Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. First National Bank of Omaha et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the patents, the judge, and the PTAB outcomes.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The plaintiff, Intellectual Ventures II LLC, is an assertion subsidiary of Bellevue, Washington–based Intellectual Ventures, the patent-holding entity co-founded by former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold. IV does not make or sell products; it acquires and licenses patents, and press accounts at the time of filing credited it with a portfolio of 70,000-plus patents and more than $3 billion in licensing revenue. It is the archetypal "non-practicing entity" (NPE), and its litigation arm is divided into vehicles (IV I, IV II, etc.) that hold different patent families — this case used IV II. The defendants are First National Bank of Omaha and its parent holding company, First National of Nebraska, Inc., an Omaha-based regional banking organization and one of the largest privately held bank holding companies in the U.S. Per IV's chief litigation counsel, the suits followed licensing discussions that "did not progress," and the company framed the campaign as an effort "to stop the unlicensed use of our patents" (GeekWire, June 2013; KUOW, June 4, 2013). The assertion counsel on the district court side included Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson and Lieff Cabraser (pro hac vice entries, D. Neb. docket, May 2014), while Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox (Lori A. Gordon) handled IV's PTAB work; the bank group's PTAB work was led by Kutak Rock LLP's Jason Jackson (Kutak Rock client news release, Aug. 3, 2017).

Accused technology. There is no single accused product. The case is part of IV's 2013 financial-services campaign — roughly a dozen suits against banks including JPMorgan Chase, PNC, BBVA Compass, Commerce Bancshares, SunTrust, U.S. Bancorp, Huntington, Capital One, Fifth Third, and FNBO — in which IV contended that core banking security infrastructure infringed its patents: PCI DSS–compliant encryption, online/electronic banking security, ATM and imaging technology, and network firewall/intrusion-detection systems (BankInfoSecurity, June 25, 2013). Commentators at the time noted the unusual breadth of the theory: the patents never mention "PCI" or "ATM," yet IV argued the banks' compliance and security architectures read on them. In the parallel S.D.N.Y. case against JPMorgan, the concrete accused instrumentalities were IBM cryptographic coprocessors — the IBM 4765/4767 PCIe Cryptographic Coprocessor "Crypto Cards" (IV II v. JPMorgan Chase, 13-cv-3777-AKH, Dkt. 381, 449, 570). I did not locate a primary-source infringement contention identifying the specific accused FNBO systems; the case was stayed before claim construction and never reached infringement merits. The five asserted patents are: 6,826,694 ("High Resolution Access Control") — a single-claim method of filtering network packets by selecting an access rule based on payload content spread across multiple packets (a deep-packet-inspection firewall); 5,745,574 — a public-key certificate/"security infrastructure for electronic transactions" patent (originally from Entegrity Solutions); 6,715,084 ("Firewall system and method via feedback from broad-scope monitoring for intrusion detection") — a BellSouth-originating patent on correlating intrusion data across many customers' sites and feeding it back to adjust firewalls; 6,314,409 ("System for Controlling Access and Distribution of Digital Property") — encrypting digital content and enforcing post-distribution access rules via an "access mechanism"; and 7,634,666 — a hardware "crypto-engine" coprocessor that selects between RSA and ECC modes based on an op-code signal (issuance dates, claim texts, and original assignees verified via USPTO/Google Patents and the S.D.N.Y. claim-construction record).

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed May 29, 2013 and served June 3, 2013 in the District of Nebraska, the case was docketed as 8:13-cv-00167-LSC-FG3, which indicates assignment to then-Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp with Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett III (inferred from the docket-number suffix; I could not pull an independent PACER confirmation). Venue was straightforward — FNBO is headquartered in Omaha — but the campaign's nationwide scatter (S.D.N.Y., N.D. Ala., W.D. Mo., N.D. Ga., D. Minn., S.D. Ohio, W.D. Pa., D. Md.) was itself notable; the judge in the parallel SunTrust case expressly flagged the "prospect for inconsistency" and suggested MDL consolidation (IV II v. SunTrust, No. 1:13-cv-02454-WSD, Dkt. 175 at 8 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2014)). After the parties exchanged joint claim-construction charts and briefs in early 2014, the Nebraska case was stayed pending IPR — the order staying the FNBO case was entered around May 6, 2014 and noticed in the companion Commerce Bancshares case on May 7, 2014 (W.D. Mo. 2:13-cv-04160-NKL, Dkt. 71). The case is significant for three reasons. First, it is a leading illustration of the IPR-stay dynamic: FNBO, Compass Bank, and Commerce Bancshares jointly petitioned for review of all asserted patents (IPR2014-00719, -00722, -00724, -00786, -00793, -00801, filed May 1–22, 2014), while IBM filed its own petitions ('666 in IPR2014-00180; '409 in IPR2014-00672/-00673; '694 in IPR2014-00587) and JPMorgan filed a CBM (CBM2014-00157) — "thirteen (13) petitions" in total according to the SunTrust order. Several of the bank-group petitions were terminated on December 12, 2014 (IPR2014-00719, -00722). Second, the PTAB largely bore out the banks: the '666 patent was instituted on all claims (Apr. 16, 2014) and went to a final written decision in IPR2014-00180 (Apr. 3, 2015); the '694 patent's claim 1 was instituted (Sept. 24, 2014) and survived in IBM's IPR2014-00587 only because IV proved an earlier reduction to practice (FWD, Sept. 23, 2015); and the firewall/intrusion-detection patent was invalidated by the PTAB, a ruling the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 27, 2017 in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Nos. 2016-1519, -1520, -1528 — which Kutak Rock called "a significant blow to the business model of non-practicing entities." Third, the litigation ran alongside the 2013 White House patent-reform package and ABA lobbying against NPE demand letters, making IV's bank campaign a flashpoint in the national NPE debate; separately, Judge Hellerstein invalidated the '694, '084, and '409 patents under § 101 in the S.D.N.Y. case (Apr. 28, 2015), a strand of the same campaign.

Sourcing caveats. (1) The "final disposition unconfirmed" status in the case metadata is accurate for the Nebraska docket as I found it: I could not retrieve a post-stay FNBO docket showing reopening or judgment, though the closely parallel Commerce case was reopened May 11, 2017, had judgment entered May 31, 2017, and saw the defendants' attorney-fee motion denied with costs of $1,804.49 awarded (W.D. Mo. Dkt. 102–103, Sept./Oct. 2017). (2) FNBO's specific accused instrumentalities are not documented in the sources reviewed. (3) The exact patent number invalidated in the March 2017 Federal Circuit affirmance is reported as the "firewall" patent, which the title evidence points to as the '084; I flag this as a strong but not primary-source-confirmed identification.

I'll research this case systematically across the litigation docket, PTAB proceedings, and related coverage.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the docket specifics, the stay order, and the PTAB outcomes.

Excellent detail on the PTAB side. Now let me pin down the Nebraska docket itself and the remaining IPRs.

I've gathered substantial material. Note: I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the raw Nebraska docket sheet, so I'll flag clearly where my sourcing is thin (particularly FNBO's answer/counterclaims and any motion-to-dismiss practice).

---

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. First National Bank of Omaha, No. 8:13-cv-00167-LSC-FG3 (D. Neb.)

Framing: this was one file in a coordinated multi-defendant campaign

FNBO was one of roughly eight bank defendants IV II (and affiliate IV I) sued in a single 2013 wave asserting the same five-patent portfolio. The docket suffix "‑LSC" indicates assignment to then-Chief Judge Lyle E. Strom, with Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett III (‑FG3). The patents in suit: 6,826,694 ("High Resolution Access Control"); 5,745,574; 6,715,084 (network-based intrusion detection); 6,314,409 ("System for Controlling Access and Distribution of Digital Property"); and 7,634,666.

The sibling complaints (per IV's own PTAB mandatory notices) were filed within weeks of one another:

• IV I & II v. PNC Financial Servs. Grp., No. 2:13-cv-00740 (W.D. Pa.), filed 2013-05-29 (terminated 2013-12-06)
• IV II v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:13-cv-03777-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), filed 2013-06-04
• IV II v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, No. 2:13-cv-01106-AKK (N.D. Ala.), filed 2013-06-12
• IV II v. Commerce Bancshares, No. 2:13-cv-04160-NKL (W.D. Mo.), filed 2013-06-20 (terminated 2014-06-04)
• IV II v. SunTrust Banks, No. 1:13-cv-02454-WSD (N.D. Ga.), filed 2013-07-24 (terminated 2014-10-07)
• IV II v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 0:13-cv-02071-ADM (D. Minn.), filed 2013-07-31
• IV II v. Huntington Bancshares, No. 2:13-cv-00785-GLF (S.D. Ohio), filed 2013-08-07 (terminated 2014-06-11)

That parallel structure matters: the same IPR petitions, filed by overlapping bank groups and IBM, drove stays in all of these cases, and the appellate outcomes were shared. A reader of the FNBO case in isolation will miss that its decisive events happened at the PTAB and Federal Circuit, not in Omaha.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2013)

Sourcing caveat — answer and counterclaims: I could not retrieve the FNBO-specific answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaim docket entries from the sources available to me, and I will not fabricate them. What is documented is that in the closely parallel Commerce Bancshares case (W.D. Mo.), the docket shows defendants asserted counterclaims and that the parties later stipulated to dismiss "Count V of Plaintiff's complaint and Count V of Defendants' counterclaims" — indicating a five-count complaint (one count per patent) with a corresponding five-count counterclaim set, and that one count was abandoned by stipulation. Whether that same Count V stipulation occurred in FNBO cannot be confirmed from my sources. Treat the counterclaim characterization as likely-but-unverified for this docket.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motions to dismiss / transfer: I found no evidence of a Rule 12 motion to dismiss or a § 1404(a) transfer motion in the Nebraska case. I could not verify one either way, and I won't assert one. (Defendants' real offensive weapon in this campaign was the IPR petition, not a pleading motion.)

Motion to stay pending IPR — the dispositive motion:

• 2014-05-06 — The District of Nebraska granted a stay. The order is cited in the S.D. Ohio Huntington opinion as Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha, No. 8:13CV167, slip op. at 2 (D. Neb. May 6, 2014) (granting a stay in a Related Case …). The case-status data shows the docket as Closed (05/06/14), and the user-supplied case summary likewise puts the stay at "around May 6, 2014."
  • The Huntington court's paraphrase indicates the Nebraska court weighed the standard three-factor test (stage of litigation / whether a stay simplifies issues / prejudice or tactical disadvantage) and noted the parties had engaged in some discovery but were still early — no claim construction hearing held, trial more than a year out.
  • Contrast the W.D. Mo. Commerce order (2014-06-04, Judge Nanette K. Laughrey), which stayed and dismissed without prejudice, reopenable "within forty-five (45) days after all of the pending petitions for inter partes review are denied or, if any of the petitions are granted, the issuance of a final written decision … or the final decision on any appeals taken therefrom, whichever is later." Whether Nebraska's order used the same dismiss-without-prejudice mechanism is not confirmed in my sources — this is the single largest gap in the final-disposition picture, and it is the reason the case's formal disposition reads as "unconfirmed."

Summary judgment: None reached in Nebraska. The only § 101 summary-judgment event in the campaign was elsewhere: on 2015-04-28, the S.D.N.Y. court in IV II v. JPMorgan Chase granted partial summary judgment holding the '694 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. IV II disclosed this to the PTAB in a May 13, 2015 updated mandatory notice and stated it planned to appeal. (Knobbe Martens filed that notice on IV's behalf.)

---

3. Claim construction — reached briefing, never reached a ruling

This is the key procedural fact: the case did not get to a Markman order.

• 2014-03-24 — The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. #49, Page ID 440 et seq.). This document is unusually informative and survives in PTAB exhibit files. It shows:
  • Agreed constructions for four patents, e.g.:
    • '694: "filtering" = "Selectively prohibiting or allowing"; "access rule" = "A rule that selectively prohibits or allows transmission of [a packet]"
    • '409: "data encrypting key / corresponding data decrypting key"; "environmental characteristics"; "intensity of access to the data" = "The number or total volume of read-access in a unit of time"; "storage means" and "means for displaying" construed under § 112 ¶ 6; "access mechanism" = "Hardware and/or software for controlling access to data"
    • '574: "policy certification authority" = "Authority that defines a particular set of certification policies"; "revocation list"; "[upon] expiration of an existing certificate"; "common point of trust" = "A point that is trusted by both the sender and the receiver"
    • '666: "op-code signal" = "Signal capable of indicating an RSA operation when it has one characteristic and a ECC operation when it has a different characteristic"
  • Disputed terms, notably the '084 patent's "network based-intrusion detection techniques" — IV proposed "Techniques for detection of intrusions by analysis of events which happen in a communications network to which the detecting device is attached"; FNBO proposed "Techniques for identifying suspicious network traffic events." Also disputed: '409 "protected portions of the data" (IV: "encrypted portions"; FNBO: "encrypted or otherwise protected portions"), '409 "openly distributing" (IV: "transmitting over an insecure communication channel"; FNBO: "freely copied and transmitted by each recipient"), and '409 "means for outputting."
• 2014-05-19 — Plaintiff filed a Responsive Claim Construction Brief (per the parallel Commerce docket's notice-of-filing entries).
• Before any Markman hearing or construction order, the case was stayed on 2014-05-06. No claim construction ruling ever issued in Nebraska.

Why this matters strategically: the Federal Circuit later held that claim construction was dispositive of the '084 patent — and the construction that IV lost on appeal ("analyzing data" is not limited to direct analysis of raw data) is exactly the same interpretive fight teed up in the Nebraska disputed terms. Nebraska never had to decide it.

---

4. Discovery milestones

There were no deposition or expert-discovery milestones of note before the stay:

• The Nebraska docket closed ~11 months after filing, in the first year of the case.
• Comparative dockets confirm the posture: in W.D. Mo. (Commerce), the court observed that fact discovery "does not close for another six months, it is nearly a year before trial, there have been no depositions, the claim construction hearing has not occurred, and significant work, including substantive expert discovery and summary judgment motions, remains to be completed after the claim construction hearing." The S.D. Ohio Huntington court found "some discovery has been conducted, fact discovery is not scheduled to close until December 31, 2014," no Markman hearing held, trial over a year away.
• The one discovery-adjacent dispute worth flagging: in the Commerce case the parties litigated a motion to stay discovery pending the stay ruling (phone conference 2014-08-18). The strategic significance of discovery in this campaign was minimal by design — the defendants' plan was to halt discovery entirely and let the PTAB do the work, which is exactly what happened.

---

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. The case was stayed and administratively closed before trial, before Markman, and before dispositive motions. There is no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial practice, and no fee motion I could identify on this docket. Any narrative of a Nebraska trial or judgment in this case would be inaccurate.

---

6. Final disposition / present posture

• 2014-05-06 — Nebraska action stayed; docket reflects "Closed (05/06/14)" (RPX/Min-law-database status).
• The stay was expressly tied to the pending IPRs and the appeals therefrom — i.e., an indefinite, contingent closure rather than a merits adjudication.
• No formal dismissal order, judgment, or appeal from the Nebraska case itself appears in the sources I retrieved. The user-supplied summary's "final disposition unconfirmed" is therefore accurate and should be preserved.
• Practical outcome: because the asserted claims were largely cancelled at the PTAB and those cancellations affirmed on appeal (below), the practical result was a defense win across the campaign, but it was achieved at the PTAB and Federal Circuit, not by a Nebraska judgment.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

This is where the case was actually decided. Petitions were filed both by IBM and by an overlapping bank group (Compass Bank / Commerce Bancshares / First National Bank of Omaha) — FNBO was a named petitioner, represented by Kutak Rock LLP (Jason S. Jackson, Sean P. Connolly, Omaha), Jones Day (Geoffrey K. Gavin), and Senniger Powers (Marc Vander Tuig) for the group, with Carrington Coleman (Mark Howland) for Compass. IV's PTAB counsel shifted from McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Herbert D. Hart III; Aaron F. Barkoff) to Knobbe Martens (Brenton R. Babcock; Ted M. Cannon; Scott Raevsky; Bridget A. Smith), with Sterne Kessler (Lori A. Gordon; Jonathan M. Strang; Byron L. Pickard) on appeal.

How the PTAB proceedings shaped the litigation

1. They produced the stays. The institution decisions — '666 on 2014-04-16, '694 claim 1 on 2014-09-24, '409 (later settled) — are precisely what the district courts cited to justify staying. In SunTrust, the court noted that "the remaining nonparty petitions … challenge the validity of every claim asserted by the Plaintiff," and stayed. FNBO's Nebraska stay (2014-05-06) fits this pattern.
2. They cancelled the asserted claims. By the fall of 2015, IV had lost claim 1 of the '694 patent (FWD 2015-09-23) and the asserted '084 claims (FWD 2015-10-21). The '409 IPRs ended in settlement with claim 23 disclaimed.
3. The '409 settlement (IPR2014-00719/-00722, terminated 2014-12-12) is the one place the bank group's challenge did not produce a merits win; the resulting certificate reflects a disclaimer rather than an adverse invalidity holding.
4. They mooted IV's infringement exposure nationwide — not just in Omaha.

Federal Circuit appeals — the final word

• Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Compass Bank, No. 2016-1416 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2016) — nonprecedential per curiam (Dyk, Plager, Reyna), AFFIRMED the PTAB's cancellation of '694 claim 1 (from IPR2014-00786). Panel included FNBO as an appellee; Kutak Rock's Jason S. Jackson argued for appellees.
• Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Nos. 2016-1519, -1520, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2017) — opinion by Judge Taranto (Newman, Dyk, J.J.). The court affirmed the '084 unpatentability determination in IBM's IPR2014-00682 (claims 26, 28, 30–33 obvious over Porras + Cheswick) and dismissed as moot IV's appeal and the banks' cross-appeal in IPR2014-00801 (including the banks' challenge to the Board's rejection of their anticipation attack on claim 33). The court's reasoning — that under the broadest reasonable construction, "analyzing data" is not limited to direct analysis of raw data — is the construction fight the Nebraska parties had teed up three years earlier and never got to litigate. Costs were awarded to IBM and the Banks.

---

Bottom line

• Filing: 2013-05-29 (served 2013-06-03), D. Neb., five patents, part of the 2013 IV banking campaign.
• Substantive motions: no motion-to-dismiss/transfer identified; the operative motion was the stay pending IPR, granted 2014-05-06, with the docket administratively closed that day.
• Claim construction: briefed but never ruled on — Joint Claim Construction Statement filed 2014-03-24; IV's responsive brief 2014-05-19; stay intervened.
• Discovery: minimal; no depositions; frozen by the stay.
• Trial/verdict/post-trial/fees: none.
• PTAB: FNBO was a named petitioner in IPR2014-00719/-00722 ('409) and IPR2014-00786 ('694); IBM carried the '084 and '666 challenges. The '694 and '084 claims were cancelled and the cancellations affirmed (Fed. Cir. 2016, 2017); the '409 IPRs settled with claim 23 disclaimed.
• Final posture: stayed indefinitely / administratively closed, final disposition unconfirmed. No Nebraska dismissal or judgment order surfaced in my searches. The campaign's decisive losses for IV occurred at the PTAB and Federal Circuit, which is why this docket remains a "stay" rather than a resolved case.

Principal gaps I could not close (flagged rather than filled)

1. FNBO's answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims — docket entries not retrieved; the five-count structure and Count V stipulation are documented only for the parallel Commerce case.
2. The text of the Nebraska stay order — known only through the Huntington court's citation and paraphrase (No. 8:13CV167 (D. Neb. May 6, 2014)); I could not confirm whether it dismissed without prejudice (as Commerce did) or simply stayed/closed.
3. The IPR proceeding number(s) for the '666 patent — institution date (2014-04-16, claims 1–11) is documented via the SunTrust opinion, but the case number did not surface.
4. Any motion-to-dismiss or transfer practice in the Nebraska docket — unverified in both directions.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

I'll research the defense counsel in this case through multiple targeted searches.

Good initial leads. Let me dig into the district court docket and confirm counsel.

Strong IPR data. Now let me pin down the district court counsel of record and the docket.

Defense Counsel — Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. First National Bank of Omaha, No. 8:13-cv-00167 (D. Neb.)

Important framing / sourcing caveat

I was able to retrieve very solid, primary-source documentation of defense counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings (the IPRs that drove the district court stay), but I was not able to pull the D. Neb. docket sheet itself within my search budget. Because the district court case was stayed/closed in May 2014 and the IPRs were filed by the same defendants on the same patents with the same counsel, the IPR Power of Attorney and PTAB/Federal Circuit filings are strong—but not conclusive—evidence of who represented FNBO in the district court. I flag where a name is IPR-only versus confirmed across both forums.

The metadata states the case was "stayed pending IPR; final disposition unconfirmed," while the RPX docket snippet shows the case as "Closed (05/06/14)" — the same date the prior summary gives for the stay. That is a contradiction worth flagging: it likely reflects RPX coding a stay as a closure, but I could not verify a dismissal/termination entry.

---

Attorneys identified as representing First National Bank of Omaha

Lead patent counsel — Jones Day

Local counsel — Kutak Rock LLP (Omaha)

In-house

---

Attorneys I identified who represent the co-petitioner banks — not FNBO

Because the IPRs were filed jointly by Compass Bank, Commerce Bancshares, and First National Bank of Omaha, several names appear in the same filings but belong to the other banks. Do not attribute these to FNBO:

• Marc Wade Vander Tuig (Reg. No. 57,964), Senniger Powers LLP, St. Louis, MO — counsel for Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (Federal Circuit opinion expressly attributes him to that appellee).
• Kyle Gottuso, Senniger Powers — appeared at a deposition "representing Commerce Bank."
• Mark Howland, Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal, Dallas, TX — counsel for Compass Bank (per the Federal Circuit opinion).

This is a real attribution trap: the joint IPR power of attorney lists multiple firms, only some of which are FNBO's.

---

Gaps and things I could not confirm

• The D. Neb. docket sheet itself. I could not retrieve the district court docket to confirm which of the above entered formal appearances under D. Neb. Civ. R. or which is designated "lead trial counsel." Treat the Jones Day / Kutak Rock pairing as the strong inference from the IPR POA, not a confirmed district-court caption.
• Counsel for the second defendant, First National of Nebraska, Inc. The IPR POA names only "First National Bank of Omaha, a Nebraska corporation." I found no separate appearance for First National of Nebraska, Inc.
• Whether any district-court filings were sealed — I have no evidence of sealing, but I also could not inspect the docket.
• The exact disposition. The stay date (per prior summary) and RPX's "Closed (05/06/14)" coding conflict; I could not find a dismissal order or stipulation.

Suggested next steps for confirmation

1. Pull the RECAP/CourtListener docket for No. 8:13-cv-00167 and read the attorney appearance entries (likely filed June–July 2013) to confirm lead vs. local counsel designations.
2. Cross-check Jones Day's and Kutak Rock's firm bios for "Intellectual Ventures II v. First National Bank of Omaha" listings.
3. Confirm the perceived contradiction between "stayed pending IPR" and the RPX "Closed" status via the docket's final entries.

If you can authorize a docket-retrieval pass, I can close the district-court gaps; everything above is otherwise grounded in the IPR power of attorney (IPR2014-00722, filed May 1, 2014), PTAB orders/deposition transcripts (IPR2014-00724), and the Federal Circuit's Dec. 9, 2016 opinion in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Compass Bank, Nos. 2016-1528 et al.