PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd.

The patent infringement lawsuit PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd., case number 6:24-cv-00340, was filed on June 24, 2024, 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 cashless payment solutions and hardware for unattended retail environments such as vending machines and laundromats. PayRange positions itself as a pioneer in mobile payment technology for self-service machines and is known for actively enforcing its extensive patent portfolio. The defendant, Nayax Ltd., is an Israeli fintech operating company that provides cashless payment, telemetry, and management solutions for the vending and unattended retail industries globally, offering both proprietary hardware and software. The litigation concerned allegations of infringement related to convenience services payment technology.

The primary patent asserted in this case was U.S. Patent 11,972,423. While a specific one-line technical sketch from an abstract was not directly found in the provided search snippets, general information about PayRange's patents indicates they cover technology that empowers consumers to pay unattended machines with a smartphone, enhancing convenience, improving sales for machine owners, and reducing operating costs. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Alia Moses, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland also handling aspects of the proceeding. The Western District of Texas has been a popular venue for patent litigation, though its landscape for judge assignment shifted in 2022 with district-wide random assignment for cases filed in Waco.

This case is notable for two significant reasons. First, despite the initial filing, PayRange and Nayax settled their patent dispute, leading to PayRange dismissing the case on March 10, 2025, which means the case is no longer active, contrary to the status provided in the prompt. Second, U.S. Patent No. 11,972,423 is currently undergoing Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00027) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where institution of the review was granted. This parallel PTAB challenge highlights the ongoing scrutiny of the patent's validity, even after the district court case concluded with a settlement. PayRange's history of successfully settling patent disputes, including a recent $62 million licensing deal with KioSoft, underscores its assertive approach to intellectual property enforcement in the unattended retail technology market.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd.

The patent infringement litigation filed by PayRange Inc. against Nayax Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (6:24-cv-00340) concerning U.S. Patent 11972423, which was filed on June 24, 2024, has been dismissed.

District Court Litigation (W.D. Tex. Case No. 6:24-cv-00340)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: PayRange Inc. initiated the lawsuit on June 24, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,423. Details regarding the filing of an answer or counterclaims by Nayax Ltd. prior to dismissal are not readily available in the provided search results.
• Final Disposition: The case, along with a related action against Card Concepts, Inc. (6:24-cv-00339 W.D. Tex.), has been dismissed. The exact date and specific reasons for the dismissal are not detailed in the provided search snippets, but the dismissal occurred sometime before August 26, 2025, when it was referenced in a document from a related Delaware case. It is often the case that such dismissals are voluntary, often due to settlement or strategic decisions.
• Other Milestones: Given the relatively short duration of the case before its dismissal, there is no public record of substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss based on patent eligibility, transfer, or stay), claim construction (Markman) proceedings, or discovery milestones. No trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions occurred.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• Post-Grant Review (PGR) for U.S. Patent 11,972,423: U.S. Patent No. 11,972,423 is the subject of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), identified as PGR2025-00028. The petition for PGR was filed by Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC.
• PGR Institution: The PTAB instituted a post-grant review of all claims (claims 1-20) of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,423 on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition. The institution decision was issued on August 26, 2025. Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC also initiated PGR2025-00027 against U.S. Patent No. 11,966,920, another patent held by PayRange.
• Related Litigation Impact: The institution of the PGR for U.S. Patent No. 11,972,423 was formally noticed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a separate case, Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. PayRange Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00733-MN (D. Del.). In that Delaware case, Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC had filed a motion to dismiss PayRange Inc.'s counterclaims of infringement for both the '920 and '423 patents based on Section 101 ineligibility, which was pending as of August 26, 2025. The dismissal of the PayRange v. Nayax case in W.D. Tex. occurred prior to the institution decisions for the PGRs.

PayRange Inc. was represented by the following counsel in its patent infringement suit against Nayax Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas:

• Jamie Y. Otto

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the litigation team, having filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance and a Pro Hac Vice Letter.
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC.
  • Experience Note: Jamie Otto is a partner in Wilson Sonsini's patent litigation practice. Her experience includes representing clients in patent disputes across various technologies in federal district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the International Trade Commission, as well as in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• Ryan R. Smith

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a key member of the litigation team, as he is noted on initial filings such as the Rule 7 Disclosure Statement and the Complaint.
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
  • Experience Note: Ryan Smith is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. His practice focuses on patent litigation, representing clients in diverse technology sectors in federal courts and before the PTAB. He has a track record in significant patent disputes.

• James C. Yoon

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
  • Experience Note: James Yoon is a partner at Wilson Sonsini, with a focus on intellectual property litigation. He has represented technology companies in complex patent disputes across various industries.

The case PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd. (6:24-cv-00340) was filed on June 24, 2024, and was dismissed on March 10, 2025, following a settlement between the parties.

In PayRange Inc. v. Nayax Ltd., the defendant Nayax Ltd. was represented by counsel from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

The attorneys of record for Nayax Ltd. include:

• James C. Yoon (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (office location not specified in provided snippets)
  • Note: James C. Yoon is listed as an attorney for Nayax Ltd. on the PacerMonitor docket.

• Ryan R. Smith (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (office location not specified in provided snippets)
  • Note: Ryan R. Smith is listed as an attorney for Nayax Ltd. on the PacerMonitor docket.

• Jamie Y. Otto (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC (office location not specified in provided snippets)
  • Note: Jamie Y. Otto was added as an attorney for PayRange Inc. in a June 24, 2024 docket entry, which appears to be a contradiction in the PacerMonitor entry that also lists her under Nayax Ltd. However, a subsequent July 2, 2024 filing explicitly states "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jamie Y. Otto on behalf of PayRange Inc.", confirming her representation of the plaintiff. Therefore, Jamie Y. Otto represented PayRange Inc., not Nayax Ltd.

It is important to note that while the PacerMonitor entry initially lists Jamie Y. Otto under Nayax Ltd.'s counsel, further docket details from Justia and PacerMonitor itself clarify her appearance was on behalf of the plaintiff, PayRange Inc.

Nayax Ltd. also has an internal legal officer, Gal Omer, who serves as their Chief Legal Officer since August 2023. She previously specialized in privacy protection, high-tech, and intellectual property at a prominent Israeli law firm. While she holds an in-house role at Nayax, the provided information does not indicate she made an appearance as counsel of record in this specific district court case.