Turning our attention to USAA's continued attacks on the financial industry. As we have noted previously and included in our filings beginning in 2018, USAA has challenged many financial institutions with allegations that components of such institutions remote check deposits solutions infringe upon certain of USAA's patents.

In 2018, USAA filed two lawsuits against Wells Fargo alleging these claims. Mitek strongly believes that we have invented all of our core technology and that our products do not infringe on any USAA patents. As such, even though USAA has not sued Mitek directly for infringement of any USAA patents, on November 1st, Mitek filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that is -- that its automatic-check image capture product does not infringe on certain patents owned by USAA. Subsequently, this week, one of the Wells Fargo lawsuits was concluded in the Eastern District of Texas.in favor of USAA with damages against Wells Fargo in the amount of $200 million.

We believe this is an incorrect verdict. This verdict is subject to post-trial motions and appeal by Wells Fargo. We intend to prove through the DJ Action that Mitek's technology does not infringe on USAA's patents. We view the DJ Action as an important step to provide certainty to our customers concerning the use of our automatic check image capture technology.
As this is a very complex area of intellectual property law and subject to ongoing litigation, we are limited in what information we can share publicly…

The matter that was resolved between USAA and Mitek, it goes back six or seven years ago and was an intellectual property and patent issue, but it was not related to what's on tap here today. What we mentioned in this earnings call and what was released in the 8-K today is really us taking the offensive action last week with the DJ looking for the judgment from the court, so that we can basically prove that Mitek's MiSnap auto-check image capture technology does not infringe on the USAA patents. And that's our obligation and our strong feelings to vigorously protect our innovation, our IP, and the rights of our end users.

• Continuation and conclusion of Plaintiff’s arguments
• Defense Fact-Based Witness Testimony
  • Witness expertise and qualifications
  • Wells Fargo innovation timeline and RDC / Mobile Deposit timeline
• Defense Expert Witness Testimony
  • Objective: show USAA Patents are invalid
  • The requirement for claims to match specifications in patents
  • The need to have clear “anticipation” when filing for a continuation of a patent.
  • Detailing the logic of why the patents in question are invalid
• Plaintiff’s cross-examination
  • Questioning the Defense Expert Witness Qualifications
• Observations
  • Many “Objections” and the contentious courtroom.
  • The use of new technology in the courtroom
  • How the Jury serves as a “Check and Balance” against the Patent Office. The authority a jury has to invalidate a patent and the responsibility of a Jury to do so.
• Overall Timeline for the rest of the Trial

Our latest On-Demand Webinar includes discussion of the following;

• Continuation and conclusion of Defense’s arguments
• Expert Witness Qualification
• Experience in lieu of Education
• Noted errors in Plaintiff Lawyer’s patent language 
• Defense Video Deposition
• Included deposition from USAA employees
• 2nd Expert Witness for Defense
• Confirmed qualifications of 1st Expert Witness
• Demonstrated no infringement of patents
• Concept of non-infringing alternatives introduced
• Defense witness to counter Damages claims and calculation methodology
• Conclusion of arguments
• Motions requested by each side, Judge’s decisions on motions
• Process for the Jury decision
• Final timeline for this trial