Kioba Processing v. Prosperity Bancshares: Dismissed with Prejudice After 435 Days
Kioba Processing, LLC asserted three patents against Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. and Prosperity Bank, targeting the Prosperity Mobile Banking app in the Western District of Texas. The case concluded with all claims dismissed with prejudice after 435 days, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Three Mobile Banking Patents, One Dismissal With Prejudice
On July 12, 2022, Kioba Processing, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-00770) against Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. and its subsidiary Prosperity Bank. The suit asserted three U.S. patents — US6917902B2, US6931382B2, and US7107078B2 — against the Prosperity Mobile Banking app. Kioba is represented by Daignault Iyer LLP; Prosperity by Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order states that all claims asserted by plaintiff against defendants are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits: Kioba cannot refile the same claims against Prosperity on these patents.
Resolution after 435 days suggests the parties reached an endpoint well before any trial date, consistent with pre-trial settlement or other agreement. The specific terms or circumstances driving the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is notable: neither party secured a fee award, which is a common feature of negotiated resolutions, though no further detail is available from the record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 435 days
435 days from filing to dismissal — typical for pre-trial resolution in W.D. Tex. patent dockets
US6917902B2, US6931382B2 & US7107078B2 — Mobile Banking Technology Patents
Any financial institution or fintech company operating a mobile banking application that handles account access, transaction processing, or wireless communication with banking infrastructure should assess exposure to this three-patent portfolio. The Prosperity Mobile Banking app was targeted; comparable platforms with similar feature sets may face analogous assertions from Kioba Processing or any future portfolio assignee.
Official order — verbatim text
The order dismisses all of Kioba's claims against both Prosperity Bancshares and Prosperity Bank with prejudice, and expressly allocates costs so that each party bears its own attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses. The with-prejudice designation renders the dismissal final and claim-preclusive as to these defendants and these patents. The absence of any damages award, injunctive relief, or fee-shifting order is consistent with the recorded basis of termination, though the specific circumstances leading to this disposition are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, claim-ending judgment
A dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication on the merits. Kioba Processing cannot refile these infringement claims against Prosperity Bancshares or Prosperity Bank on the three asserted patents in any U.S. federal court. The order also specifies that each party bears its own attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses — no fee-shifting award was entered against either side.
Claim-preclusive dismissalKioba's claims are permanently extinguished against these defendants
With all claims dismissed with prejudice, Kioba Processing loses the right to pursue Prosperity Bancshares and Prosperity Bank on US6917902B2, US6931382B2, and US7107078B2. The patents themselves remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other parties, but the specific terms or any licensing arrangement between these parties are not disclosed in the available record.
No recovery against ProsperityProsperity exits litigation without a fee award but under a preclusive order
Prosperity Bancshares and Prosperity Bank obtained a with-prejudice dismissal — the strongest procedural shield against re-litigation of these claims by Kioba on the same patents. The absence of a fee award means Prosperity did not recover its litigation costs, which is common in pre-trial resolutions. The Prosperity Mobile Banking app continues to operate without an ongoing injunction or damages order on the record.
Protected from re-litigationMobile banking IP enforcement: preclusion limits but portfolio risk persists
For regional banks and fintech operators, this outcome signals that asserting or defending mobile banking patents in W.D. Tex. can resolve without trial. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses Kioba's claims against Prosperity specifically, but the three patents remain active and could be directed at other mobile banking providers. IP teams in the sector should monitor Kioba's broader assertion activity against comparable platforms.
Active patents, new targets possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kioba Processing, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Prosperity Bank | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chandran B. Iyer | Attorney | Counsel for Kioba Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Oded Burger | Attorney | Counsel for Kioba Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald M. Daignault | Attorney | Counsel for Kioba Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tedd W. Van Buskirk | Attorney | Counsel for Kioba Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachary H. Ellis | Attorney | Counsel for Kioba Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Daignault Iyer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kioba Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Stephen Ravel | Attorney | Counsel for Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly Ransom | Attorney | Counsel for Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the mobile banking patent space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from Kioba Processing's portfolio and the mobile banking technology domain targeted in this case.
Kioba's three-patent portfolio: family depth and continuation risk
US6917902B2, US6931382B2, and US7107078B2 share early-2000s application roots. Teams should investigate whether continuation or divisional applications stem from these families, which could extend claim coverage into newer mobile banking architectures such as biometric authentication, open banking APIs, or real-time payment rails.
Portfolio continuation riskMobile banking patent filing trends: who is building IP moats now
Mobile banking patent filings have accelerated around real-time payments, open banking, and AI-driven fraud detection. Understanding who is filing in the foundational transaction-processing and account-management spaces — the territory covered by the asserted patents — helps product teams anticipate future assertion vectors and identify design-around opportunities.
Filing trend intelligenceProsperity Bancshares' own patent activity and defensive IP position
Regional banks that operate proprietary mobile apps are increasingly building defensive patent portfolios or joining defensive aggregators. Assessing Prosperity Bancshares' own patent filings — if any — and its technology vendor relationships reveals how prepared it is to counter future assertions in the mobile banking space and whether it relies on third-party technology with its own IP coverage.
Defensive IP assessmentAdjacent innovation gaps near early-2000s mobile banking patent claims
The asserted patents originate from the early mobile banking era. Adjacent white space exists in areas those original claims likely do not reach: tokenized payments, device-native biometric login, AI-assisted transaction categorisation, and conversational banking interfaces. R&D teams can use claim mapping to identify where legacy portfolios end and new protectable innovation begins.
Innovation white spaceSimilar Mobile Banking Patent Cases in W.D. Texas and Federal Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement cases involving mobile banking technology asserted in the Western District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the mobile banking IP landscape
Three asserted mobile banking patents, a 435-day lifespan, and a with-prejudice exit — here is what it means for the sector.
With-prejudice dismissal closes this front but the patents remain live
The dismissal with prejudice bars Kioba from re-asserting these three patents against Prosperity. However, US6917902B2, US6931382B2, and US7107078B2 remain in force. Any mobile banking provider operating comparable technology should assess exposure to assertion by Kioba or future assignees of the portfolio.
W.D. Tex. mobile banking cases are resolving pre-trial
A 435-day resolution without a trial or Markman ruling on the public record suggests pre-trial dynamics — scheduling pressure, claim scope uncertainty, or negotiated exit — drove the outcome. IP counsel defending mobile banking patent suits in W.D. Tex. should factor in the court's pace and pre-trial resolution tendencies when advising clients on litigation strategy.
Kioba v Prosperity — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The court ordered that all claims asserted by Kioba Processing against Prosperity Bancshares and Prosperity Bank are dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses. The case closed on September 20, 2023, after 435 days.
Kioba Processing asserted three U.S. patents: US6917902B2 (App. No. 10/377913), US6931382B2 (App. No. 09/791387), and US7107078B2 (App. No. 09/903225). All three were asserted against the Prosperity Mobile Banking app. The patents originate from early-2000s application filings in the mobile and electronic banking domain.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, claim-preclusive judgment. Kioba Processing cannot refile the same infringement claims against Prosperity Bancshares or Prosperity Bank on the three asserted patents in any U.S. federal court. The patents themselves remain in force and may be asserted against other parties, but these defendants are protected from re-litigation of these specific claims.
No fee award was entered. The dismissal order expressly provides that each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses. Neither Kioba Processing nor Prosperity Bancshares recovered litigation costs from the other. The specific circumstances leading to this cost arrangement are not disclosed in the available public record.
The dismissal with prejudice terminates Kioba's claims against Prosperity specifically but does not invalidate or extinguish the patents themselves. US6917902B2, US6931382B2, and US7107078B2 remain issued U.S. patents. Subject to any maintenance fee or expiry considerations, they could be asserted against other mobile banking operators. Companies with comparable mobile banking technology should assess their exposure to this portfolio.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.