Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. PayRange Inc.

This case, Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. PayRange Inc., is a patent declaratory judgment action initiated by Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC against PayRange Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC is an American operating company and a global provider of commercial laundry systems, manufacturing washers, dryers, and ironers under brands like Speed Queen and Huebsch. PayRange Inc. is an operating company headquartered in Portland, Oregon, specializing in cashless payment solutions and an end-to-end IoT platform for unattended retail environments, including laundromats, vending machines, and car washes. Alliance Laundry Systems' "Speed Queen" and "Huebsch" mobile applications and payment systems are the accused products, which PayRange alleges infringe its patents.

The primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent 11,972,423, titled "Method and System for Presenting Representations of Payment Accepting Unit Events." This patent generally describes a system and method where a mobile device facilitates transactions with payment-accepting units, such as vending machines. It involves the mobile device identifying nearby units, displaying them in a user interface, establishing a wireless connection, and enabling payments and transaction-related notifications. The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:24-cv-00733-MN, and is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Delaware is a common venue for patent litigation due to a high concentration of companies incorporated there, its experienced judiciary in patent law, well-developed local rules, and predictability in case management.

This litigation is notable due to the competitive landscape in the commercial laundry payment technology market. Alliance Laundry Systems is seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement following PayRange's allegations of infringement. A related post-grant review (PGR2025-00028) challenging U.S. Patent 11,972,423 has been instituted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Additionally, the parties are involved in other related disputes, including an antitrust lawsuit filed by PayRange against Alliance in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging that Alliance is illegally tying its payment technology to its commercial laundry machines. There is also another declaratory judgment action filed by PayRange against Alliance in the District of Delaware (1:26-cv-00634). These interconnected legal actions highlight significant tension between the two companies over payment systems in the unattended retail sector.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. PayRange Inc.

Case Number: 1:24-cv-00733-MN
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Filed: 2024-06-20
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent 11972423 (and related patents 11966920, 11481772, 10891608)
Status: Active, with parallel PTAB proceedings ongoing.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims):

• Complaint Filed: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC initiated this declaratory judgment/non-infringement suit on June 20, 2024.
• Defendant's Name Change: PayRange Inc., the original defendant, changed its name to PayRange LLC on October 28, 2024.
• Answer and Counterclaims: PayRange LLC filed an Answer and Counterclaims for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,966,920 and 11,972,423. The exact filing date for the answer and counterclaims is not specified in the provided information, but a subsequent motion references them.
• Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims: Alliance Laundry Systems LLC filed a motion to dismiss PayRange Inc.'s counterclaims of infringement of the '920 and '423 patents, arguing the asserted claims are ineligible under Section 101. This motion, identified as D.I. 21, was pending as of August 26, 2025.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending PTAB Review (Intended): As of August 26, 2025, Alliance indicated its intention to file a motion to stay the litigation pending the final resolution of the instituted Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) after conferring with PayRange's counsel. The provided information does not indicate whether this motion to stay has since been formally filed or ruled upon. However, a filing on August 28, 2025, in a related IPR (IPR2025-00950) noted that the District of Delaware litigation "has essentially been paused since late 2024," with no discovery or claim construction timeline in place, and no trial date set, suggesting the court is awaiting developments in the PTAB proceedings.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• No information regarding claim construction (Markman) outcomes has been found, consistent with the district court case being in its early stages and "paused."

4. Discovery Milestones:

• No specific discovery milestones have been identified. As of August 28, 2025, no discovery had been requested or exchanged in the district court litigation.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case has not reached the trial stage. No information regarding trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions is available.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The litigation remains active. There is no information indicating a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal as of the current date.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Several parallel proceedings concerning PayRange's patents have been initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):

• PGR2025-00027 (U.S. Patent 11,966,920) and PGR2025-00028 (U.S. Patent 11,972,423):

  • On August 25, 2025, the PTAB instituted post-grant review for all claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,966,920 and 11,972,423. Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, the petitioner, formally notified the District Court of these institution decisions on August 26, 2025.

• IPR2025-00573 (U.S. Patent 11,481,772):

  • This Inter Partes Review petition was filed by Alliance. The PTAB instituted review for this patent on October 14, 2025.

• IPR2025-00950 (U.S. Patent 10,891,608):

  • This Inter Partes Review petition, also filed by Alliance, was discretionarily denied institution by the Director on September 19, 2025. The denial was notwithstanding the ongoing district court litigation, partly because PayRange had licensed the patent, creating "settled expectations," and two prior petitions by different parties had been denied on the merits.

• PGR2021-00093 (U.S. Patent 10,891,614 B2):

  • This patent is a parent to U.S. Patent 11,966,920. The PTAB issued a final written decision in this PGR on December 14, 2022, determining that certain claims of the '614 patent were unpatentable. The Patent Owner did not appeal this decision, and a post-grant review certificate canceling the unpatentable claims was issued on March 27, 2023.

The institution of the PGRs for U.S. Patent Nos. 11,966,920 and 11,972,423, along with the pending IPR for U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772 and the discretionary denial of IPR for U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608, significantly impact the district court litigation. The court's proceedings appear to be on hold ("paused") pending the outcomes of these PTAB reviews. The PTAB's decisions on these patents could lead to claim cancellations, potentially narrowing or resolving the infringement dispute in the district court.

Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC, the plaintiff in Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. PayRange Inc. (1:24-cv-00733-MN), is represented by attorneys from both Foley & Lardner LLP and Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP.

The following counsel are of record for Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC:

• Matthew A. Argenti

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for IPR proceedings, suggesting a similar role in the district court case)
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, California (based on typical firm structure, though not explicitly stated for this case, another attorney from Wilson Sonsini is listed with a Palo Alto office in a related case where PayRange is plaintiff)
  • Relevant Experience: Matthew Argenti is noted as Lead Counsel for Alliance Laundry Systems LLC in a related IPR proceeding (IPR2025-00950 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608).

• Melanie K. Sharp

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Relevant Experience: Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor is a prominent Delaware law firm known for its deep understanding of Delaware law and frequent appearances before its judges, often serving as local counsel in complex litigation, including intellectual property disputes. Melanie K. Sharp is also listed as representing Alliance Laundry Systems LLC in a related case where PayRange LLC is the plaintiff (1:26-cv-00634).

• Gianna Carina Penezic

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt And Taylor
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Relevant Experience: Gianna Carina Penezic is listed as representing Alliance Laundry Systems LLC in a related case where PayRange LLC is the plaintiff (1:26-cv-00634).

• James L. Higgins

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Relevant Experience: James L. Higgins is listed as representing Alliance Laundry Systems LLC in a related case where PayRange LLC is the plaintiff (1:26-cv-00634).

While Sarah E. Waidelich and Scott Barnett are also mentioned in a related case (1:26-cv-00634) representing Alliance Laundry Systems, their firm affiliation for this specific case (1:24-cv-00733-MN) and detailed roles are not explicitly clear from the provided search results.

Here is the counsel of record representing PayRange Inc. in Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. PayRange Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00733-MN in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware:

Lead Counsel (Pro Hac Vice):

• Jamie Y. Otto (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: [Firm information not explicitly provided in search results for this specific case, but typically Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP or Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati based on related case information and common patent litigation practices. Further investigation needed for definitive firm for this case.]
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: While her specific firm for this case is not definitively identified in the provided snippets, Jamie Y. Otto is noted as a Pro Hac Vice attorney for PayRange Inc. in this action.
• James C. Yoon (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: [Firm information not explicitly provided in search results for this specific case, but typically Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP or Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati based on related case information and common patent litigation practices. Further investigation needed for definitive firm for this case.]
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: James C. Yoon is noted as a Pro Hac Vice attorney for PayRange Inc. in this action.
• Ryan R. Smith (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC - Palo Alto
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Ryan R. Smith is listed as a Pro Hac Vice attorney for PayRange Inc. in this case, and in a related case, his firm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, is also mentioned. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati has a significant intellectual property and patent litigation practice.

Local Counsel (Delaware):

Given the District of Delaware's local rules requiring local counsel, and based on related case information suggesting Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP often serves as Delaware counsel for PayRange, the following attorneys are likely representing PayRange Inc. in a local counsel capacity:

• David Ellis Moore (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: David Moore practices as both lead and local counsel in state and federal courts, with substantial experience in patent infringement cases, including medical devices and telecommunications. Potter Anderson & Corroon is a high-quality practice with a focus on patent infringement litigation and frequently appears in proceedings before the District Court of Delaware.
• Bindu Ann George Palapura (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Bindu Ann George Palapura is listed as associated with Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP in a related case. Potter Anderson is known for its intellectual property litigation practice in Delaware.
• Malisa Dang (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Malisa Dang is listed as associated with Potter Anderson & Corroon in a related case.

Note: While search results for a related case (1:26-cv-00634) provided firm affiliations for some of the Pro Hac Vice attorneys and explicitly listed Potter Anderson & Corroon attorneys for PayRange LLC, the specific firm affiliations for Jamie Y. Otto and James C. Yoon as Pro Hac Vice counsel in case 1:24-cv-00733-MN were not definitively stated in the available snippets for this exact case. However, the local counsel role of Potter Anderson & Corroon is highly probable given the nature of Delaware patent litigation and the listed attorneys.