Kiosoft & Techtrex v. PayRange: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Kiosoft Technologies and Techtrex voluntarily dismissed their Federal Circuit infringement appeal against PayRange with prejudice in just 133 days, covering two mobile payment patents (US9659296B2 and US9134994B2) tied to laundry and vending machine payment systems. Each party bears its own costs under the dismissal order.
Mobile payment patent appeal ends swiftly in voluntary dismissal
Filed on 26 September 2023 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 23-2425 pitted Kiosoft Technologies LLC and Techtrex Inc. against PayRange Inc. in an infringement dispute over two mobile payment patents: US9659296B2 and US9134994B2. The patents relate to cashless payment technology deployed across laundry and vending machine environments, with products including KioPay, CleanPayMobile, CleanReader Ultra, and the WASH App at the centre of the dispute.
The appeal was closed on 6 February 2024, just 133 days after filing, when Kiosoft and Techtrex moved unopposed to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Federal Circuit reactivated the appeal procedurally before granting the dismissal, and ordered that each side bear its own costs. Because the motion was unopposed, the dismissal was straightforward — though the court noted it does not generally specify whether an appeal dismissal is with or without prejudice, the parties themselves requested with-prejudice treatment.
The 133-day arc from filing to closure is notably short, consistent with a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal rather than a fully briefed appeal. The public record does not reveal whether a settlement was reached at the underlying merits level or what prompted the appellants to abandon the appeal. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any re-filing of the same appeal, raising questions about the future enforceability strategy for these two patents against PayRange specifically.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 133 days
133 days — resolved faster than the typical Federal Circuit appeal lifecycle
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 42(b) order means for both parties
Rule 42(b) dismissal: appellants chose to end the appeal
FRAP Rule 42(b) permits an appellant to dismiss its own appeal by court order, typically on motion. Here, Kiosoft and Techtrex moved unopposed, meaning PayRange did not resist. The court reactivated the appeal before granting it, a procedural step to ensure the order is formally entered. Critically, the parties requested with-prejudice treatment — meaning this specific appeal cannot be refiled. The Federal Circuit noted it does not ordinarily specify prejudice status on its own initiative.
Appellant-initiated withdrawalWith prejudice requested — but public record is limited
The appellants explicitly requested dismissal with prejudice, which bars refiling of this particular appeal. This is distinct from a dismissal without prejudice, which would leave open the possibility of re-appeal. However, the public record does not clarify whether the underlying district court claims survive, or whether a broader settlement resolves all pending infringement claims. Practitioners should treat the appellate chapter as closed while monitoring district-level dockets for residual activity.
Appellate claims barred from refilingKiosoft and Techtrex exit without a merits ruling
By voluntarily dismissing, Kiosoft and Techtrex received no appellate ruling on the merits of their infringement claims under US9659296B2 and US9134994B2. This means no precedent was established in their favour, and the with-prejudice designation limits their ability to re-pursue the same appeal. Whether the underlying patents retain enforcement value against PayRange depends on what, if any, settlement or district court disposition accompanied this withdrawal.
No merits adjudication obtainedPayRange avoids an appellate ruling — no costs awarded against it
PayRange benefits from the dismissal without having to prevail on the merits at the Federal Circuit. The court’s cost order — each side bears its own — means PayRange recovers no appellate fees. However, the absence of a merits ruling also means no claim construction or validity finding was made that would shield PayRange in future disputes involving these patents from other plaintiffs or in other proceedings.
No costs, no merits shieldFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kiosoft Technologies, LLC | Company | Mobile payment technology firm — holder of US9659296B2 and US9134994B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Techtrex, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | PayRange, Inc. | Company | PayRange, Inc. — mobile payment platform provider for unattended retail and vendingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Holiday W. Banta | Attorney | Counsel for Kiosoft Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ice Miller LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kiosoft Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Marie Coates | Attorney | Counsel for PayRange, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan Lewis | Law Firm | Representing PayRange, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is procedural rather than substantive — no infringement finding, claim construction, or validity determination was made. The court’s notation that it ‘generally does not specify’ prejudice status on dismissals underscores that the with-prejudice designation here was driven entirely by the appellants’ own motion. For PayRange, this is a clean exit without a merits loss; for Kiosoft and Techtrex, it preserves the patents’ validity but surrenders this appellate avenue permanently.
US9659296B2 & US9134994B2 — Mobile payment systems for unattended retail
US9659296B2 and US9134994B2 both address the technical problem of enabling smartphones to communicate with and transact on unattended machines — vending units, commercial laundry equipment, and similar point-of-use devices. The patents cover device-side readers and mobile app-side protocols that authenticate users and process payments without traditional coin or card hardware. Application numbers US14/458199 and US14/321733 suggest mid-2014 priority dates, placing these inventions at the early inflection point of mobile-first payment infrastructure.
These patents sit at the convergence of fintech and IoT-enabled unattended retail — a sector experiencing rapid growth as operators modernise legacy coin-operated machines. The asserted products (KioPay, CleanPayMobile, WASH App, CleanReader Ultra) indicate Kiosoft and Techtrex have built a commercial ecosystem around these patent families. For competitors developing mobile payment readers or software for vending, laundry, EV charging, or similar unattended environments, these patents represent a meaningful enforcement risk that warrants proactive monitoring.
Should your team run an FTO against US9659296B2 and US9134994B2?
Any company building or deploying mobile payment software or hardware for vending machines, commercial laundry, EV charging stations, or other unattended retail environments should treat these patents as active enforcement assets. Kiosoft and Techtrex have demonstrated willingness to litigate at both district court and Federal Circuit levels. Product teams integrating Bluetooth, NFC, or app-based authentication into machine-side payment terminals are particularly exposed given the claim language suggested by the asserted product set.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9659296B2 and US9134994B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may limit enforceability, and flag related continuation or divisional applications that could extend the patent family’s reach. For IP counsel advising on product launches in the unattended payment space, a structured FTO review against these two patents is a defensible first step before market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9659296B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in mobile and unattended machine payment patents
Explore Federal Circuit cases involving mobile payment technology patents, unattended retail systems, and voluntary dismissal outcomes comparable to Case No. 23-2425.
What this case signals for the mobile payment patent IP landscape
A swift voluntary dismissal with prejudice at the Federal Circuit suggests strategic recalibration — not necessarily defeat.
Unopposed dismissals at this speed typically signal off-docket resolution
When an appellant voluntarily dismisses an appeal within 133 days — before full briefing is typically complete — and the motion goes unopposed, it strongly suggests the parties reached a commercial resolution outside the court record. IP teams monitoring this space should watch for licensing announcements or product changes from either party.
With-prejudice designation closes the appellate door — not necessarily the patent
The with-prejudice dismissal bars this appeal from being refiled, but does not invalidate US9659296B2 or US9134994B2. Kiosoft and Techtrex retain the patents and could assert them against other defendants, or pursue PayRange via new claims at the district court level if new infringement arises post-resolution.
Kiosoft v PayRange — key questions answered
Kiosoft Technologies and Techtrex voluntarily dismissed their Federal Circuit appeal against PayRange with prejudice under FRAP Rule 42(b), just 133 days after filing. The motion was unopposed. No merits ruling was issued on the two asserted patents (US9659296B2 and US9134994B2), and each party was ordered to bear its own appellate costs.
Two patents were asserted: US9659296B2 (application US14/458199) and US9134994B2 (application US14/321733). Both relate to mobile payment systems for unattended retail machines, including vending machines and commercial laundry equipment. The asserted products included KioPay, CleanPayMobile, CleanReader Ultra, and the WASH App.
Under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant may move to dismiss its own appeal. A with-prejudice dismissal means the appeal cannot be refiled. The Federal Circuit noted it does not ordinarily specify prejudice status on its own — here, the appellants themselves requested this designation, permanently closing this appellate avenue.
No. The dismissal was purely procedural. The Federal Circuit issued no finding on infringement, claim construction, or the validity of US9659296B2 or US9134994B2. Both patents remain granted and are not affected by this dismissal. PayRange received no merits-based shield from future infringement claims involving these patents.
The case confirms Kiosoft and Techtrex are active enforcers of their mobile payment patent portfolio. The rapid, unopposed dismissal suggests an off-docket resolution is plausible, but the patents remain live. Companies developing mobile-to-machine payment systems for vending, laundry, or unattended retail should assess FTO exposure against US9659296B2 and US9134994B2 before product launch.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.