AutoScribe Corp. v. Fortis Payment Systems: Embedded Payment Patent Settled with Prejudice
AutoScribe Corp. asserted US11620621B2 — covering embedded payment solutions — against Fortis Payment Systems, LLC in Judge Gilstrap’s Eastern District of Texas court. The parties reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved for dismissal with prejudice after 273 days of litigation, with each side bearing its own costs.
Embedded payments patent claim resolved before trial in E.D. Texas
AutoScribe Corp. filed suit against Fortis Payment Systems, LLC on August 10, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00364), asserting infringement of US11620621B2, a patent directed to embedded payment solutions. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent trial judges in the United States. AutoScribe was represented by Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing PLLC and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, while Fortis retained Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
The case closed on May 9, 2024 — 273 days after filing — when the parties filed a joint motion notifying the court they had agreed to resolve all claims. The court granted the motion and ordered all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice, meaning neither party may re-litigate the same claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and fees, a neutral cost allocation that neither confirms nor denies payment by either side.
A resolution at 273 days is notably fast for E.D. Texas patent dockets, suggesting the parties may have reached commercial agreement before substantial claim construction or discovery costs accumulated. The settlement terms remain confidential, and the public record does not reveal whether a licensing arrangement or royalty payment was part of the resolution. The lead case (2:23-cv-349-JRG) remained open at the time of this closure, indicating AutoScribe pursued parallel actions in the same district.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 273 days
273 days — below median for E.D. Texas patent cases, suggesting early settlement momentum
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint settlement order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any re-filing of these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under federal procedure. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, it permanently extinguishes AutoScribe’s right to re-assert the same infringement claims against Fortis based on the same conduct. The joint motion — initiated by both parties — confirms mutual agreement rather than a unilateral withdrawal, strongly suggesting a negotiated commercial resolution underpins the order.
Permanent bar on re-filingAutoScribe’s patent survives — enforcement rights intact against others
A settlement-driven dismissal with prejudice does not invalidate US11620621B2. AutoScribe retains the patent and can continue asserting it against other parties in the payments sector. The existence of a parallel lead case (2:23-cv-349) suggests an active licensing or enforcement campaign. Settlement with Fortis may reflect a licensing fee paid or a cross-licence, though the public record is silent on financial terms.
Patent remains enforceableFortis exits litigation but settlement terms are confidential
Fortis Payment Systems secured closure of this specific action and avoids a potential injunction or damages award at trial. The with-prejudice nature protects Fortis from AutoScribe re-filing the same claims. However, the confidential settlement terms — which may include ongoing royalties or a licence — are not publicly disclosed. The ‘own costs’ order suggests neither party was deemed a prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No public licence terms disclosedEmbedded payment providers should monitor AutoScribe’s enforcement posture
With a parallel lead case still active at the time of this closure and at least two defendants targeted in E.D. Texas, US11620621B2 appears to be a live enforcement asset. Other embedded payment solution providers — particularly those offering white-label or integrated payment APIs — should evaluate their exposure to this patent’s claims. The rapid settlement by Fortis may indicate claim strength or simply cost-of-litigation calculus.
Active enforcement risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AutoScribe Corp. | Company | Payment technology IP licensor — holder of US11620621B2 covering embedded payment solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fortis Payment Systems, LLC | Company | Fortis Payment Systems, LLC — provider of embedded and integrated payment processing servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Angela Peterson | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chun Deng | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Colin Phillips | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Scott Mcmanis | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Clay Erik Hawes | Attorney | Counsel for Fortis Payment Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cullen Pick | Attorney | Counsel for Fortis Payment Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth Mooar Chiaviello | Attorney | Counsel for Fortis Payment Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Alton Ehrlich | Attorney | Counsel for Fortis Payment Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP – Houston | Law Firm | Representing Fortis Payment Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fortis Payment Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint motion verbatim, confirming that the resolution was entirely consensual. The ‘dismissed with prejudice’ formulation — requested by both parties — operates as a final judgment, permanently foreclosing re-litigation of these specific claims between AutoScribe and Fortis. The ‘own costs’ directive, absent any § 285 exceptional-case finding, is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than an adjudicated win for either side. No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or infringement finding appears in the public record.
US11620621B2 — Embedded Payment Solutions Technology
US11620621B2, filed under application number US16/535424, protects technology in the embedded payment solutions space — covering systems and methods that integrate payment processing capabilities directly within third-party software platforms, applications, or merchant environments. Embedded payment technology is a high-growth segment of fintech infrastructure, enabling software vendors and ISVs to offer native payment acceptance without routing customers to external processors. The patent’s grant date positions it as a relatively recent asset with a full remaining term.
From a competitive standpoint, US11620621B2 is strategically significant because embedded payments have become a battleground between legacy processors, fintech platforms, and software-led payment facilitators. Any company offering white-label payment SDKs, integrated payment APIs, or payment-as-a-feature solutions within SaaS platforms should assess their product architecture against this patent’s independent claims. AutoScribe’s multi-defendant filing strategy suggests the patent holder believes claim scope is broad enough to cover commercially widespread implementations.
Should you run an FTO against US11620621B2?
If your product includes embedded, integrated, or white-label payment acceptance — whether as a software vendor, ISO, payment facilitator, or API provider — US11620621B2 warrants attention. AutoScribe has already demonstrated willingness to litigate in E.D. Texas against at least two defendants simultaneously. Companies that have received no demand letter are not necessarily safe: NPE-style campaigns typically target multiple players in sequence. An FTO review against this patent’s claims is particularly relevant for teams building payment orchestration layers, checkout SDKs, or embedded finance features.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US11620621B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may constrain claim scope, and surface related family members or continuation applications that may extend the patent’s reach. Eureka can also flag whether any inter partes review petitions have been filed against this patent, giving your team a real-time view of validity risk before you commit to a design or licensing decision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11620621B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar embedded payment patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving embedded payment and payment processing technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the embedded payments IP landscape
AutoScribe’s multi-defendant campaign in E.D. Texas is a clear signal that embedded payment technology is becoming a contested patent battleground.
E.D. Texas venue choice amplifies litigation pressure on payment fintechs
Judge Gilstrap’s docket is among the most patent-plaintiff-friendly in the US. Filing in E.D. Texas — even for defendants with no obvious local ties — signals a deliberate forum strategy. Embedded payment providers receiving demand letters referencing this court should treat them as high-priority: the cost of defence alone can exceed settlement value at this venue.
Parallel cases suggest a structured licensing campaign, not one-off litigation
The existence of a lead case (2:23-cv-349) alongside this member case indicates AutoScribe filed against multiple defendants simultaneously. This pattern is characteristic of NPE-style licensing campaigns where patent holders leverage portfolio assertions to drive royalty income. Companies in the payments integration space should check whether their products overlap with US11620621B2’s claim scope.
AutoScribe v Fortis — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 9, 2024, following a joint motion by both parties notifying the court of a settlement. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and fees. The settlement terms are confidential and not reflected in the public record.
AutoScribe asserted US11620621B2, filed under application number US16/535424. The patent covers embedded payment solutions — technology integrating payment processing capabilities within third-party software environments. The case was filed as an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition that permanently bars AutoScribe from re-filing the same infringement claims against Fortis based on the same underlying conduct. It does not invalidate the patent itself; AutoScribe retains US11620621B2 and can assert it against other parties. The joint motion confirms the dismissal was mutually agreed, consistent with a confidential settlement.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its established patent docket, plaintiff-favourable procedural history, and experienced judiciary. AutoScribe filed at least one parallel case (2:23-cv-349) in the same district, suggesting a deliberate multi-defendant venue strategy.
Yes. A settlement and dismissal with prejudice does not affect the validity or enforceability of US11620621B2. AutoScribe retains full rights to assert the patent against other parties. No invalidity ruling, claim construction order, or IPR decision appears in the public record of this case, meaning the patent’s claims remain intact as granted.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.