construction or dispositive rulings appear to have been issued. What drove the resolution — whether patent validity concerns, business considerations, or commercial licensing terms — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 235 days
235 days — resolved before trial, suggesting early negotiated exit
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what it means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice bars any refiling
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss without court approval. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently preventing Digital Doors from reasserting the same four patents against Bank of Ann Arbor on the same or substantially similar grounds. This is the strongest form of voluntary dismissal from the defendant’s perspective.
Permanent bar on refilingDigital Doors permanently surrenders its claims against this defendant
Digital Doors accepted dismissal with prejudice, forfeiting any future infringement claim against Bank of Ann Arbor under these four patents in connection with the same accused conduct. This outcome typically reflects either a confidential settlement providing sufficient commercial return, or a strategic reassessment of claim viability after seeing the defendant’s representation by Fish & Richardson. The public record does not confirm whether any licensing consideration was exchanged.
Claims permanently extinguishedBank of Ann Arbor secures a permanent release from these patent claims
Bank of Ann Arbor exits the litigation with prejudice — meaning it cannot be sued again by Digital Doors on these patents for the same accused activities. The own-costs provision avoids fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would require an ‘exceptional case’ finding. That no such finding was sought or granted suggests neither party pursued a scorched-earth litigation path, consistent with a negotiated resolution.
Fully released from these claimsSolution Guide patent portfolio remains active against other targets
Dismissal with prejudice binds only the named parties. Digital Doors retains its four asserted patents and may pursue infringement actions against other financial institutions or technology providers using similar Solution Guide functionality. Banks and fintech firms operating comparable digital guidance or onboarding platforms should monitor this portfolio. Fish & Richardson’s involvement suggests the defendant had the resources to mount a substantive invalidity or non-infringement defence had the case proceeded.
Portfolio remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digital Doors, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11379416B1 and three related Solution Guide patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bank of Ann Arbor | Company | Regional Michigan community bank accused of infringing Solution Guide technology patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jean-Marc Zimmerman | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lucosky Brookman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bruce T. Wallace | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Ann ArborSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Ann ArborSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan P. McCarthy | Attorney | Counsel for Bank of Ann ArborSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Bank of Ann ArborSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hooper, Hathaway | Law Firm | Representing Bank of Ann ArborSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Michigan Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation language — ‘WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 41(a)(1)(B)’ — reflects a deliberate bilateral agreement to end the litigation permanently. The explicit invocation of both Rule 41 subsections and the own-costs provision are drafting choices that suggest experienced IP counsel on both sides negotiated precise terms. No merits adjudication occurred; the dismissal carries no finding on validity, infringement, or enforceability of the four asserted patents.
US11379416B1, US10482069B1, US8849716B1 & US10380374B2 — Solution Guide Technology
The four patents at issue — US11379416B1, US10482069B1, US8849716B1, and US10380374B2 — span application numbers ranging from US11/900982 to US15/459374, indicating a patent family developed over multiple filing generations. The technology appears directed to digital guidance or solution delivery platforms, branded as ‘Solution Guide,’ which in a banking context likely relates to digital onboarding, product recommendation, or customer advisory workflows. The breadth of the family across four granted patents suggests layered claim coverage across system, method, and data management aspects.
For financial services firms, a four-patent family covering digital guidance infrastructure represents a meaningful enforcement risk, particularly as banks accelerate investment in digital customer experience platforms. The fact that Digital Doors pursued a regional community bank — rather than a large-cap institution — may indicate a licensing-focused strategy targeting accessible defendants before escalating to larger targets. Competitors and technology vendors supplying digital guidance tools to banks should assess whether their implementations fall within the claim scope of this portfolio.
Should you run an FTO against US11379416B1 and the Solution Guide patent family?
Any financial institution, fintech vendor, or digital banking platform provider deploying solution guide, onboarding assistant, or customer advisory tools should treat this four-patent family as a live FTO concern. Digital Doors has demonstrated willingness to assert these patents in federal district court, and a with-prejudice dismissal against one defendant does not extinguish the patents’ enforceability against others. The risk is particularly acute for SaaS providers supplying these tools to multiple bank clients.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent claims of US11379416B1, US10482069B1, US8849716B1, and US10380374B2, identify prior art that may support IPR petitions, and flag continuation applications that could extend the family’s enforcement reach. For in-house teams at banks or fintech vendors, running this analysis before a product launch or feature expansion is substantially cheaper than defending a multi-patent assertion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11379416B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases in Banking Technology & Digital Platforms
Cases involving digital platform patent assertions against financial institutions in U.S. district courts, with comparable multi-patent portfolios and stipulated resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the banking technology IP landscape
A four-patent assertion against a regional bank resolved swiftly — here is what that pattern means for fintech and financial services IP teams.
Fish & Richardson’s entry typically accelerates settlement calculus
When a regional bank retains a top-tier IP defence firm like Fish & Richardson alongside local counsel, it signals a credible intent to litigate. Patent plaintiffs frequently reassess settlement economics at this point. The 235-day resolution is consistent with early engagement following the defendant’s counsel entry, suggesting the litigation posture was a material factor.
Four-patent assertions concentrate risk — and negotiating leverage
Asserting four patents simultaneously broadens the infringement surface but also increases defendant options: one weak patent in a portfolio can anchor invalidity arguments across the group. Banks facing multi-patent assertions over digital platform features should prioritise prior art searches and IPR filing windows, particularly within the 12-month post-service period.
Digital v Bank — key questions answered
Digital Doors, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Bank of Ann Arbor in the Eastern District of Michigan on April 10, 2025. The complaint asserted four patents covering Solution Guide technology. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on December 1, 2025, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Digital Doors asserted four U.S. patents: US11379416B1, US10482069B1, US8849716B1, and US10380374B2. The patents relate to Solution Guide technology and appear to cover digital guidance, onboarding, or advisory platform functionality in a banking context. The application numbers span from US11/900982 to US15/459374, suggesting a multi-generation patent family.
Dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 means Digital Doors permanently relinquished its right to refile the same infringement claims against Bank of Ann Arbor based on the same accused conduct and patents. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits, even though no court ruling on validity or infringement was issued. The four patents remain in force and enforceable against other parties.
Not in a merits sense. The dismissal was stipulated — agreed by both parties — rather than litigated to a court decision. Bank of Ann Arbor is permanently protected from these specific claims by Digital Doors, but no court found the patents invalid or not infringed. The own-costs provision and mutual agreement suggest a negotiated exit, possibly including undisclosed licensing or business terms.
Yes. A with-prejudice dismissal binds only Bank of Ann Arbor. Digital Doors retains US11379416B1, US10482069B1, US8849716B1, and US10380374B2 and may enforce them against other financial institutions or technology vendors. Banks and fintech providers offering digital guidance or onboarding tools should assess their exposure through a freedom-to-operate review against this patent family.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.