PayRange v. Kiosoft & Techtrex: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed With Prejudice
PayRange, Inc. voluntarily dismissed its Federal Circuit appeal against Kiosoft Technologies and Techtrex, Inc. with prejudice, closing a patent infringement dispute centred on two mobile payment system patents — US9659296B2 and US9134994B2. The appeal lasted just 147 days before PayRange moved unopposed to withdraw, with each party bearing its own costs.
Swift Federal Circuit exit in mobile payment patent dispute
PayRange, Inc., a mobile payment technology company and holder of US9659296B2 and US9134994B2, filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 12 September 2023, targeting Kiosoft Technologies, LLC and Techtrex, Inc. for alleged patent infringement. The two patents cover a method and system for presenting representations of payment-accepting unit events and a method and system for updating firmware using a mobile device as a communications bridge — both central to unattended retail and IoT payment infrastructure.
The appeal concluded on 6 February 2024 when PayRange moved unopposed to voluntarily dismiss under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The Federal Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice, meaning PayRange is barred from raising the same appellate claims again. Notably, the court observed that it does not ordinarily specify prejudice in appeal dismissals, but it honoured PayRange’s express request. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.
At 147 days, the resolution is notably fast for a Federal Circuit infringement appeal, suggesting the parties may have reached a broader commercial resolution that made continuation unnecessary — though the public record is silent on any underlying settlement or licence terms. The unopposed nature of the motion is consistent with a negotiated exit. What drove PayRange to seek dismissal with prejudice specifically, rather than without, remains undisclosed.
Filing to resolution in 147 days
147 days — resolved well under the Federal Circuit’s median appeal duration
Appeal dismissed with prejudice — PayRange cannot refile these claims
FRAP Rule 42(b): plaintiff-initiated appeal withdrawal
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) permits an appellant to voluntarily dismiss its own appeal, typically by motion. PayRange invoked this rule unopposed, meaning Kiosoft and Techtrex did not contest the dismissal. The Federal Circuit reactivated the appeal procedurally before granting the motion — a standard housekeeping step when an appeal has been held or administratively closed prior to the motion.
Appellant-initiated withdrawalWith prejudice: a deliberate, final choice by PayRange
The Federal Circuit noted it does not ordinarily specify whether an appeal dismissal is with or without prejudice — making PayRange’s explicit request for with-prejudice dismissal significant. A with-prejudice dismissal bars PayRange from relitigating the same appellate claims. This suggests PayRange had a strategic reason to close the matter permanently — possibly to support a licensing arrangement or settlement that required finality. The public record does not confirm any such agreement.
Final — no refiling on same claimsMutual cost-bearing — no prevailing party declared
The court ordered each side to bear its own appellate costs. In Federal Circuit practice, this outcome is consistent with a negotiated resolution where neither party sought to press a cost advantage. It avoids the reputational and financial exposure of a formal fee award, and is commonly seen in dismissals that accompany or reflect an out-of-court agreement. No attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 were referenced in the public order.
No fee award to either party147-day appeal lifespan suggests early commercial resolution
Federal Circuit patent appeals typically take 12–24 months to reach a merits decision. This appeal closed in under five months, and the motion was unopposed — both factors consistent with the parties having reached a broader understanding outside the court record. Whether that involved a licence, cross-licence, or other commercial terms cannot be confirmed from publicly available filings.
Likely pre-merits resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PayRange, Inc. | Company | Mobile payment technology company — holder of US9659296B2 and US9134994B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kiosoft Technologies, LLC | Company | Kiosoft Technologies and Techtrex: unattended retail payment and kiosk technology providersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan R. Smith. | Attorney | Counsel for PayRange, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Holiday W. Banta | Attorney | Counsel for Kiosoft Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | T. Earl LeVere | Attorney | Counsel for Kiosoft Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The order reflects a procedurally unusual dismissal: the Federal Circuit explicitly noted it does not ordinarily designate prejudice in appeal dismissals, yet honoured PayRange’s specific request. This framing underscores that the with-prejudice designation was appellant-driven and deliberate. For Kiosoft and Techtrex, the order provides finality on this appeal but does not extinguish the underlying patents. The mutual cost-bearing instruction removes any fee-award leverage, suggesting neither side sought to escalate beyond the agreed resolution.
US9659296B2 & US9134994B2 — mobile payment and firmware bridge patents
US9659296B2 (application US14/458199) protects a method and system for presenting representations of events occurring at payment-accepting units — covering the software and communication layer that surfaces transaction and status data from unattended machines to mobile interfaces. US9134994B2 (application US14/321733) covers using a mobile device as a communications bridge to push firmware updates to unattended hardware, addressing a core operational challenge in distributed vending and kiosk networks. Both patents sit in the intersection of mobile software, IoT device management, and cashless payment infrastructure.
These patents are strategically significant because they cover foundational workflows — not peripheral features — in the unattended retail and cashless payment sector. As mobile payment adoption in vending, laundry, parking, and amusement machines accelerates, control over event-representation and firmware-update methods gives the patent holder meaningful leverage over competitors building or deploying similar stacks. PayRange’s willingness to litigate through appeal before settling suggests it views these assets as commercially central, not merely defensive.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9659296B2 and US9134994B2?
Any company developing mobile payment software for unattended retail — including vending, laundry, parking, or amusement machines — should assess freedom to operate against these two patents. US9659296B2’s claims around presenting payment unit event representations are broad enough to implicate notification, status display, and transaction history features common to competitor apps. US9134994B2’s firmware-update-via-mobile-bridge claims are relevant to any OTA update architecture using a paired smartphone as an intermediary device.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the independent claims of both patents, surface prior art that may narrow claim scope, and flag continuation applications in the same family that could extend enforcement risk. Setting up claim-change monitoring on these patent families ensures your team is alerted if PayRange broadens or refiles claims — critical intelligence given the active enforcement history evidenced by this case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9659296B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit mobile payment patent appeals and dismissals
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the mobile payment IP landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit at the Federal Circuit typically reflects commercial pragmatism — here is what IP teams in the payments and unattended retail space should take away.
PayRange’s patent portfolio remains active enforcement leverage
Dismissal with prejudice closes this appeal — not the underlying patents. US9659296B2 and US9134994B2 remain in force and available for future assertion. Companies in unattended retail, kiosk payment, or IoT firmware update spaces should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and consider monitoring PayRange’s litigation activity and any continuation filings.
Unopposed FRAP 42(b) dismissals often signal a parallel deal
When an appellant moves to dismiss an appeal unopposed and with prejudice, it typically suggests the opposing party had reason not to resist — consistent with a licensing arrangement or commercial settlement. IP teams monitoring competitors should note that Kiosoft and Techtrex may now operate under a licence to the asserted patents, potentially affecting competitive dynamics in the unattended retail payment segment.
PayRange v Kiosoft — key questions answered
PayRange, Inc. voluntarily dismissed its Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 23-2378) with prejudice on 6 February 2024. The motion was unopposed and filed under FRAP Rule 42(b). The court ordered each side to bear its own costs. The underlying dispute involved infringement claims over US9659296B2 and US9134994B2.
A with-prejudice dismissal at the Federal Circuit bars the appellant from raising the same appellate claims again. The Federal Circuit noted it does not ordinarily specify prejudice in appeal dismissals, making PayRange’s explicit request unusual. The underlying patents remain in force and enforceable in future, separate proceedings.
US9659296B2 covers a method and system for presenting representations of events at payment-accepting units — relevant to mobile payment interfaces for unattended machines. US9134994B2 covers using a mobile device as a communications bridge to update firmware on connected hardware, addressing OTA update workflows in vending, kiosk, and IoT device networks.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The appeal lasted only 147 days and the dismissal was unopposed, which is consistent with a commercial resolution such as a licensing agreement or settlement. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost order suggest a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
PayRange was represented by Ryan R. Smith of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP. Kiosoft Technologies and Techtrex were represented by Holiday W. Banta and T. Earl LeVere of Ice Miller LLP.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.