FinTegrity LLC v. ThreatMark s.r.o.: Dismissed With Prejudice in 57 Days
FinTegrity LLC asserted US8635117B1, a patent covering a system and method for consumer fraud protection, against Czech-based cybersecurity firm ThreatMark s.r.o. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), resolving the dispute just 57 days after filing.
A rapid exit: fraud-protection patent dispute resolved in under two months
On October 7, 2025, FinTegrity LLC filed suit against ThreatMark s.r.o. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of US8635117B1 — a patent directed to a system and method for consumer fraud protection. ThreatMark, a Czech-headquartered cybersecurity company specialising in behavioural analytics and fraud prevention, was the sole defendant. The case was assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01021 and represented a classic NPE enforcement action in one of the country’s most patent-plaintiff-friendly venues.
The case closed on December 3, 2025 — just 57 days after filing — through a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff FinTegrity’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, barring any future re-assertion of the same patent claims against ThreatMark. Notably, ThreatMark’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning ThreatMark retains the theoretical ability to reassert those claims in future proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and fees.
The 57-day resolution is notably swift even by the standards of cases that settle early. The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff’s claims extinguished with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims preserved — may suggest a negotiated outcome in which ThreatMark secured finality against FinTegrity’s patent assertions while retaining leverage. Whether any monetary consideration changed hands is not disclosed in the public record, which is typical of stipulated dismissals of this type.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 57 days
57 days — well below the median E.D. Texas patent case lifecycle, suggesting early resolution.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation of dismissal explained
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows both parties to dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation — no court approval is required, though the court here formally acknowledged the dismissal. When plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice under this rule, the dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits, permanently barring FinTegrity from re-asserting US8635117B1 against ThreatMark on the same claims.
Voluntary, bilateral, bindingWhy plaintiff’s and defendant’s claims were dismissed on different terms
The stipulation creates a deliberate asymmetry: FinTegrity’s infringement claims are gone permanently (with prejudice), while ThreatMark’s counterclaims survive in theory (without prejudice). This structure typically signals that the defendant extracted a concession — finality on the patent assertions — as a core condition of settlement. ThreatMark’s preserved counterclaims could include invalidity or unenforceability arguments, though re-filing them independently would be unusual absent new grounds.
Asymmetric dismissal termsFinTegrity cannot reassert US8635117B1 against ThreatMark
Dismissal with prejudice of FinTegrity’s claims is a final bar under res judicata principles. FinTegrity may still assert US8635117B1 against other defendants — the with-prejudice effect is party-specific, not patent-wide. However, any future assertion against ThreatMark on these claims would be subject to immediate dismissal. Whether FinTegrity received any compensation in exchange for this permanent concession is not disclosed in the public record.
Claim extinguished vs. ThreatMarkWhat this outcome signals for the fraud-prevention software sector
NPE assertions against cybersecurity and fraud-prevention platforms are an ongoing risk for European vendors operating in the US market. ThreatMark’s rapid resolution — backed by Fish & Richardson, a leading patent litigation firm — suggests that well-resourced defendants can achieve early finality without protracted discovery. For other fraud-detection technology companies receiving demand letters asserting US8635117B1, this outcome suggests the patent’s enforceability may warrant scrutiny.
Risk signal for fraud-tech vendorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | FinTegrity LLC | Company | Non-practising entity — holder of US8635117B1, consumer fraud protection system patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ThreatMark s.r.o. | Individual | ThreatMark s.r.o. — Czech cybersecurity firm specialising in behavioural fraud preventionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for FinTegrity LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing FinTegrity LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for ThreatMark s.r.o.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for ThreatMark s.r.o.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing ThreatMark s.r.o.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting the joint stipulation reflects the purely procedural nature of FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissals — the court exercises no merits judgment, but the with-prejudice designation on FinTegrity’s claims carries substantive consequence. The asymmetric structure, where plaintiff’s claims are permanently barred but defendant’s counterclaims remain live without prejudice, is an unusual formulation that typically reflects a negotiated quid pro quo rather than a default outcome. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ order forecloses any fee-shifting claim under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US8635117B1 — System and method for consumer fraud protection
US8635117B1, filed under application number US13/963249, claims a system and method for consumer fraud protection. The patent sits within the financial technology and cybersecurity intersection — an area of significant commercial activity as digital banking, online payments, and behavioural authentication have expanded. The ‘117 patent’s grant designation (B1) indicates it issued without any post-issuance reexamination certificate, and its status as an asserted patent in NPE litigation suggests it has been identified as having meaningful claim scope against deployed fraud-detection systems.
Consumer fraud protection patents that encompass system-level detection and prevention methods represent a broad risk category for vendors offering fraud analytics, behavioural biometrics, and transaction monitoring platforms. ThreatMark’s core product offering — real-time behavioural intelligence for digital banking fraud prevention — places it squarely within the technology space this patent targets. For competitors and adjacent players in the fraud-tech stack, understanding the claim scope of US8635117B1 is strategically important, particularly given FinTegrity’s apparent willingness to assert it in US courts against non-US defendants.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8635117B1?
Any company developing or commercialising consumer fraud detection systems, transaction monitoring platforms, or behavioural authentication tools for the US market should assess their exposure to US8635117B1. The patent was actively asserted against a commercial-stage cybersecurity product in 2025, confirming that FinTegrity regards it as enforceable. European vendors with US go-to-market plans are particularly exposed, as demonstrated by ThreatMark’s experience — being served in E.D. Texas despite being a Czech-headquartered company.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map the claim landscape of US8635117B1 against their specific product architecture, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and benchmark against the prosecution history. Eureka can also surface related NPE assertion activity around FinTegrity LLC’s broader portfolio, helping teams assess whether a demand letter or filing is part of a wider enforcement campaign before committing to a defence strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8635117B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fraud-protection patent cases in E.D. Texas federal courts
Cases involving consumer fraud protection and financial cybersecurity patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap — including NPE assertion patterns.
What this case signals for the fraud-prevention software IP landscape
A 57-day dismissal in E.D. Texas with asymmetric terms is rarely accidental — here is what practitioners should read into the outcome.
With-prejudice dismissal creates a permanent shield for ThreatMark
FinTegrity’s claims against ThreatMark are extinguished under res judicata. Any attempt to re-litigate the same patent claims against the same defendant would fail immediately. For ThreatMark’s commercial operations and US market access, this outcome provides clean legal certainty on US8635117B1.
Fish & Richardson’s involvement signals a well-resourced defence strategy
ThreatMark retained Fish & Richardson — one of the most prominent patent defence firms in the country — suggesting the company took this assertion seriously and invested in capable counsel. The rapid resolution may reflect effective early-stage pressure tactics that made continued litigation unattractive for FinTegrity.
FinTegrity v ThreatMark — key questions answered
The case was dismissed pursuant to a joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff FinTegrity LLC’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring reassertion against ThreatMark. Defendant ThreatMark’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The case resolved in 57 days.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. FinTegrity cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims based on US8635117B1 against ThreatMark in any US federal court. The effect is party-specific — FinTegrity may still assert the patent against other defendants not party to this stipulation.
FinTegrity asserted US8635117B1, a patent covering a system and method for consumer fraud protection. The patent was filed under application number US13/963249. It was the sole patent-in-suit in this infringement action brought in the Eastern District of Texas.
The asymmetric dismissal terms reflect the parties’ negotiated agreement rather than any judicial determination. ThreatMark’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity or non-infringement arguments — were preserved without prejudice, meaning they could theoretically be reasserted. This structure suggests ThreatMark secured permanent finality on the patent assertions as a condition of resolution, while retaining any future leverage its counterclaims might provide.
ThreatMark was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, with attorneys Lance Eric Wyatt Jr. and Neil J. McNabnay listed as defendant’s agents. Fish & Richardson is one of the most prominent patent litigation defence firms in the United States, and their involvement suggests ThreatMark mounted a substantive early response to FinTegrity’s infringement claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.