Dynapass IP Holdings v. JPMorgan Chase: 950-Day Patent Dispute Ends With Prejudice
Dynapass IP Holdings LLC asserted US6993658B1 — a dynamic password authentication patent — against JPMorgan Chase and its banking subsidiaries in the Eastern District of Texas. After 950 days of litigation, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
Dynamic Password Patent Dispute With a Global Bank Ends Quietly
On June 17, 2022, Dynapass IP Holdings LLC filed suit against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Chase Bank USA, N.A. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00212), asserting infringement of US6993658B1. The patent covers dynamic password authentication systems used for access and authorization to online banking platforms — technology directly implicated in JPMorgan’s consumer and commercial digital banking infrastructure.
The case closed on January 22, 2025, via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice filed jointly by all parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation and ordered that all claims asserted by Dynapass are dismissed with prejudice, meaning Dynapass cannot reassert these specific claims against the JPMorgan defendants in future proceedings. Notably, the order provides that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
At 950 days, the case ran long enough to suggest meaningful claim construction or validity disputes were litigated or at least briefed before the parties reached resolution. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and the with-prejudice designation are consistent with a negotiated settlement, though no public settlement terms have been disclosed. Whether any licensing arrangement accompanied the dismissal remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 950 days
950 days in litigation — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases, suggesting substantial pre-trial motion practice before resolution.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is filed by joint stipulation of all parties and requires no court approval to take effect — the court’s order here acknowledges rather than grants the dismissal. ‘With prejudice’ is the critical qualifier: it extinguishes Dynapass’s right to refile the same claims against these defendants in any future action. This is a permanent bar, not a pause.
Permanent claim barDynapass Permanently Barred From Refiling These Claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Dynapass surrenders the right to reassert US6993658B1 against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., and Chase Bank USA in any future proceeding. The absence of a fee-shifting award preserves Dynapass’s financial position relative to a court-imposed sanction, but the with-prejudice designation is a substantive concession on the merits of this enforcement effort.
No refiling permittedJPMorgan Obtains Full Release From These Patent Claims
JPMorgan Chase and its named subsidiaries receive a permanent dismissal with prejudice — the strongest available protection short of a court invalidity ruling. The own-costs arrangement avoids fee exposure. However, the dismissal does not constitute a finding that US6993658B1 is invalid or unenforceable, meaning the patent itself remains a live asset that could be asserted against other financial institutions by Dynapass.
Claims extinguished vs. JPMorganUS6993658B1 Remains Enforceable Against the Broader Banking Sector
Because the dismissal resolves only this dispute between these specific parties — without a validity ruling — US6993658B1 survives as an enforceable patent. Financial institutions operating dynamic password or multi-factor authentication systems for online banking should note that Dynapass retains the right to pursue enforcement against other defendants. The product descriptions in the complaint referencing BBVA and PNC systems suggest this patent has been, or may be, asserted more broadly.
Patent still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dynapass IP Holdings, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6993658B1 (dynamic password authentication)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. | Company | Global financial institution operating major U.S. consumer and commercial online banking platforms.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Chase Bank USA, National Association | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander Stefan Perry | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric Robert Carr | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Fred Irvin Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Wittenzellner | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin Sean Kudlac | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lea Norkus Brigtsen | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael James Fagan , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Simons | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen R Dartt | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd Eric Landis | Attorney | Counsel for Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Michael Fagan | Law Firm | Representing Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Radulescu LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams, Simons & Landis PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams, Simons & Landis PLLC (Austin) | Law Firm | Representing Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams, Simons & Landis PLLC(Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Dynapass IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Blaney Harper | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edwin Garcia | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan Peter Tassis | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | How-Ying Albert Liou | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Israel Sasha Mayergoyz | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rita Jungwon Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Bradley | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tharan Gregory Lanier | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vishal Vincent Khatri | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary James Marshall-Carter | Attorney | Counsel for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (New York) | Law Firm | Representing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning the dismissal is party-driven and self-executing — the court acknowledges rather than adjudicates. The ‘with prejudice’ designation permanently extinguishes Dynapass’s claims against these JPMorgan entities, while the own-costs provision suggests neither party prevailed decisively enough to trigger fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Crucially, the order contains no validity or infringement finding — US6993658B1 remains enforceable.
US6993658B1 — Dynamic Password Authentication for Online Banking
US6993658B1 (application no. US09/519829) covers a dynamic password authentication system — technology that generates or validates time-sensitive or transaction-specific credentials for controlling access to secure online platforms. In the banking context, this encompasses systems that issue one-time passwords, token-based credentials, or other dynamic authorization mechanisms to authenticate users accessing online banking portals and applications. The patent’s application date places it in the early era of internet banking security architecture.
Dynamic authentication patents occupy a strategically sensitive position in the financial services IP landscape. As banks replaced static passwords with layered, dynamic credential systems — both to satisfy regulatory expectations and reduce fraud — the patent surface area for assertion expanded considerably. US6993658B1 covers core infrastructure that most major U.S. retail and commercial banks now depend upon, making it a high-leverage enforcement asset for a patent assertion entity. The BBVA and PNC references in the original complaint suggest Dynapass mapped the patent against multiple institutions’ architectures.
Should your bank run an FTO against US6993658B1?
Any financial institution — bank, credit union, neobank, or fintech — operating an online banking platform that uses dynamic passwords, one-time passcodes, token-based authentication, or similar credential systems should treat US6993658B1 as a live risk. The patent survived 950 days of litigation against a well-resourced defendant without being invalidated. With-prejudice dismissals protect only the named defendants — they provide no shield to peer institutions.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your authentication architecture against the claims of US6993658B1, surface any continuation or family members, and identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if needed. For in-house IP teams at financial institutions, early FTO analysis is significantly cheaper than responding to a complaint — particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, which remains an active venue for patent assertion entity filings.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6993658B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Online Banking Authentication Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving dynamic password and multi-factor authentication patents asserted against financial institutions in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable PAE venues.
What this case signals for the online banking authentication IP landscape
A 950-day dispute ending in mutual cost-bearing dismissal carries specific signals for banks and fintech companies operating authentication infrastructure.
With-prejudice dismissals don’t invalidate — the patent lives on
JPMorgan’s resolution removes these defendants from exposure, but US6993658B1 remains a valid, enforceable patent. Any financial institution using dynamic password or token-based authentication for online banking access should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against this patent before concluding the litigation outcome provides sector-wide safety.
The 950-day duration suggests claim construction was contested
Cases that run nearly three years before a stipulated dismissal typically involve significant Markman briefing or early invalidity motions. The prolonged timeline suggests JPMorgan did not obtain an early dispositive victory, and that the parties found the litigation risk sufficiently balanced to negotiate an exit. This is relevant context for banks assessing whether to fight or resolve similar suits.
Dynapass v J.P. — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 22, 2025, via a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal permanently bars Dynapass from refiling these claims against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., and Chase Bank USA N.A., but does not affect the validity of US6993658B1 against other parties.
US6993658B1 covers a dynamic password authentication system for controlling access to secure online platforms. In the banking context, this encompasses one-time passwords, token-based credentials, and other time-sensitive or transaction-specific authentication mechanisms used in online banking portals. The patent predates widespread adoption of multi-factor authentication in retail banking, giving it potentially broad claim coverage over current implementations.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a procedural resolution — the court made no finding on validity or infringement. US6993658B1 remains a presumptively valid, enforceable patent. The dismissal protects only the named JPMorgan defendants; other financial institutions operating comparable authentication systems remain potentially exposed.
The public record does not disclose the specific procedural steps that extended the case to 950 days. However, complex patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas at this duration typically involve Markman claim construction hearings, summary judgment briefing, or inter partes review proceedings at the USPTO. The extended timeline before a stipulated dismissal suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation before reaching resolution.
The case record references BBVA and PNC in the product descriptions, indicating that Dynapass’s enforcement campaign against online banking authentication systems extended beyond JPMorgan Chase. This suggests Dynapass conducted systematic analysis of multiple U.S. banking platforms before filing, which is consistent with a broader patent assertion strategy. Financial institutions with similar online banking architectures should assess their potential exposure to US6993658B1.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.