Co-op Bank Wins Fintech Patent Dispute

Kenya, November 20, 2025 - In a landmark intellectual property showdown, Co-operative Bank of Kenya has secured a decisive legal victory in a patent dispute with a local innovator known as Itesyl Technologies (sometimes spelled Intestyl). The ruling, which upholds Coop’s practices and rejects claims of technology theft, raises profound questions about how innovation, infrastructure, and power intersect in Kenya’s fast-moving fintech ecosystem.

The case traces back to 2020, when Itesyl filed for a utility model (a form of IP protection) for a system described as a “Computer Implemented Banking System for Real Estate Management”.The proposal envisioned a platform that could manage real-estate payments, integrate with MPesa and other mobile money channels, and reconcile landlord payments in real time. Itesyl claimed that Coop Bank had shown early interest, granting them access to its APIs and systems

for development purposes.

By 2022, things had soured. Itesyl sued Coop Bank, alleging that the bank had misused intellectual property, and demanded KSh 216.5 million in damages. Media reporting at the time documented Itesyl’s argument that Coop’s Open Banking initiative essentially incorporated elements of their platform.

The Court’s Decision

After a full legal contest, the High Court sided with Coop Bank, affirming an earlier decision by the Industrial Property Tribunal (IPT). The court’s analysis, as reported in the media, hinged on several key legal and technical points: The court found that Itesyl’s system lacked independence, as it did not operate on its own but relied heavily on Coop Bank’s existing infrastructure, including its core banking system, Pesalink, MPesa, and internal APIs. This dependency meant that the system could not function without the bank’s resources.

Additionally, concerns over novelty and disclosure were raised. Itesyl did not provide sufficient technical documentation to prove that its solution was original or capable of operating as a standalone system. Without the bank’s infrastructure, the platform could not demonstrate true operational capability.

Under Kenyan intellectual property law, utility models must show industrial applicability, independence, and sufficient detail. Since Itesyl’s system depended entirely on Coop Bank’s infrastructure, it failed to meet these essential requirements, and thus could not satisfy legal scrutiny.

Finally, the court emphasized the functionality test. Merely proposing a mechanism for payments was insufficient; the system needed to have real, demonstrable operational capacity independent of the bank’s proprietary banking engine. This failure ultimately undermined Itesyl’s claim to the utility model.

In short, the court concluded that Itesyl’s claims lacked the legal substance required for patent protection under its own name.

Implications of the Verdict