United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MITEK SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2023-1687 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:20-cv-00115-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap. ______________________

Decided: June 12, 2025 ______________________

BRIAN MACK, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by DAVID EISEMAN, IV, JONATHAN TSE.

LISA GLASSER, Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by MICHAEL DAVID HARBOUR, JASON SHEASBY, Los Angeles, CA. ______________________

Before TARANTO, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-1687 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2025

2 MITEK SYSTEMS, INC. v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

CHEN, Circuit Judge. Mitek Systems, Inc. (Mitek) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed Mitek’s declaratory judgment ac- tion of non-infringement against United Services Automo- bile Association (USAA) concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 8,699,779 (’779 patent), 9,336,517 (’517 patent), 9,818,090 (’090 patent), and 8,977,571 (’571 patent) (collectively, pa- tents-in-suit). Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, No. 20-CV-00115, 2023 WL 2734372 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2023) (Decision). This case returns to us for the second time, now with an expanded record. In the first appeal, in relevant part, we vacated the district court’s original dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as well as its alternative dis- cretionary dismissal, and remanded for further proceed- ings. See Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 34 F.4th 1334, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Mitek I). On remand, the district court again determined that it lacked subject- matter jurisdiction over Mitek’s action, and, even if juris- diction existed, it would exercise its discretion to decline to accept jurisdiction. See Decision, 2023 WL 2734372, at *28. For the reasons explained below, we affirm. BACKGROUND Our previous decision introduces the parties, the pa- tents-in-suit, and discusses the facts leading up to Mitek’s first appeal. Mitek I, 34 F.4th at 1337–40. We assume fa- miliarity with those facts and therefore provide additional details only as relevant to this appeal. I Throughout this case, Mitek has asserted two jurisdic- tional bases for its declaratory judgment action concerning Case: 23-1687 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 06/12/2025

MITEK SYSTEMS, INC. v. 3 UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

its software product MiSnap 1: “(a) its potential liability for infringement; and (b) the alleged demands for indemnity made by many of its licensees after USAA sent them letters seeking to sell them licenses to USAA patents.” Id. at 1341–42. The district court originally dismissed Mitek’s complaint by analyzing the issues at a high level of gener- ality, as did the parties. We remanded for “finer parsing of the issues and more particularized determina- tions . . . both from the parties and from the district court.” Id. at 1342. We also instructed the district court to identify whether it was treating USAA’s Federal Rule of Civil Pro- cedure 12(b)(1) motion as a facial or factual challenge. 2 Id. at 1342, 1344, 1346. Regarding Mitek’s potential liability for infringeme