Mantissa Corp v. Great American Bancorp: Patent Dismissed With Prejudice After 7+ Years
Mantissa Corporation brought a patent infringement action against Great American Bancorp and First Federal Savings Bank of Champaign-Urbana in the Illinois Central District Court, asserting US9361658B2 over the CardValet app and iDovos system. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 2,612 days — each side bearing its own costs.
Seven-year banking software patent battle ends in bilateral walk-away
On April 11, 2018, Mantissa Corporation filed suit in the Illinois Central District Court against Great American Bancorp Inc and its affiliate First Federal Savings Bank of Champaign-Urbana, asserting infringement of US9361658B2. The patent relates to card management and transaction monitoring technology, and Mantissa targeted the defendants’ use of the CardValet app and the iDovos system — both consumer-facing digital banking card control products. McDonald Hopkins LLC and Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C. led the plaintiff’s representation, while defendants marshalled a six-attorney team including Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
The case closed on June 5, 2025 when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice is a final, on-the-merits termination: Mantissa is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against these defendants. Critically, the stipulation specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting neither side secured a financial concession from the other in the exit agreement.
The 2,612-day duration — over seven years — is notably long for a district court patent case and suggests the parties navigated substantial pre-trial motion practice, potentially including claim construction proceedings or inter partes review activity, before ultimately choosing a negotiated exit. The public record is silent on whether a confidential settlement was reached or whether either party simply concluded litigation was no longer economically justified. The own-costs arrangement is consistent with both a mutual release and a pure abandonment scenario.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 2612 days
2,612 days — well above the median district court patent case duration of ~700–900 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement of all parties who have appeared. When filed ‘with prejudice,’ the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits — identical to a judgment. Mantissa cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against these defendants. The mechanism is commonly used to formalise a negotiated resolution without requiring court approval or a public record of settlement terms.
Permanent bar on re-filingMantissa permanently relinquishes its infringement claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Mantissa Corporation forfeits any right to pursue these specific defendants again on US9361658B2 for the accused products. The own-costs term means Mantissa recovers no fee award. Whether Mantissa extracted a confidential licence fee or simply determined continued litigation was uneconomical is not disclosed in the public record. The patent itself remains in force and could theoretically be asserted against other parties.
Claims extinguished vs. these defendantsDefendants secure permanent immunity from these claims
Great American Bancorp and First Federal Savings Bank obtain a dismissal with prejudice — the strongest possible protection short of a court judgment of non-infringement. They cannot be sued again by Mantissa on US9361658B2 for the CardValet and iDovos products at issue. The own-costs term means defendants bear their own legal spend, which after seven years of litigation may have been substantial, but they owe no damages or fees to the plaintiff.
Permanent immunity securedUS9361658B2 remains live — third-party exposure persists
The dismissal resolves only the dispute between these parties. US9361658B2 is not invalidated or licensed on a public record basis. Other fintech and banking software providers offering card-control or transaction-monitoring features comparable to CardValet or iDovos may still face exposure from Mantissa or any future assignee of the patent. Companies in the digital banking card management space should consider whether a freedom-to-operate review against this patent is warranted.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mantissa Coporation | Individual | Banking software patent holder — asserting US9361658B2 over card management systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Great American Bancorp Inc | Company | Regional bank holding company and its savings bank subsidiary, Champaign-Urbana, IllinoisSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | First Federal Savings Bank of Champaign-Urbana | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Demarco | Attorney | Counsel for Mantissa CoporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas A. Kurk | Attorney | Counsel for Mantissa CoporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC | Law Firm | Representing Mantissa CoporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | YOUNG BASILE HANLON & MACFARLANE, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Mantissa CoporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anjuli Veena Nanda | Attorney | Counsel for Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Howard Schusteff | Attorney | Counsel for Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie S Ritchie | Attorney | Counsel for Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lorna K Geiler | Attorney | Counsel for Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Ronald Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stuart P Krauskopf | Attorney | Counsel for Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | KRAUSKOPF KAUFFMAN PC | Law Firm | Representing Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Meyer Capel, PC | Law Firm | Representing Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Law Firm | Representing Great American Bancorp IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘dismissal with prejudice of all claims … with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees’ — is precise and consequential. ‘All claims’ forecloses any partial reservation of rights against these defendants. The own-costs provision, rather than a fee-shifting award, is consistent with a mutual agreement to exit without either party acknowledging liability. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) mechanism requires no court approval, meaning no judicial findings on validity or infringement entered the public record.
US9361658B2 — Card management and transaction monitoring system
US9361658B2, filed under application number US14/218128, covers technology in the domain of digital card management and transaction monitoring — the type of functionality that allows banking customers to control card usage, set spending limits, or receive real-time alerts through a mobile or web interface. The patent’s claim scope, as asserted by Mantissa, was broad enough to implicate both a widely-deployed third-party app (CardValet) and a proprietary platform (the iDovos system), suggesting the protected methods relate to core workflow architecture rather than narrow implementation details.
For the financial technology sector, US9361658B2 represents the kind of platform-level patent that can cut across multiple product lines and vendor relationships simultaneously. Card-control features have become near-ubiquitous in retail banking apps, meaning the potential infringer universe is large. The patent remains in force following this dismissal, and any fintech company, neobank, or community bank offering similar card-management functionality should assess their exposure — particularly given Mantissa’s demonstrated willingness to litigate for over seven years.
Should you run an FTO against US9361658B2?
Any development team building card-management, transaction-monitoring, or account-control features into a banking or fintech product should treat US9361658B2 as a live risk. This case confirms the patent has been actively enforced against both a third-party app provider integration (CardValet) and a proprietary system (iDovos). If your product allows customers to set card controls, freeze cards, configure spending alerts, or monitor transactions in real time, you should assess whether your implementation falls within the patent’s claim scope before launch or feature expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9361658B2 against your product architecture, surface relevant prior art that could support a validity challenge, and flag related patents in Mantissa’s portfolio that may present parallel exposure. Running an FTO at the design stage is substantially cheaper than defending a seven-year district court action. Use Eureka to generate a claim-by-claim analysis and identify design-around options before your next product release.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9361658B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar banking software patent cases in federal district courts
Cases involving card-management and financial technology patents in the Illinois Central District Court and comparable federal venues, including related enforcement actions against banking platforms.
What this case signals for the fintech and digital banking IP landscape
A seven-year patent fight ending in a bilateral walk-away carries distinct signals for card-management software developers and community banks alike.
Long duration signals high litigation costs — budgeting matters for both sides
At 2,612 days, this case ran well beyond typical district court patent timelines. Patent holders and accused infringers in the banking software space should model multi-year litigation budgets and build in decision gates for settlement. The own-costs outcome here suggests neither party found economic victory worth continuing.
Dismissal w/ prejudice does not invalidate the patent — monitor Mantissa’s next moves
US9361658B2 survives this case fully intact. Competitors offering card-control or account-monitoring apps should track any new assertions by Mantissa Corporation. A dismissal of this kind is sometimes a precursor to licensing outreach targeting a broader field of potential infringers.
Coporation v Great — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in this case means all of Mantissa Corporation’s infringement claims against Great American Bancorp and First Federal Savings Bank are permanently extinguished. Mantissa cannot re-file the same claims against these defendants. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and operates as a final adjudication on the merits, though no court findings on validity or infringement were made.
Mantissa Corporation asserted US9361658B2 (application number US14/218128), a patent covering card management and transaction monitoring technology. The accused products were the CardValet app and the iDovos system, both of which provide digital card-control functionality to banking customers.
The case ran 2,612 days from filing in April 2018 to closure in June 2025 — well above the median duration for district court patent cases. The public record does not disclose a specific reason for the extended duration, but cases of this length typically involve substantial claim construction proceedings, discovery disputes, potential PTAB activity, and extended settlement negotiations. The engagement of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati by the defendants is consistent with a complex defence strategy.
The stipulation expressly provides that ‘each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.’ Neither party received a fee award. This is a standard own-costs term in stipulated dismissals and does not necessarily indicate a monetary settlement was or was not reached — any private financial terms would not appear in the public record.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between Mantissa and the named defendants. It does not invalidate US9361658B2 or constitute a finding of non-infringement. The patent remains in force and Mantissa retains the right to assert it against other parties. Fintech companies and banks offering card-management or transaction-monitoring features should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.