In a case closely watched by fintech IP professionals, MOV-ology, LLC’s patent infringement action against Temenos AG and affiliated entities concluded with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — a resolution that signals a negotiated end without any adjudicated finding of validity or infringement. Filed on May 22, 2023, in the Western District of Texas before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright, Case No. 6:23-cv-00391 centered on two granted U.S. patents covering technology for capturing data from abandoned or incomplete electronic forms — a capability increasingly critical in digital banking and financial services onboarding workflows.

The case named five defendants across the Temenos corporate family, underscoring MOV-ology’s broad assertion strategy. After 444 days of litigation, the parties reached a private resolution, with all plaintiff claims dismissed with prejudice and all defendant counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. For patent attorneys, IP strategists, and R&D teams operating in the digital forms and fintech space, the procedural arc and resolution terms offer meaningful strategic intelligence.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

Two utility patents formed the basis of this electronic form data patent infringement action. Both patents address the technical challenge of capturing partial user input when a web session terminates before form submission — a persistent friction point in digital customer acquisition funnels.

• • U.S. Patent No. 9,286,282 B2 — Directed to systems and methods for obtaining data from abandoned electronic forms.
• • U.S. Patent No. 10,769,358 B2 — Directed to obtaining data from incomplete electronic forms.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

MOV-ology filed suit on May 22, 2023, selecting the Western District of Texas — a deliberate and strategic choice. Chief Judge Alan D. Albright, who presides over this docket, has historically been among the most patent-plaintiff-friendly federal judges in the country, having built Waco, Texas into a premier patent litigation venue. His court’s case management practices, including aggressive scheduling and active settlement encouragement, are well-documented.

The case ran for 444 days, closing on August 8, 2024. This duration — approximately 15 months — is consistent with W.D. Texas cases that resolve before trial through negotiated settlement or licensing agreement. The case terminated at the first-instance district court level, meaning no appellate record was generated.

No trial-level motions, claim construction orders, or summary judgment rulings are reflected in the available case record, suggesting that the parties negotiated resolution during or after pre-trial proceedings but before any substantive judicial ruling on the merits.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case concluded via a Stipulated Motion for Dismissal, ordered by the Court with the following structure:

• • All plaintiff claims dismissed WITH PREJUDICE — meaning MOV-ology cannot re-file the same infringement claims against these defendants in any future proceeding.
• • All defendant counterclaims dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE — preserving Temenos’s ability to revive validity or other affirmative challenges in subsequent litigation if warranted.
• • Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs — a standard settlement term that avoids fee-shifting litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and confirms neither party was adjudicated an exceptional case winner.

No damages amount was disclosed. No injunctive relief was entered.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The stipulated dismissal structure is analytically significant. The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff with prejudice, defendants without — are a negotiating fingerprint. They strongly suggest that Temenos secured a license, covenant not to sue, or other consideration from MOV-ology sufficient to warrant closing the case, while simultaneously retaining the optionality to challenge the patents’ validity should MOV-ology assert them against others in the Temenos ecosystem or industry.

The “without prejudice” preservation of defendant counterclaims is a protective mechanism commonly deployed when defendants suspect broader assertions may follow, or when the patents at issue remain commercially relevant threats. This structure creates ongoing leverage for Temenos without requiring continued litigation expense.

No claim construction order appears in the record, indicating the parties did not litigate to a Markman hearing — a key inflection point in patent cases. Absent claim construction, the case likely resolved during the discovery phase or in parallel licensing negotiations.

Legal Significance

This case does not produce binding precedent, as no substantive ruling was issued. However, the resolution pattern — a PAE asserting web-technology patents against a global enterprise software provider, resolved via stipulated dismissal after 444 days — reflects a recurring dynamic in software patent assertion cases filed in W.D. Texas.

The involvement of Avoka’s onboarding technology raises unresolved questions about the claim scope of the ‘282 and ‘358 patents relative to modern, server-side form persistence architectures. These questions remain open for future plaintiffs or IPR petitioners.