Push Data v. First Community Bancshares & BOK Financial: Mobile Banking Patents
Push Data, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas asserting three mobile banking patents against First Community Bancshares and BOK Financial NA, targeting the Bank of Texas mobile application. The case against BOK Financial closed in just 91 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice — each party bearing its own costs.
Three mobile banking patents, two bank defendants, 91-day resolution
On 14 February 2024, Push Data, LLC filed an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00128) before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, asserting three patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — against First Community Bancshares, Inc. and BOK Financial NA, the latter operating under the Bank of Texas trade name. The asserted patents relate to mobile banking application technology as deployed on electronic devices.
The case against BOK Financial NA resolved on 15 May 2024 via a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, accepted and granted by the court. All claims against BOK Financial were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring Push Data from re-asserting the same claims against BOKF on these patents. Notably, the order specified that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested merits ruling.
The 91-day case duration is notably short for a multi-patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting the parties reached an early understanding — potentially a licence, covenant not to sue, or commercial settlement — without entering substantive litigation. The public record does not disclose any financial terms or licensing arrangements. The status of claims against the co-defendant, First Community Bancshares, Inc., is not reflected in this termination order, which applies solely to BOK Financial NA.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 91 days
91 days — well below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice extinguishes all claims permanently
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Push Data cannot re-file the same patent claims against BOK Financial NA on US7292844B2, US7058395B2, or US7212811B2. The court accepted the notice and formally ordered the dismissal, giving it the force of a court order rather than a mere procedural filing.
Permanent bar on re-filingPush Data closes claims against BOKF — terms undisclosed
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Push Data surrendered its right to pursue BOK Financial on these three patents in any future action. This is a significant concession unless offset by undisclosed commercial terms such as a licensing fee or covenant arrangement. The public record is silent on whether any consideration was exchanged, which is standard in confidential patent settlements.
No public settlement termsBOKF secures permanent resolution — no cost award needed
BOK Financial NA achieved a full termination of claims with prejudice, and the court’s order that each party bears its own costs means BOKF incurs no additional financial exposure from the litigation itself. Represented by Fish & Richardson, BOKF appears to have reached a rapid, commercially efficient resolution. The Bank of Texas mobile application is no longer subject to these specific patent claims from Push Data.
Full dismissal, own costsMobile banking platforms remain exposed to Push Data’s patent portfolio
Push Data’s three mobile banking patents remain active and enforceable against other parties. The swift resolution against BOKF — without any public invalidity or non-infringement ruling — means no claim construction or prior art record was established that competitors could use defensively. Other regional banks and fintech platforms deploying similar mobile application architectures should assess their exposure to these patents independently.
Portfolio remains active threatFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Push Data, LLC | Company | Mobile technology patent licensing entity — holder of US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | First Community Bancshares, Inc. | Company | BOK Financial NA (d/b/a Bank of Texas) — regional banking group targeted over mobile banking appSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BOK Financial NA | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor James Beaty | Attorney | Counsel for Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shea Beaty | Law Firm | Representing Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for First Community Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for First Community Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing First Community Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the voluntary notice without merits adjudication, making the dismissal with prejudice operative as a final judgment by consent. The instruction that each party bear its own costs is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested ruling. Crucially, the order is scoped solely to BOK Financial NA — it creates no record on claim construction, validity, or infringement scope for the three asserted patents, leaving them fully enforceable against third parties.
US7292844B2, US7058395B2 & US7212811B2 — Mobile Banking Application Technology
The three patents asserted by Push Data — US7292844B2 (App. No. 11/603022), US7058395B2 (App. No. 11/262731), and US7212811B2 (App. No. 11/099486) — relate to mobile electronic device application technology in the context of banking and financial services. Filed in the mid-2000s, these patents predate the smartphone app economy and likely cover foundational architectural methods for delivering banking functionality to mobile devices, suggesting broad claim language applicable to contemporary mobile banking platforms.
For the regional banking sector, this trio of patents represents a meaningful enforcement risk. Push Data’s willingness to file in the Eastern District of Texas — a plaintiff-favourable venue — against two banking groups simultaneously suggests a coordinated licensing or enforcement strategy. Competitors operating mobile banking apps with similar push-notification, data-delivery, or application-layer architectures should scrutinise these patents carefully, particularly given the absence of any invalidating prior art record from this proceeding.
Should you run an FTO against US7292844B2, US7058395B2 & US7212811B2?
Any bank, credit union, neobank, or fintech platform that deploys a mobile banking application for consumer or commercial use should treat these three patents as a live FTO concern. The claims of the ‘844, ‘395, and ‘811 patents have not been construed or invalidated in any public proceeding, leaving their full scope intact. If your product team is building or maintaining a mobile banking app — especially one with push-notification or data-synchronisation features — an FTO review is warranted before scaling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of all three patents against your product architecture, identify prior art that may limit their scope, and flag related Push Data filings that could indicate broader portfolio risk. Eureka can also surface any co-pending IPR petitions or reexamination proceedings that may affect the validity status of these patents going forward.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7292844B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile banking patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable mobile banking and financial application patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas, including related licensing and dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the mobile banking IP landscape
Push Data’s rapid enforcement action and swift resolution suggests a disciplined licensing campaign targeting regional bank mobile platforms.
Early dismissals in E.D. Texas often mask confidential licensing activity
A 91-day voluntary dismissal with prejudice in the Eastern District of Texas — before any claim construction — is a strong signal that a commercial arrangement was reached. Regional banks and financial technology providers receiving similar demand letters should treat this pattern as indicative of an active licensing programme, not a one-off filing.
No invalidity record created: the patents remain fully enforceable
Because the case closed without any substantive ruling on validity or infringement, US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 carry no weakening prior art record from this litigation. Any institution deploying a mobile banking application should treat these patents as having full presumption of validity when assessing risk.
Push v First — key questions answered
Push Data asserted three patents: US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2. All three relate to mobile banking application technology for electronic devices and were directed at BOK Financial NA’s Bank of Texas mobile application.
The dismissal with prejudice was voluntary, filed by Push Data and accepted by the court on 15 May 2024. The 91-day timeline suggests the parties reached an early commercial resolution — potentially a licence or covenant not to sue — before any substantive litigation proceedings. No financial terms are publicly available.
No. The court’s order explicitly applies only to BOK Financial NA d/b/a Bank of Texas. First Community Bancshares, Inc. remains a separately named defendant whose case status is not resolved by this order. Separate proceedings or settlements may exist for that defendant.
No. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Push Data is permanently barred from asserting the same patent claims — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — against BOK Financial NA in any future action arising from the same accused products.
Push Data was represented by Trevor James Beaty of Shea Beaty. BOK Financial NA was represented by Neil J. McNabnay and Noel Franco Chakkalakal of Fish & Richardson LLP, a firm with a strong patent litigation defence practice. Judge Amos L. Mazzant presided over the case in the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.