Mantissa Corp. vs. Old Second Bancorp: Banking Tech Patent Case Ends in Dismissal After 7.4 Years
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Mantissa Corporation v. Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and Old Second National Bank |
| Case Number | 1:17-cv-09175 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Duration | Dec 2017 – May 2025 ~7 years 5 months |
| Outcome | Dismissed with prejudice – Each party bears own costs |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Old Second’s SecurLOCK Equip application and related services |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Technology licensing entity asserting rights in banking and financial transaction systems through its iDovos® platform.
🛡️ Defendant
Illinois-based community banking institution offering retail and commercial banking services.
Patents at Issue
This case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658 B2, covering banking transaction systems, financial technology, and fraud monitoring, consistent with the iDovos® platform’s functionality.
- • US9,361,658 B2 — Banking transaction monitoring system (iDovos® platform)
Developing new banking technology?
Check if your fintech solution might infringe this or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was **dismissed with prejudice** on May 21, 2025, pursuant to a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). No damages were publicly disclosed, with each party agreeing to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
Key Legal Issues
The 2,709-day duration highlights the financial and strategic complexities of prolonged patent litigation in the financial technology sector, especially against well-resourced defendants. The dismissal without a public ruling on the merits means no direct precedential value, but it offers insights into litigation dynamics for fintech patents.
Filing a banking technology patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims for financial technology innovations.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in banking technology innovation. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the banking technology space
- See which companies are most active in fintech patents
- Understand assertion strategy in financial technology
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Transaction monitoring & fraud prevention tech
1 Patent at Issue
US9,361,658 B2
Strategic Takeaways
For defense against fintech patents
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently forecloses reassertion against these defendants — evaluate preclusive scope carefully before settlement.
Search related case law →Fintech patent litigation against well-resourced banking institutions can extend significantly (7+ years); plan budgets and strategies accordingly.
Explore litigation strategies →For R&D Leaders & IP Managers
Transaction monitoring and mobile banking security remain active patent assertion targets — FTO analysis before product deployment is non-negotiable.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Community banks using third-party mobile security platforms should audit vendor patent indemnification obligations.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.