AutoScribe Corp. v. Repay Holdings: Payment API Patent Dispute Transferred to N.D. Georgia
AutoScribe Corp. filed a patent infringement action against Repay Holdings Corporation and related entities in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US11620621B2 covering payment API technology. After 425 days of proceedings before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia on September 24, 2024.
Payment API Patent Suit Relocated After 14 Months in East Texas
AutoScribe Corp. initiated this patent infringement action on July 27, 2023, in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), naming Repay Holdings Corporation, Repay Holdings LLC, and M&A Ventures LLC as defendants. The asserted patent, US11620621B2, covers payment API technology — a commercially significant area given the rapid growth of integrated payment processing platforms. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent jurists in the country.
On September 24, 2024, Judge Gilstrap ordered an inter-district transfer of the case to the Northern District of Georgia, terminating the E.D. Texas proceedings after 425 days. A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) signals that the transferring court found a more convenient or appropriate forum — typically where key witnesses, evidence, or the defendant’s principal operations are located. No merits ruling or claim construction was issued in Texas; the litigation effectively resets in Atlanta under a new judge and local patent rules.
The 14-month timeline before transfer suggests substantive venue briefing occurred, which is consistent with Repay Holdings’ likely corporate connections to Georgia. What drove the transfer — whether defendant’s headquarters, witness location, or access to evidence — is not fully detailed in the public termination record. AutoScribe must now prosecute its infringement claims under N.D. Georgia procedures, while Repay faces continued exposure on the payment API patent in a jurisdiction potentially more familiar with its operations.
Filing to Case Transferred in 425 days
425 days in E.D. Texas before inter-district transfer — typical transfer rulings in this court range from 6–18 months
Case transferred to N.D. Georgia: what venue change means for both parties
Inter-district transfer under § 1404(a): a venue reset, not a dismissal
An inter-district transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves a civil action to another federal district where it could have been originally filed, in the interest of justice or convenience of parties and witnesses. Critically, the case is not dismissed — all claims survive and proceed in the transferee court. The receiving court, N.D. Georgia, applies its own local patent rules, scheduling orders, and claim construction procedures. Prior filings from E.D. Texas typically remain part of the record.
Venue change, not dismissalAutoScribe must re-engage in a new forum with different rules and timelines
For AutoScribe Corp., the transfer means re-engaging litigation infrastructure in Atlanta — potentially new local counsel, different scheduling norms, and a new judge unfamiliar with any prior briefing context. N.D. Georgia is generally considered less plaintiff-friendly in patent matters than E.D. Texas. However, AutoScribe’s infringement claims on US11620621B2 remain fully intact; no substantive concession was made. The path to trial simply restarts under a different jurisdiction’s calendar.
Claims preserved, forum less favourableRepay Holdings likely benefits from litigating closer to its home operations
Repay Holdings Corporation is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, making the N.D. Georgia a natural forum for its defense. The successful transfer typically signals that the court accepted defendant’s argument that key witnesses, documents, or corporate operations are centred in Georgia. Litigating at home reduces logistical burden and may allow Repay to leverage local relationships. However, the transfer does not affect the substantive strength of AutoScribe’s patent claims — invalidity and non-infringement defences must still be argued on the merits.
Home forum advantage gainedPayment API IP enforcement shifts to a new battleground in Atlanta
The transfer of this payment API patent suit to N.D. Georgia reflects a broader trend of defendants successfully challenging E.D. Texas venue following the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland ruling and subsequent Federal Circuit guidance. For the payment processing sector, the case continues to signal active monetisation of payment API patents. Companies operating integrated payment platforms should monitor the N.D. Georgia docket for claim construction outcomes, as any ruling on US11620621B2’s scope could inform FTO assessments industry-wide.
Atlanta docket to watchFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AutoScribe Corp. | Company | Payment technology IP licensor — holder of US11620621B2 covering payment API systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Repay Holdings Corporation | Company | Repay Holdings Corporation — integrated payment processing platform provider, Atlanta-based fintechSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Repay Holdings, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | M&a Ventures, LLC | Company | Search 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 | Colin Phillips | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Scott Mcmanis | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Alexander Killingsworth | 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 | David H. Harper | Attorney | Counsel for Repay Holdings CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marron E. Frith | Attorney | Counsel for Repay Holdings CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samuel Mark Drezdzon | Attorney | Counsel for Repay Holdings CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie Noelle Sivinski | Attorney | Counsel for Repay Holdings CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haynes & Boone, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Repay Holdings CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order’s phrasing — ‘Inter district transfer to the Northern District of Georgia’ — confirms this is a § 1404(a) convenience transfer, not a dismissal or merits ruling. The E.D. Texas court made no determination on infringement, validity, or claim scope. Both parties carry their full procedural posture into N.D. Georgia, where the litigation restarts under that court’s local patent rules. The transferee court is not bound by any scheduling or claim construction framework established in Texas.
US11620621B2 — Payment API Integration and Automated Processing Technology
US11620621B2, filed as application US16/535424, covers payment API technology — broadly, the systems and methods by which software applications connect to, authenticate with, and execute transactions through payment processing infrastructure. Patents in this space typically claim the specific architecture of the API layer, data formats, authentication flows, or orchestration logic that enables third-party applications to initiate and manage payments. The patent’s grant suggests it survived examination with claims of sufficient novelty over prior art in the fintech integration space.
Payment API patents have become high-value enforcement assets as the fintech sector has consolidated around platform-based payment orchestration. US11620621B2, asserted against a company whose core product is an integrated payment processing platform, suggests AutoScribe views Repay’s technical implementation as directly overlapping with its claimed invention. For competitors and partners of Repay Holdings operating similar API-based payment stacks, this patent represents a material landscape risk — particularly if N.D. Georgia issues broad claim construction rulings.
Should your payment API product be assessed against US11620621B2?
Any company developing or deploying payment API integration technology — including SaaS platforms, embedded finance providers, payment orchestration layers, and fintech infrastructure vendors — should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against US11620621B2. The patent is actively asserted in federal court, and the N.D. Georgia proceedings will produce claim construction guidance that could expand or narrow its scope. R&D and product teams building payment processing interfaces are most directly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11620621B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flag related family members or continuations that may extend the patent’s reach. With the case now in N.D. Georgia, early FTO work ahead of any claim construction ruling gives product and legal teams the clearest window to assess design-around options before the patent’s scope is judicially fixed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11620621B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Payment API Patent Infringement Cases in Federal District Courts
Explore related payment API and fintech patent infringement cases litigated in E.D. Texas and N.D. Georgia, including comparable transfer and venue disputes.
What this case signals for the payment technology IP landscape
Venue strategy and payment API patent enforcement are converging — this transfer has implications beyond the two parties.
E.D. Texas is no longer a guaranteed home for payment tech patent plaintiffs
Judge Gilstrap’s transfer order reinforces that defendants with genuine connections to other districts can successfully challenge venue in East Texas, even after a year of proceedings. Payment technology companies asserting patents should evaluate defendant nexus to the forum before filing. A weak venue position risks a costly 12–18 month delay before substantive proceedings begin.
US11620621B2 remains active and asserted — FTO risk persists for payment API providers
The transfer does not affect the legal validity or enforceability of US11620621B2. Any company deploying payment API integration technology — particularly automated payment orchestration or processing interfaces — should treat this patent as an active litigation risk. The N.D. Georgia proceedings will likely produce claim construction rulings that define the patent’s scope for the entire industry.
AutoScribe v Repay — key questions answered
AutoScribe Corp. filed a patent infringement action against Repay Holdings Corporation and related entities in the Eastern District of Texas on July 27, 2023, asserting US11620621B2 covering payment API technology. After 425 days, Judge Rodney Gilstrap transferred the case to the Northern District of Georgia on September 24, 2024. No merits rulings were issued in Texas.
The inter-district transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves the litigation to a more convenient forum without dismissing any claims. AutoScribe’s infringement allegations on US11620621B2 remain fully active. The case will proceed under N.D. Georgia’s local patent rules, with a new scheduling order, and potentially faster progression to claim construction hearings.
US11620621B2 (application US16/535424) covers payment API technology — the systems and methods enabling software applications to connect to and execute transactions through payment processing infrastructure. AutoScribe asserted this patent against Repay Holdings’ integrated payment processing platform, suggesting the alleged infringement relates to Repay’s core API-based payment orchestration capabilities.
The public record identifies the basis of termination as ‘Case Transferred’ to the Northern District of Georgia. This is consistent with a § 1404(a) transfer motion granted on grounds of convenience — most likely Repay Holdings’ corporate presence in Atlanta, Georgia. The precise grounds cited in the transfer order are not detailed in the available termination record.
The defendants are Repay Holdings Corporation, Repay Holdings LLC, and M&A Ventures LLC. Repay Holdings Corporation is the publicly traded payment technology company. The inclusion of M&A Ventures LLC alongside the Repay entities suggests AutoScribe may be pursuing an infringement theory tied to a specific business unit, acquired entity, or transactional structure — though the precise role of M&A Ventures is not specified in the available public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.