AutoScribe Corp. v. Nuvei: Payment Technology Patent Dispute Settled in E.D. Texas
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | AutoScribe Corp. v. Nuvei Corporation |
| Case Number | 2:24-cv-00325 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Eastern District of Texas, Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap |
| Duration | May 2024 – Aug 2025 483 days |
| Outcome | Settled – Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Nuvei Payment Page, Server-to-server, Simply Connect, Web SDK |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Patent-holding entity asserting intellectual property rights in automated payment and data capture technology.
🛡️ Defendant
Global payment technology company headquartered in Montreal, Canada, providing payment solutions worldwide.
Patents at Issue
This landmark case involved U.S. Patent No. 11,620,621 B2, covering payment processing technology, specifically automated payment data handling, which underlies Nuvei’s accused products.
Developing payment technology?
Check if your payment integration architecture might infringe this or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On August 29, 2025, Chief Judge Gilstrap granted a Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice filed by AutoScribe Corporation and Nuvei. The case concluded after 483 days of litigation, with no public disclosure of financial terms. Each party bore its own costs.
Legal Significance
This dismissal with prejudice, without specific claim construction or infringement findings, means U.S. Patent No. 11,620,621 B2 remains valid and assertable by AutoScribe against other parties. Nuvei obtains finality against re-suit on this patent for the accused products.
Drafting payment technology patents?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in payment technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the payment tech space
- See key players in payment technology patents
- Understand assertion strategies in E.D. Texas
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own payment technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Automated payment data handling, API-driven integrations
US Patent 11,620,621 B2
Still active and assertable by AutoScribe
Strategic Venue
E.D. Texas remains key for patent plaintiffs
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(2) forecloses re-litigation but creates no claim construction precedent.
Search related case law →E.D. Texas / Judge Gilstrap remains a strategically significant venue for payment technology patent assertions.
Explore E.D. Texas cases →For R&D & IP Teams in Fintech
Payment SDKs, API integrations, and hosted pages carry measurable patent infringement exposure.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Proactive FTO analysis during product development reduces downstream litigation risk.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.