Book a demo

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

Try now
Cloud of Change v. Clover Holdings: POS Builder Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID3:23-cv-03005
FiledJun 2023
ClosedDec 2025
Patent Litigation

Cloud of Change v. Clover Holdings: POS Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice

Cloud of Change, LLC asserted three patents covering web-based point-of-sale builder technology against Clover Holdings, Inc. in the Northern District of California. After nearly 900 days of litigation, the parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice — suggesting a negotiated resolution was reached before trial.

Resolution time
898days
898 days — above the median for N.D. Cal. patent cases resolved pre-trial
Patents asserted
3
US11226793B2, US10083012B2, and US9400640B2 — web-based point-of-sale builder technology
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
Joint motion granted; all claims extinguished with no right to refile
Cost ruling
Not Specified
Public record silent on fee-shifting or cost allocation between parties
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Three POS Patents, One Joint Dismissal: A Closer Look

On June 20, 2023, Cloud of Change, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Clover Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin. Cloud of Change asserted three US patents — US11226793B2, US10083012B2, and US9400640B2 — all directed at web-based point-of-sale (POS) builder technology, against Clover Holdings’ products and services in that space.

The case closed on December 4, 2025, when the court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice. All claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Cloud of Change is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Clover Holdings in future litigation. A dismissal with prejudice entered by joint motion typically signals that the parties reached a negotiated resolution — most commonly a settlement or licensing agreement — though the specific terms remain confidential and are not reflected in the public record.

The 898-day duration suggests the matter progressed well into substantive litigation before resolution — consistent with parties completing claim construction, discovery, or early dispositive motion practice before reaching agreement. What drove the ultimate resolution remains unknown from the public record: whether Cloud of Change secured a license, whether Clover mounted a successful invalidity defense that prompted withdrawal, or whether commercial considerations outside the courtroom proved decisive. The joint nature of the dismissal motion, however, suggests cooperation rather than a one-sided capitulation.

Case at a glance
Case no.3:23-cv-03005
CourtCalifornia Northern
JudgeAraceli Martinez-Olguin
FiledJune 20, 2023
ClosedDecember 4, 2025
Duration898 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
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 / California Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 898 days

898 days — above the median for N.D. Cal. patent cases resolved pre-trial

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUN 20 2023, SEP–OCT — 898 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Cloud of Change, LLC v Clover Holdings, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, California Northern District Court. JUN 20 2023 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings DEC 4 2025 Dismissed with Prejudice 898 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes all claims permanently

A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under federal procedural rules. Cloud of Change cannot refile these claims — covering US11226793B2, US10083012B2, and US9400640B2 — against Clover Holdings in any future action. The joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement, distinguishing this from a court-ordered termination following a failed claim.

Permanent bar on refiling
Plaintiff outcome

Cloud of Change forfeits any future infringement action against Clover

By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Cloud of Change surrendered the right to pursue Clover Holdings on these three patents going forward. This is consistent with either a licensing agreement yielding a negotiated payment — which would represent a commercial win — or a strategic withdrawal where continued litigation costs outweighed expected recovery. The public record does not confirm which scenario applies.

No future claims vs. Clover
Defendant outcome

Clover Holdings secures permanent resolution of this patent threat

For Clover Holdings, the with-prejudice dismissal eliminates ongoing litigation risk from these three POS patents. If a license was granted, Clover gains continued freedom to operate in the web-based POS builder space. If the dismissal reflects a successful defense posture, it confirms the patents posed insufficient threat to sustain litigation. Either way, Clover’s exposure to these specific patents is closed.

Exposure to these patents closed
Commercial implications

Resolution leaves POS sector patent risk landscape partially unresolved

Because no merits ruling was issued, the validity and scope of all three asserted patents remain formally intact. Other POS platform providers cannot draw on a court ruling to challenge these patents through IPR estoppel or collateral estoppel. Cloud of Change retains the ability to assert the same patents against third-party competitors in the POS builder space — a risk factor for any company operating adjacent technology.

Patents valid; third parties remain at risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 3:23-cv-03005 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCloud of Change, LLCCompanyPatent assertion entity — holder of US11226793B2, US10083012B2, and US9400640B2Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantClover Holdings, Inc.CompanyClover Holdings, Inc. — provider of cloud-based POS and commerce platform solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAbelino ReynaAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBarden Todd PattersonAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselCraig V. DepewAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEdgar Neil GonzalezAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJohn Allen YatesAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJordan D. BrownAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoseph John StevensAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselKyrie Kimber CameronAttorneyCounsel for Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmPatterson Sheridan LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Cloud of Change, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAmy L. MahanAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselCaitlyn Elizabeth HubbardAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDavid Charles MarcusAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselGregory H. LantierAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJ. Stephen RavelAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJason David KipnisAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJeannette P. LeopoldAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJennifer GraberAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKelly E. RansomAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselLiv Leila HerriotAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRonald Gregory IsraelsenAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSarah B PettyAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSarah Beigbeder PettyAttorneyCounsel for Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKelly Hart & Hallman LLP (Austin)Law FirmRepresenting Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKelly Hart & Hallman LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmSidley Austin LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Clover Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Araceli Martinez-OlguinJudgeCalifornia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice this action. Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: All claims and causes of action asserted in this case are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 3:23-cv-03005, California Northern District Court

The court’s order adopts the joint motion language verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice of all claims and causes of action. The absence of any liability finding, damages award, or claim construction ruling means neither party obtained a merits-based precedent. For Clover Holdings, the order provides complete finality on these three patents. For Cloud of Change, the patents survive intact — preserving enforcement optionality against third parties operating in the web-based POS builder space.

PACER case 3:23-cv-03005 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11226793B2, US10083012B2, US9400640B2 — Web-Based POS Builder Technology

Publication No.US11226793B2
Application No.US15/827948
Patent details
ProductWeb-based point-of-sale builder system and user interface
Cited in actionJune 20, 2023

Publication No.US10083012B2
Application No.US15/635097
Patent details
ProductPoint-of-sale software platform configuration and management methods
Cited in actionJune 20, 2023

Publication No.US9400640B2
Application No.US12/012666
Patent details
ProductWeb-based POS application building and customisation architecture
Cited in actionJune 20, 2023

The three asserted patents — US11226793B2 (App. No. 15/827948), US10083012B2 (App. No. 15/635097), and US9400640B2 (App. No. 12/012666) — cover web-based point-of-sale builder technology. The application numbers span different filing generations, with US9400640B2’s application number (12/012666) suggesting an earlier priority date than the later two, which is consistent with a continuation or continuation-in-part portfolio strategy designed to extend patent coverage as the technology evolved.

In the competitive POS software market — where players like Clover, Square, Toast, and Shopify compete for platform share — patents covering the core architecture for building and configuring web-based POS systems carry significant commercial leverage. A portfolio of three patents with potentially overlapping claims creates multiple invalidity hurdles for any challenger and signals that the patent holder may be pursuing a structured licensing program targeting operators of competing POS platforms rather than a single enforcement action.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your POS platform run an FTO against US11226793B2 and related patents?

Any company developing, deploying, or commercialising web-based point-of-sale builder tools — including SaaS POS platforms, commerce infrastructure providers, and white-label POS software vendors — should assess exposure to this three-patent portfolio. The absence of a claim construction or invalidity ruling from this case means scope ambiguity remains unresolved, and Cloud of Change retains full enforcement rights against parties not named in this action.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language across all three patents against your product architecture, identify relevant prior art that was not adjudicated in this case, and surface any continuation applications that may extend the portfolio beyond the three currently asserted patents. A structured FTO analysis now is more cost-effective than responding to a demand letter or complaint after the fact.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11226793B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar POS Software Patent Infringement Cases in N.D. California

Explore related patent infringement actions involving web-based POS and commerce platform software litigated in the Northern District of California.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Cloud of Change, LLC patent enforcement history, California Northern case history, Cloud of Change, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
POS software patent casesCloud of Change prior actionsN.D. Cal. software patent outcomesPOS platform IP disputes 2023–25
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the web-based POS platform IP landscape

Three POS builder patents resolved quietly — but the IP risk for the broader sector remains live.

No merits ruling means these POS patents are still enforceable

The joint dismissal produced no invalidity finding and no claim construction ruling. All three Cloud of Change patents — US11226793B2, US10083012B2, and US9400640B2 — remain valid on their face. Any company in the web-based POS builder space should treat these patents as active enforcement risk and assess exposure accordingly.

Joint dismissals after 900 days typically signal a licensing resolution

When both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice well into litigation, a negotiated commercial resolution is the most probable explanation. For IP counsel, this pattern suggests Cloud of Change may be building a licensing program around its POS portfolio — making early FTO clearance and proactive monitoring commercially prudent for any POS platform operator.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock patent-level claim analysis and enforcement pattern insights for POS software IP disputes in N.D. Cal.
Continuation risk mappingIPR filing window analysisLicensing program indicators
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Cloud v Clover — key questions answered

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

Don’t wait for a demand letter — clear your POS platform IP risk now

The Cloud of Change portfolio remains active and enforcement-ready against third parties. Run an FTO search and litigation monitoring workflow in PatSnap Eureka to stay ahead of POS software patent risk before it reaches your legal team.

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.