Bank of America and USAA sign cross-licensing deal covering each other’s patent portfolios

Bank of America has entered into a patent agreement with USAA that allows each company to use the other’s full portfolio of patents, according to a report published by Banking Dive. The deal centers on intellectual property rights and could reduce the risk of ongoing patent disputes between the two institutions.

Patent cross-licensing arrangements like this typically work by granting each party permission to use the other side’s relevant patents without the need for a single, stand-alone license or a case-by-case negotiation over individual patents. In this instance, the reported structure is broader, covering each company’s entire patent portfolio rather than a narrowly defined set.

USAA, a financial services provider focused largely on military families, has for years sued banks or threatened court action that USAA says involves infringement of its remote deposit capture patents. Remote deposit capture is the ability for customers to deposit checks using a mobile app or scanner, with the financial institution later processing the deposit through its normal payment systems.

The cross-license is notable because remote deposit capture is a technology area that banks and fintech companies increasingly rely on to meet customer demand for mobile, self-service banking. As a result, patent ownership and licensing strategies in this segment can become a recurring friction point, particularly when multiple products overlap in how customers capture images of checks and how those images are processed for deposit.

For Bank of America, the agreement can be read as a move to contain uncertainty around patent enforcement risk tied to remote deposit capture. For USAA, it represents a path to monetize or enforce its technology while simultaneously reducing the likelihood of the dispute continuing in parallel with litigation.

The reported summary does not disclose the financial terms of the arrangement, whether it includes any exclusivity, or how the parties define the scope of use beyond the statement that each side can use the other’s full patent portfolio. It also does not specify whether any existing cases or threats of litigation are dismissed, stayed, or otherwise resolved as part of the agreement.

Banking sector watchers will likely focus next on whether other banks facing similar remote deposit capture patent allegations make parallel moves, and whether the agreement indicates a broader shift toward cross-licensing rather than continued litigation in mobile banking IP disputes.