COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

Third Party Claims Against the Company’s Customers

The Company receives indemnification demands from end-user customers who received third party patentee offers to license patents and allegations of patent infringement. Some of the offers and allegations have resulted in ongoing litigation. The Company is not a party to any such litigation. From time to time, license offers to and infringement allegations against the Company’s end-customers are made by non-practicing entities (“NPEs”)—often called “patent trolls”—and not the Company’s competitors. These NPEs may seek to extract settlements from our end-customers, resulting in new or renewed indemnification demands to the Company. At this time, the Company does not believe it is obligated to indemnify any customers or end-customers resulting from license offers or patent infringement allegations by any such NPEs. However, the Company could incur substantial costs if it is determined that it is required to indemnify any customers or end-customers in connection with these offers or allegations. Given the potential for impact to other customers and the industry, the Company is actively monitoring the offers, allegations and any resulting litigation.

Since 2018, United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) has filed suit against various parties alleging patent infringement concerning USAA-owned patents related to mobile check deposit technology. While these lawsuits do not name the Company as a defendant, given (among other factors) the Company’s prior history of litigation with USAA and the continued use of the Company’s products by its customers, on November 1, 2019, the Company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe certain patents held by USAA (collectively, the “Subject Patents”), which USAA sought to dismiss for lack of standing. Following various appeals and transfers, the Company timely filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of standing, but did not address the merits of the case. The Company chose not to appeal this decision. The Company continues to believe that its products do not infringe the Subject Patents and will vigorously defend the right of its end-users to use its technology.

On January 28, 2025, USAA filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Regions Financial Corporation and Regions Bank (“Regions”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Company was not named as a defendant or mentioned in connection with any alleged infringement in the complaint. On March 13, 2025, Digital First Holdings d/b/a Candescent, the successor-in-interest of NCR’s digital banking business, sent the Company an indemnification demand relating to the lawsuit. The Company does not believe at this time that it is required to indemnify Candescent or Regions and has notified them of its position. On July 7, 2025, Regions filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that the patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On July 14, 2025, Regions filed a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of its motion to dismiss.

Claim Against UrbanFT, Inc.

On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit against one of its customers, UrbanFT, Inc. (“UrbanFT”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (case No. 19-CV-1432-CAB-DEB). UrbanFT is delinquent in payment and attempted to justify its non-payment by asserting that the Company is or may be infringing on purported UrbanFT patents. The

Company filed such lawsuit to collect the delinquent payments and to obtain a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of five purported UrbanFT patents. UrbanFT filed an answer and later asserted infringement of two of the five patents-at-issue in the Company’s lawsuit against UrbanFT. The Company thereafter filed counterclaims seeking a declaration that the two patents now asserted by UrbanFT are invalid in addition to being not infringed. During the course of the litigation, the Company learned that a judgment had been entered against UrbanFT’s affiliates and its predecessor owner in which an Oregon court ordered that the patents in issue revert to a prior owner, Mr. Stevens, because UrbanFT’s affiliates did not pay the purchase price owed to the prior owner. On September 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim. On September 15, 2020, the district court issued an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction over patent issues in light of the Oregon judgment. On December 17, 2020, the district court dismissed Mitek’s claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and UrbanFT’s counterclaims for patent infringement and related affirmative defenses based on infringement of the patents for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because UrbanFT does not own the patents. The district court then dismissed the remaining state law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

On December 18, 2020, the Company filed a new suit against UrbanFT in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (case no. 37-2020-00046670-CU-BC-CTL) asserting claims for breach of contract, open book account, and monetary damages. UrbanFT filed an answer and did not assert any cross-claims. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment which was heard on April 15, 2022. The Court granted the Company’s motion and on June 2, 2022, entered a judgment in favor of the Company for $1.7 million in compensatory damages, plus costs, including attorney’s fees. The Court awarded the Company $2,600 in costs plus $0.6 million in attorneys’ fees for a total judgment of $2.3 million. The time for UrbanFT to appeal the $1.7 million in compensatory damage judgment has expired but the time for UrbanFT to appeal the attorneys’ fee and cost award has not. No appeal has been filed.

On August 2, 2023, the Company filed a separate lawsuit against Richard Steggall, UFT (North America), LLC fka Urban FT LLC; Urban FT Group, Inc; Urban FT Client Solutions, LLC; UFT Professional Services, LLC; and X-35 Financial Technologies, in the San Diego Superior Court, (case No. 37-2023-00033005-CU-FR-CTL) (“Fraud Conveyance Action”). The Fraud Conveyance Action alleges that Mr. Steggall orchestrated a scheme to strip UFT (North America), LLC of any assets and effectively transfer the Urban FT business to other entities he owns and controls, all to avoid the Company’s collection efforts. The Fraud Conveyance Action also alleges that Mr. Steggall funnels Urban FT’s revenues through a network of other entities he owns and controls, all to ensure that creditors, including the Company, cannot collect their debts.

On February 23, 2024, the Court set the Fraud Conveyance Action for trial on March 14, 2025. Separately, the Company filed two motions to compel discovery set for April 12, 2024. The defendants have filed a motion to quash the Company’s subpoena to Chase Bank and the defendants filed an Order to Show Cause to hold the Company in contempt for violating the parties’ Protective Order. The Company anticipates filing its own motion for sanctions against defendants for their frivolous contempt motion.

On April 12, 2024, the Court granted the Company’s two motions to compel discovery and the parties are presently working through various issues in Urban FT’s discovery responses following the Court granting the motions to compel. Separately, the parties agreed to withdraw: (1) the subpoena to Chase Bank; (2) the motion to quash the subpoena to Chase Bank; (3) the Order to Show cause to hold Company in contempt; and (4) the Company’s motion for sanctions in response to the contempt motion.

In March 2025, Mr. Steggall filed a motion for summary judgment, which was set to be heard on June 6, 2025 but was postponed until October 3, 2025. Trial has been continued to January 2026.

Other Legal Matters

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to various claims and legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is both (i) probable that a loss has occurred and (ii) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. While any legal proceeding has an element of uncertainty, the Company believes that the disposition of such matters, in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Employee 401(k) Plan

The Company has a 401(k) plan that allows participating employees to contribute a percentage of their salary, subject to Internal Revenue Service annual limits. In 2015, the Company implemented a company match to the plan. The Company's contributions are made in an amount equal to 50% of the first 6% of an employee's designated deferral of their eligible compensation. The Company's total cost related to the 401(k) plan was $0.7 million, $0.6 million, and $0.5 million for the twelve months ended September 30, 2025, 2024, and 2023, respectively.