Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
AutoScribe v. Repay Holdings & M&A Ventures — Payment Enrollment Patent | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

AutoScribe v. Repay Holdings & M&A Ventures: Defendant Wins on Noninfringement

AutoScribe Corporation brought a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Georgia against Repay Holdings and affiliated entities over US11620621B2, covering merchant-server payer enrollment and secure payment processing. Following claim construction, the parties stipulated to noninfringement, and the court entered judgment for defendant M&A Ventures — ending the case in 570 days.

Resolution time
570days
Days from filing to judgment — resolved before trial via post-claim-construction stipulation
Patents asserted
1
US11620621B2 — merchant-server payer enrollment and secure payment processing
Outcome
Judgment on the merits for Defendant
Judgment on the merits entered for defendant M&A Ventures on stipulated noninfringement
Cost ruling
Costs: N/A
No cost or fee award referenced in the available record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Claim construction drives stipulated noninfringement judgment for M&A Ventures

AutoScribe Corporation filed suit on 24 September 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:24-cv-04282), asserting US11620621B2 against Repay Holdings Corporation, Repay Holdings LLC, and M&A Ventures LLC. The patent covers a method of enrolling a payer through a merchant server operated by or for a payee and processing that payment via a secure server — technology squarely aimed at merchant-side payment facilitation infrastructure.

The case turned decisively at the claim construction stage. Following Judge Steve C. Jones's order adopting a Special Master's Report and Recommendation on claim construction, AutoScribe and M&A Ventures jointly stipulated that M&A did not infringe the asserted patent. The court entered judgment against AutoScribe and for M&A on all infringement claims, with AutoScribe taking nothing. M&A's remaining defenses — including any invalidity arguments — were dismissed without prejudice. The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for the defendant.

Resolution in 570 days — before trial and without a damages proceeding — is consistent with claim construction functioning as the effective case-dispositive event. Once the Special Master's claim constructions were adopted, the parties' stipulation suggests the construed claim scope did not cover M&A's accused products or services. Notably, the judgment expressly covers only M&A Ventures; the record available does not disclose the final disposition as to co-defendants Repay Holdings Corporation and Repay Holdings LLC. The specific terms of the parties' Joint Stipulation of Non-Infringement are not disclosed in the available record.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
CourtGeorgia Northern District Court
JudgeSteve C. Jones
FiledSeptember 24, 2024
ClosedApril 17, 2026
Duration570 days
OutcomeJudgment on the merits for Defendant
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisJudgment on the merits for Defendant
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Georgia Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 570 days

Days from filing to judgment — resolved before trial via post-claim-construction stipulation

Case timeline: Complaint filed SEP 24 2024 — 570 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in AutoScribe Corp. v Repay Holdings Corporation from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Georgia Northern District Court. SEP 24 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings APR 17 2026 Judgment on the merits for Defendant 570 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US11620621B2 — Merchant-Server Payer Enrollment and Secure Payment Processing

Publication No.US11620621B2
Application No.US16/535424
Patent details
ProductMerchant-server payer enrollment and secure payment processing method
Cited in actionSeptember 24, 2024
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 5 independent)
1. A method of processing a payment transaction from a payer to a payee, the method being performed by one or more secure servers, the method comprising: providing, by the one or more secure servers to a merchant server providing a webpage to a payer computing system used by the payer, an application programming interface (API) that: provides financial account registration and token retrieval functions that can be executed to process the payment transaction; provides access to the financial account registration and token retrieval functions to the merchant server; receives, from the merchant server via the API, a…
Technical background
This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 15/408,185, filed Jan. 17, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/679,545, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,576,279, filed Nov. 16, 2012, which claims the benefit of U.S. Prov. Pat. Appl. No. 61/655,482, filed Jun. 5, 2012, and U.S. Prov. Pat. Appl. No. 61/698,574, filed Sep. 8, 2012. The aforementioned patent applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates b…
Patent family
14 family members across 4 jurisdictions (US, EP, CA, WO)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11620621B2?

Any company building or integrating merchant-server payer enrollment workflows — including payment facilitators, ISOs, healthcare payment platforms, and SaaS billing providers — should assess their exposure to US11620621B2. The patent remains valid and enforceable following this proceeding. The noninfringement finding here was fact-specific to M&A Ventures' products under a particular claim construction and does not provide universal clearance for other implementations.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

Based upon this Court’s Order adopting the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction (Dkt. 165) (the “Court’s Claim Construction Order”), Plaintiff Autoscribe Corporation (“Autoscribe”) and Defendant M&A Ventures, LLC (“M&A”) have stipulated that M&A is entitled to a judgment of noninfringement as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Non-Infringement. Accordingly, the Court enters Judgment as follows: Judgment is entered against Autoscribe and for M&A as to Autoscribe’s claims for patent infringement based on the parties’ Joint Stipulation of NonInfringement; The Court further enters judgment for M&A and against Autoscribe. Autoscribe shall take nothing from M&A with respect to its claims for infringement in this action; All of M&A’s other defenses are dismissed without prejudice;
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-04282, Georgia Northern District Court

The court's judgment is grounded in the parties' Joint Stipulation of Non-Infringement, itself triggered by the adopted Special Master claim construction. The verdict phrase 'Autoscribe shall take nothing from M&A' confirms a full merits defeat for the plaintiff on infringement. The express dismissal without prejudice of M&A's remaining defenses means the patent's validity was not adjudicated, leaving US11620621B2 technically intact as an enforceable issued patent.

PACER case 1:24-cv-04282 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Court ruling

Defendant judgment: what the noninfringement ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Stipulated noninfringement after claim construction — how it works

After the court adopted the Special Master's claim construction, the parties entered a Joint Stipulation of Non-Infringement. This is a recognised litigation mechanism whereby, under the construed claim scope, the plaintiff concedes the defendant's products or methods do not infringe — enabling the court to enter a final judgment on the merits without a full trial. Defendant's other defenses were dismissed without prejudice.

Judgment on the merits
Patent holder outcome

AutoScribe takes nothing — infringement claims extinguished as to M&A

The court entered judgment against AutoScribe on all infringement claims against M&A Ventures. AutoScribe is entitled to no damages or injunctive relief from M&A in this action. The judgment is on the merits, which may raise issue preclusion considerations if AutoScribe seeks to reassert the same claims against M&A in future proceedings. The specific terms of the Joint Stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.

Plaintiff takes nothing
Defendant outcome

M&A Ventures secures merits judgment; invalidity defenses preserved

M&A Ventures obtained a judgment of noninfringement on the merits — a stronger outcome than a procedural dismissal. Critically, M&A's remaining defenses, including any invalidity or unenforceability arguments, were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they are not waived for potential future proceedings involving this patent. The disposition as to co-defendants Repay Holdings Corporation and Repay Holdings LLC is not apparent from the available record.

Merits win, defenses preserved
Commercial implications

Claim construction as the pivot point in payment-tech patent disputes

This case illustrates how Special Master-assisted claim construction can function as the de facto dispositive event in patent litigation involving complex payment processing technology. For payment platform operators and merchant service providers, the outcome underscores the importance of early claim scope analysis. US11620621B2 remains an issued patent with its validity untested in this proceeding — a relevant consideration for competitors in the payer-enrollment and secure payment processing space.

Patent validity untested
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-04282 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffAutoScribe Corp.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantRepay Holdings CorporationCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantRepay Holdings, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantM&a Ventures, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrea FairAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAngela PetersonAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChun DengAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselColin PhillipsAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid Scott MorelandAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJason S. McManisAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael KillingsworthAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSean HealeyAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselThomas DelrosarioAttorneyCounsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmAhmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFoster Yarborough Killingsworth PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMiller & Martin PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmWard, Smith & Hill, PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Steve C. JonesJudgeGeorgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in merchant payment enrollment and secure processing

Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from AutoScribe v. Repay Holdings — mapping filing trends, portfolio activity, and innovation white space in the payment technology sector.

Patent portfolio

AutoScribe's patent portfolio beyond US11620621B2

AutoScribe's assertion of a payment enrollment method patent with a four-firm legal team suggests a portfolio-backed enforcement strategy. R&D and IP teams in the payment facilitation space should map AutoScribe's full patent family — including continuations and related applications — to identify additional claim scope that may cover merchant onboarding, tokenisation, or payment routing workflows.

Portfolio monitoring
Technology landscape

Patent filing trends in merchant-side payer enrollment systems

The asserted technology — merchant-server-controlled payer enrollment feeding into a secure payment server — reflects a structurally important layer of modern payment infrastructure. Filing activity in this space, spanning tokenised credential storage, merchant-initiated payment authorisation, and secure vault routing, has grown as payment facilitators compete on onboarding friction reduction. Tracking filing trends here reveals where the next wave of assertions may originate.

Filing trend watch
Competitor IP posture

Repay Holdings' patent position in the payment technology space

Repay Holdings operates as a payments technology provider across multiple verticals. Understanding their owned patent portfolio — and any defensive filings made in response to this litigation — provides a signal of how incumbent payment processors are building IP moats around merchant enrollment, ACH processing, and secure transaction routing. This is relevant intelligence for rivals and potential partners in the fintech sector.

Defensive IP signals
White space

Innovation gaps adjacent to merchant-server payment enrollment

The claim scope of US11620621B2 — focused on a specific merchant-server enrollment and secure-server processing architecture — leaves adjacent design spaces potentially unclaimed. Areas such as payer-initiated enrollment via open banking APIs, biometric-linked payment authorisation at the merchant layer, and real-time payment network enrollment flows may represent patentable white space for R&D teams looking to build defensible IP in the payment facilitation sector.

IP white space
Related litigation

Similar patent cases in payment technology and merchant enrollment systems

Explore comparable infringement actions in the N.D. Georgia court and across federal districts involving merchant payment enrollment, payment facilitation, and secure transaction processing patents.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
AutoScribe Corp. patent enforcement history, Georgia Northern District Court case history, AutoScribe Corp.'s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Payment enrollment casesN.D. Georgia patent disputesFintech noninfringement outcomesClaim construction defendant wins
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the payment technology IP landscape

A claim-construction-driven defendant win in a merchant payment enrollment patent case carries clear signals for fintech IP strategy.

Claim construction is the decisive battleground in payment-tech patent cases

The case resolved without trial because claim construction rendered the infringement position untenable. Payment technology companies facing assertion of method claims covering merchant-server enrollment workflows should invest heavily in early claim scope analysis and Special Master proceedings — these shape the entire litigation trajectory.

US11620621B2 validity remains unchallenged — monitor for future assertions

M&A's invalidity defenses were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the patent's validity was never adjudicated. AutoScribe retains an issued patent that has survived this action on its merits. Competitors and adjacent payment platform providers should monitor AutoScribe's portfolio and any new assertion activity against this patent.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis of this N.D. Georgia district court ruling and its implications for the payment technology sector.
AutoScribe portfolio riskRepay Holdings exposurePayment enrollment FTO gaps
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

AutoScribe v Repay — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Protect your payment platform from merchant enrollment patent risk

US11620621B2 is an active patent with untested validity. Run an FTO analysis in PatSnap Eureka before launching or expanding any merchant-side payer enrollment or secure payment processing feature.

Disclaimer

This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.

Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.