Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Secure Mobile Transactions LLC v. WoodForest Financial Group — Mobile Payment Patents | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID9:25-cv-00122
FiledApr 2025
ClosedOct 2025
Patent Litigation

Secure Mobile Transactions v. WoodForest Financial Group: Mobile Pay Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

Secure Mobile Transactions LLC filed suit against WoodForest Financial Group and nine co-defendant banks in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering mobile payment authentication used in Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay. The case ended in a joint dismissal with prejudice on plaintiff’s claims after just 176 days — suggesting a negotiated resolution reached before substantive litigation commenced.

Resolution time
176days
176 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year E.D. Texas patent trial timeline
Patents asserted
3
US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2 — mobile payment authentication technology
Outcome
Case Dismissed
Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice; defendants’ counterclaims dismissed without prejudice
Cost ruling
Fees: Each Party Bears Own
Court ordered all attorneys’ fees and costs borne by the party incurring them — no fee-shifting
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Multi-Bank Mobile Payment Patent Dispute Ends in Joint Dismissal

On April 8, 2025, Secure Mobile Transactions LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against WoodForest Financial Group, Inc. and a cluster of regional and national banks including Bank of Texas (a division of BOKF, N.A.), Charles Schwab Bank, Comerica Bank, Frost Bank, Independent Financial, Prosperity Bank, Regions Bank, WoodForest Financial Services, and WoodForest National Bank. The suit asserted three U.S. patents — US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2 — covering authentication systems for mobile and card-based payment transactions.

The case closed on October 1, 2025 via a joint motion to dismiss. The court granted dismissal with prejudice as to all of plaintiff’s infringement claims against the defendant banks, while defendants’ counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice. Costs and attorneys’ fees were ordered to be borne by each party separately, with no fee-shifting award in either direction. The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff’s claims extinguished permanently, defendants retaining the right to revive counterclaims — is consistent with a negotiated settlement in which plaintiff received some form of consideration.

At 176 days, the matter resolved significantly faster than the median E.D. Texas patent case, suggesting substantive settlement discussions began shortly after filing. The financial terms of any agreement are not reflected in the public record. Notably, the case involved ten defendant entities across multiple banking brands, which typically adds coordination complexity; the joint motion suggests all parties reached a unified resolution simultaneously. The precise royalty structure or licensing outcome, if any, remains undisclosed.

Case at a glance
Case no.9:25-cv-00122
CourtTexas Eastern
JudgeMichael J. Truncale
FiledApril 8, 2025
ClosedOctober 1, 2025
Duration176 days
OutcomeCase Dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Dismissed
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Dismissed in 176 days

176 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year E.D. Texas patent trial timeline

Case timeline: Complaint filed APR 8 2025, JUL–AUG — 176 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Secure Mobile Transactions LLC v WoodForest Financial Group, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. APR 8 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 1 2025 Case Dismissed 176 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Joint dismissal with prejudice: what the asymmetric order means for both sides

Legal mechanism

Dismissal with prejudice bars plaintiff from re-filing the same claims

A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing plaintiff’s right to assert the same patent claims against these defendants in future litigation. Secure Mobile Transactions cannot refile suit on US11288647B2, US9792596B2, or US10546285B2 against the named bank defendants. Defendants’ counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they retain standing to pursue invalidity or other affirmative claims if circumstances change.

Rule 41 — final on plaintiff’s claims
Patent holder outcome

Plaintiff permanently foreclosed from re-asserting against these defendants

The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is the most defendant-favorable dismissal structure available. Secure Mobile Transactions LLC has permanently surrendered its right to pursue infringement claims against all ten named banking entities for these three patents. However, the patents themselves remain in force and could still be asserted against other parties not named in this suit. The without-prejudice carve-out for defendants’ counterclaims suggests plaintiff accepted this finality, likely in exchange for undisclosed consideration.

Patents survive — assertion rights narrowed
Defendant bank outcome

Banks secured permanent peace from this plaintiff on these patents

All ten defendant financial institutions obtained dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims, providing a durable shield against re-litigation of these specific mobile payment patents by Secure Mobile Transactions. Critically, defendants’ own counterclaims — which likely included invalidity challenges — were dismissed without prejudice. This preserves each bank’s option to mount a future invalidity challenge via IPR or declaratory judgment if the patents are later asserted against related entities or the settlement breaks down.

Protected — counterclaims preserved
Commercial implications

Mobile payment authentication patents remain active enforcement tools

The resolution without a merits ruling leaves the validity and scope of all three mobile payment authentication patents undetermined. Other banks, fintech platforms, and payment processors operating Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay integrations remain potential targets. The multi-defendant structure and rapid resolution suggest Secure Mobile Transactions may be pursuing a licensing program across the financial services sector. Competitors of the named banks who have not yet received demand letters should treat this outcome as a signal to audit their mobile payment authentication stacks.

Sector-wide exposure — patents unresolved
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 9:25-cv-00122 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffSecure Mobile Transactions LLCCompanyPatent assertion entity — holder of US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2 covering mobile payment authenticationSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantWoodForest Financial Group, Inc.CompanyRegional and national banking institutions operating mobile and card-based consumer payment platformsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselHannah D. PriceAttorneyCounsel for Secure Mobile Transactions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLarry Dean Thompson , Jr.AttorneyCounsel for Secure Mobile Transactions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMatthew J. AntonelliAttorneyCounsel for Secure Mobile Transactions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRehan Mohammed SafiullahAttorneyCounsel for Secure Mobile Transactions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselZachariah HarringtonAttorneyCounsel for Secure Mobile Transactions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmAntonelli, Harrington & Thompson, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Secure Mobile Transactions LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJesus David CabelloAttorneyCounsel for WoodForest Financial Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMunira Anwar JesaniAttorneyCounsel for WoodForest Financial Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmCabello Hall Zinda PLLC (Houston)Law FirmRepresenting WoodForest Financial Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmCabello Hall Zinda PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting WoodForest Financial Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Michael J. TruncaleJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Secure Mobile Transactions LLC and Defendants Bank of Texas, a Division of BOKF, N.A., Charles Schwab Bank, Coamerica Bank, Frost Bank, Independent Bank d/b/a Independent Financial, a division of SouthState Bank, N.A., Prosperity Bank, Regions Bank, WoodForest Financial Group, Inc., WoodForest Financial Services, Inc., and WoodForest National Bank (collectively referred to as the “Parties”). [Dkt. 47]. The Parties file the present motion seeking dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendants and dismissal without prejudice as to Defendants’ claims, defenses or counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff. After considering the Parties’ joint motion and reviewing the pleadings on file, the Court grants the same. It is therefore ORDERED that the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Defendants’ claims, defenses or counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees and costs shall be borne by the Party incurring same and that all other pending motions filed herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 9:25-cv-00122, Texas Eastern District Court

The court’s order grants a joint motion structured with deliberate asymmetry: plaintiff’s infringement claims are extinguished with prejudice while defendants’ counterclaims — including any invalidity defenses — are preserved without prejudice. This formulation is characteristic of a negotiated resolution where the plaintiff received consideration in exchange for accepting finality on its own claims. No merits ruling was issued on infringement or patent validity, leaving the three asserted patents legally intact and enforceable against third parties outside this settlement.

PACER case 9:25-cv-00122 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11288647B2, US9792596B2 & US10546285B2 — Mobile Payment Authentication Systems

Publication No.US11288647B2
Application No.US16/773614
Patent details
ProductMobile payment authentication system for secure transaction identity verification
Cited in actionApril 8, 2025

Publication No.US9792596B2
Application No.US14/249761
Patent details
ProductAuthentication system for card and mobile-based payment transactions
Cited in actionApril 8, 2025

Publication No.US10546285B2
Application No.US15/706361
Patent details
ProductSecure mobile transaction authentication methods and payment processing systems
Cited in actionApril 8, 2025

The three asserted patents — US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2 — cover authentication technology for mobile and card-based payment transactions. The portfolio spans application filings under serial numbers US16/773614, US14/249761, and US15/706361, suggesting a continuation family developed across multiple filing generations. The claimed technology addresses the identity authentication layer in payment systems, which sits at the core of how platforms like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay verify cardholders before authorising transactions with merchants.

This patent family’s breadth across mobile wallets and physical card authentication (including Instant Issue debit cards) creates substantial coverage risk for financial institutions, payment processors, and fintech platforms operating consumer payment products. The asserted patents span at least three application generations, suggesting an intentionally broad continuation strategy designed to capture evolving implementation approaches. For banks and fintechs building or licensing payment authentication infrastructure, this portfolio represents an active enforcement risk that predates any specific implementation design-around.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO analysis against US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2?

Any financial institution, fintech, neobank, or payment processor that authenticates user identity within Apple Pay, Google Pay, Samsung Pay, or card-based transaction flows should treat this patent family as a live FTO priority. The assertion against ten banks simultaneously — with rapid resolution — suggests the patents carry credible enforcement weight. Product and engineering teams building or integrating mobile wallet authentication, tokenisation, or cardholder identity verification should review their implementation against all three patent numbers.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each claim across US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2 against your product’s authentication architecture, flag prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface related continuation filings that may extend the portfolio’s coverage. Given the without-prejudice preservation of defendants’ counterclaims, PTAB validity challenges remain viable — Eureka can help identify the strongest grounds for inter partes review before any demand letter arrives.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11288647B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Mobile Payment Authentication Patent Cases in E.D. Texas

Cases asserting mobile payment and transaction authentication patents in the Eastern District of Texas against financial institutions and payment processors.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Secure Mobile Transactions LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern case history, Secure Mobile Transactions LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Related E.D. Texas fintech suitsApple Pay patent casesMobile wallet authentication suitsBank payment patent disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the mobile payment authentication IP landscape

A rapid multi-bank dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas typically signals either a licensing deal or a coordinated capitulation — both carry sector-wide implications.

Ten-defendant joint resolution signals a structured licensing campaign

Securing a simultaneous with-prejudice dismissal from ten banking defendants within 176 days is operationally complex. It strongly suggests Secure Mobile Transactions was running a coordinated outreach program, not opportunistic litigation. Banks and fintechs offering Apple Pay, Google Pay, or Samsung Pay integrations should treat this as evidence of an active licensing effort targeting the sector.

Undetermined patent validity leaves the door open for broader assertion

Because the case settled before any claim construction or validity ruling, US11288647B2, US9792596B2, and US10546285B2 remain fully enforceable against parties outside this settlement. Any financial institution that authenticates card or mobile payment transactions without a license should assess its exposure — particularly those not already named in this or related cases.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated analysis covering IPR options, fintech sector exposure, and licensing benchmarks for mobile payment authentication patents in E.D. Texas.
IPR strategy for these patentsFintech exposure assessmentLicensing program benchmarks
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Secure v WoodForest — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run an FTO on the mobile payment authentication patent family

These three patents remain enforceable against unlicensed parties. Use PatSnap Eureka to map claim scope, surface prior art, and monitor for new assertions before your payment platform is targeted.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.