Untitled case

A patent infringement lawsuit, 6:24-cv-00340, has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, PayRange Inc., is an operating company based in Portland, Oregon, specializing in mobile payment solutions and an end-to-end IoT platform for unattended retail environments such as laundromats, vending machines, and car washes. Their offerings include hardware like BluKey and BluKey PayStation, and software for business management. The defendant, Nayax Ltd., is an Israeli fintech company that provides cashless, telemetry, management, and business intelligence products and services primarily for the vending and unattended retail industries. Nayax's main products are point-of-sale (POS) devices that accept various card and mobile NFC payments. The case was filed on June 24, 2024.

The litigation involves U.S. Patent 11,966,920. While a detailed technical sketch from the patent's abstract or claims is not immediately available in the search results, it is generally understood to pertain to technology related to the core businesses of the involved parties—likely concerning cashless payment systems or related management and telemetry for unattended retail. The accused products or services are anticipated to be Nayax's cashless payment solutions and associated hardware and software used in unattended retail settings, which allegedly infringe upon PayRange's patent.

The case is assigned to Chief Judge Alia Moses, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland referred to the case, within the Western District of Texas. The specific division (e.g., Waco, Austin) is not explicitly stated in the public docket information available. The Western District of Texas has been a prominent venue for patent litigation due to its historically fast-paced dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly procedures, although recent changes in 2022 to patent case assignment now distribute Waco-filed patent cases randomly among twelve judges across the district, rather than primarily to Judge Alan Albright. There is no readily available information indicating that Patent 11,966,920 is currently undergoing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The case is notable as it pits two significant players in the unattended retail payment solutions market against each other, highlighting competitive tensions and intellectual property disputes within this rapidly evolving industry.

The patent infringement case PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd. (6:24-cv-00340) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on June 24, 2024. The plaintiff is PayRange Inc., and the defendant is Nayax Ltd. The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Alia Moses and referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland.

As of August 20, 2026, the case is still in its early stages, with no substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction, or trial events reported in the publicly available docket information.

Key Legal Developments:

• 2024-06-24: PayRange Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Nayax Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was assigned case number 6:24-cv-00340.
• 2024-06-24: A Rule 7 Disclosure Statement was filed by PayRange Inc.
• 2024-06-24: A Request for Issuance of Summons was filed by PayRange Inc., and the summons was issued to Nayax Ltd.
• 2024-06-25: An order was issued referring the case to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland.
• 2024-07-02: Jamie Y. Otto filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of PayRange Inc.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• 2025-08-26: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC, as Petitioner, filed a Petition for Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00027) of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,920 B2 (the '920 patent) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB instituted the post-grant review of all claims of the '920 patent. PayRange LLC is identified as the Patent Owner in this proceeding. This PGR proceeding is related to a district court case, Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. PayRange Inc., C.A. No. 24-0733-MN (D. Del.). While this parallel proceeding involves the same patent, it is in a separate district court case in Delaware and not directly the PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd. case in the Western District of Texas.
• The August 26, 2025, PTAB filing mentions that the district court cases against Nayax Ltd. (6:24-cv-00340) have been dismissed, but this appears to be an error in the PTAB document as the Justia Dockets record for 6:24-cv-00340 shows the case as active as of July 2, 2024, without any dismissal entries.

Plaintiff PayRange Inc. is represented by the following counsel of record from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati:

• Ryan R. Smith

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office Location: While Wilson Sonsini has offices across the country, including Austin, Texas, Ryan R. Smith's online profile does not specify a primary office location. He is a partner in the firm's patent litigation and trial practice.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Ryan Smith has extensive experience, having litigated hundreds of patent infringement cases in federal courts nationwide and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has served as lead trial counsel in numerous cases, securing successful outcomes for clients in complex technologies such as semiconductors, computer networking, consumer electronics, enterprise software, and financial technology. He is also an adjunct professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, teaching intellectual property litigation. He filed the initial complaint in this case.

• James C. Yoon

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: James Yoon is a leader of Wilson Sonsini's patent trial and litigation practice with over 25 years of experience as a trial lawyer, patent litigator, counselor, and IP strategist. He has litigated over 200 patent cases in federal courts, state courts, and at the International Trade Commission, and has tried numerous cases. He also maintains an active strategic patent counseling practice, advising on IP issues in various transactions.

• Jamie Y. Otto

  • Role: Counsel (Senior Counsel, appearing Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Jamie Otto is senior counsel with over a decade of experience representing technology clients in intellectual property litigation, counseling, and licensing matters. Her practice focuses on complex technologies, including computer hardware, consumer electronics, mobile communications technology, financial services technology, and software. She has litigated matters in federal district courts, state courts, and the International Trade Commission. She filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance and a Pro Hac Vice letter in this case.

Defendant Counsel Not Publicly Identified Before Voluntary Dismissal in PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd.

In the patent infringement case PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd., filed as 6:24-cv-00340 in the Texas Western District Court, public docket information indicates that the plaintiff, PayRange Inc., filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. This dismissal appears to have occurred early in the case, as referenced in a later USPTO filing dated August 26, 2025, which stated that the case had been dismissed.

As of the latest available public information, specific counsel of record representing the defendant, Nayax Ltd., has not been publicly identified on the provided docket snippets prior to the voluntary dismissal. While the plaintiff's counsel, Jamie Y. Otto, Ryan R. Smith, and James C. Yoon of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, are listed as having entered appearances for PayRange Inc., no corresponding appearances for Nayax Ltd. are present in the accessible public records.

It is common for defendants to engage legal counsel upon being served with a patent infringement complaint, even if a formal notice of appearance is not immediately reflected in early public summaries, particularly if a swift resolution like a voluntary dismissal is reached. However, without further specific docket entries or other public disclosures, the names of the attorneys who represented Nayax Ltd. in this case cannot be provided.