FOLLOW US

In a blow to insurer USAA, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a lower-court decision that erased its $218 million patent verdict against PNC Bank, effectively ending a high-stakes battle over mobile check deposit technology.

The justices issued the order without comment, and Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the consideration of the petition, according to the court’s order list.

A Legal Whiplash in Patent Law

The saga began when USAA secured multimillion-dollar jury verdicts against both PNC Bank and Wells Fargo, claiming the banks infringed on its mobile check deposit patents. The verdicts, once heralded as landmark wins for financial tech protection, have now largely evaporated under the weight of conflicting administrative and judicial rulings.

Wells Fargo first challenged the patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through an inter partes review — and lost. But when PNC brought its own challenge against the same patents, the PTAB reached the opposite conclusion and invalidated the claims.

That reversal was later upheld by the Federal Circuit, which in June confirmed that the PTAB had the authority to nullify the jury’s infringement verdicts — including the $218 million award and a related $4.3 million decision from May 2022.

USAA’s Plea for Consistency Rejected

USAA’s certiorari petition asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the Federal Circuit had effectively sanctioned “contradictory government rulings” over identical patent issues. The insurer claimed that allowing such outcomes violated the basic judicial principle that “like cases must be decided alike.”

USAA further warned that inconsistent administrative decisions — especially between the Federal Circuit and D.C. Circuit, which handle vast swaths of federal agency litigation — risked creating a patchwork of unpredictable patent law enforcement.

The company asserted that fairness demanded an explanation for the discrepancy, accusing the lower court of “arbitrary and capricious treatment” by refusing to reconcile the two outcomes.

PNC Fires Back: “Different Evidence, Different Results”

PNC Bank, however, urged the justices to let the lower-court ruling stand. The bank maintained that there was no contradiction, emphasizing that its PTAB challenge relied on different prior art, arguments, and evidence than Wells Fargo’s earlier case — distinctions that, according to PNC, justified the divergent outcomes.

Patents and Counsel Behind the Clash

The disputed patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 8,977,571 and 8,699,779 — cover the technology powering mobile check deposit systems, a cornerstone of modern digital banking.

USAA is represented by William Jay and Rohiniyurie Tashima of Goodwin Procter LLP, alongside Lisa Glasser, Anthony Rowles, Stephen Payne, and Jason Sheasby of Irell & Manella LLP.

PNC is represented by Mark Fleming, Monica Grewal, Alexander Nemtzow, Amy Mahan, Gregory Lantier, Andrew Danford, R. Gregory Israelsen, and David Cavanaugh of WilmerHale.

Aftermath: A Defining Moment in Patent Uncertainty

The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves the Federal Circuit’s ruling intact and serves as a sobering signal for patent holders — particularly those fighting on overlapping technological terrain.

For USAA, the decision closes the book on a once-promising courtroom triumph that dissolved into a cautionary tale of judicial contradictions and shifting sands in patent enforcement.