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.
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 →Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 570 days
Days from filing to judgment — resolved before trial via post-claim-construction stipulation
US11620621B2 — Merchant-Server Payer Enrollment and Secure Payment Processing


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.
Official order — verbatim text
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.
Defendant judgment: what the noninfringement ruling means for both parties
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 meritsAutoScribe 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 nothingM&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 preservedClaim 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 untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AutoScribe Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Repay Holdings Corporation | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Repay Holdings, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | M&a Ventures, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea 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 | David Scott Moreland | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason S. McManis | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Killingsworth | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sean Healey | Attorney | Counsel for AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Delrosario | 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 | Foster Yarborough Killingsworth PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller & Martin PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AutoScribe Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Steve C. Jones | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
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.
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 monitoringPatent 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 watchRepay 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 signalsInnovation 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 spaceSimilar 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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Enrolling a payer by a merchant server operated by or for the benefit of a payee and processing a payment from the payer by a secure server-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedAutoScribe Corp.'s broader IP enforcement history
AutoScribe Corp.'s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
AutoScribe's litigation posture and portfolio suggest a broader assertion strategy
The engagement of four law firms and nine plaintiff agents for a single-patent case in N.D. Georgia suggests a well-resourced assertion campaign. Companies in the merchant payment enrollment and payment facilitation space should assess their exposure to the broader AutoScribe portfolio — not just US11620621B2 — before product launches or platform integrations.
Co-defendant disposition gap creates residual litigation risk for Repay Holdings
The court's judgment expressly covers only M&A Ventures. The record does not disclose a final disposition for Repay Holdings Corporation or Repay Holdings LLC. This gap suggests potential ongoing or separately resolved exposure for the Repay Holdings entities that payment-sector deal teams and acquirers should surface in due diligence.
AutoScribe v Repay — key questions answered
The court entered judgment on the merits for defendant M&A Ventures LLC. Following the adoption of a Special Master's claim construction report, AutoScribe and M&A stipulated to noninfringement. AutoScribe takes nothing from M&A. M&A's remaining defenses were dismissed without prejudice.
AutoScribe asserted US11620621B2 (application no. US16/535424), which covers a method for enrolling a payer through a merchant server operated by or for a payee and processing the payment via a secure server — targeting merchant-side payment enrollment infrastructure.
Following the court's adoption of a Special Master's claim construction order, the parties entered a Joint Stipulation of Non-Infringement. Under the construed claim scope, M&A was entitled to a judgment of noninfringement. The court entered judgment accordingly. The specific claim constructions that drove the stipulation are not further detailed in the available public record.
No. The validity of US11620621B2 was not adjudicated. M&A Ventures' remaining defenses — which would have included any invalidity arguments — were dismissed without prejudice. The patent remains an issued and enforceable patent following this proceeding.
The court's judgment as reflected in the available record expressly covers M&A Ventures LLC. The final disposition of the claims against co-defendants Repay Holdings Corporation and Repay Holdings LLC is not apparent from the available record.
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.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.