PayRange, Inc. v. Nayax Ltd. — Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
PayRange, a mobile payment technology company, sued Nayax Ltd. in the Western District of Texas asserting four patents covering cashless payment systems including the Monyx Wallet and WASH-Connect apps. The action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 259 days, before Nayax filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
Four mobile payment patents, one pre-answer dismissal in W.D. Texas
PayRange, Inc., a Portland-based mobile payment technology company, filed suit against Israeli payment solutions firm Nayax Ltd. on June 24, 2024 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00340). PayRange asserted four US patents — US10891608B2, US11481772B2, US11966920B2, and US11972423B2 — covering cashless and mobile payment system technologies. The accused products were Nayax’s Monyx Wallet app and its WASH-Connect Mobile Payment App.
The case closed on March 10, 2025, when PayRange filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Nayax had neither served an answer nor a motion for summary judgment at the time of filing, PayRange was entitled to dismiss as of right — no court order was required. The dismissal notice explicitly states that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The 259-day duration and pre-answer timing suggest the dispute may have been resolved through commercial negotiation, licensing discussions, or a strategic reassessment by PayRange — though the public record is silent on the underlying reason. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, PayRange retains the right to re-file the same claims against Nayax in the future, meaning the substantive patent dispute has not been adjudicated and the competitive tension between the parties may be unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 259 days
259-day case duration — closed before any responsive pleading was filed by defendant
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss its own action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Nayax had done neither, so PayRange’s notice was self-executing. The court had no discretion to deny or condition the dismissal, making this one of the cleanest procedural exits available in US federal litigation.
FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)Without prejudice confirmed — but what does the public record actually say?
The dismissal notice explicitly states ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE,’ meaning PayRange may re-file identical claims against Nayax subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A with-prejudice dismissal would bar re-filing permanently. The public record confirms the without-prejudice designation; no confidential settlement agreement or licensing terms are disclosed. Whether a private commercial resolution underlies this exit cannot be confirmed from the docket alone.
Re-filing right preservedPayRange exits cleanly — patent portfolio remains actionable
PayRange preserves all four asserted patents in their current validity status — none have been subjected to adverse claim construction, IPR challenge, or trial adjudication in this case. The without-prejudice exit ensures the patents remain enforcement tools. PayRange also avoids cost exposure: the notice explicitly allocates attorneys’ fees and costs to each party independently, with no fee-shifting.
Patents intact, costs neutralNayax avoids judgment — but infringement cloud persists
Nayax obtains no invalidity finding, no non-infringement ruling, and no declaratory judgment. While the immediate litigation burden is lifted, the four PayRange patents remain live and enforceable. The without-prejudice dismissal means Nayax cannot treat this resolution as a permanent safe harbor. Companies operating competing mobile payment apps — particularly in unattended retail and laundry sectors — should monitor PayRange’s enforcement posture closely.
No merits adjudicationFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PayRange, Inc. | Company | Mobile payment technology company — holder of US10891608B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nayax Ltd. | Company | Nayax Ltd. — Israeli cashless payment solutions provider, operator of Monyx Wallet and WASH-Connect appsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James C. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for PayRange, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jamie Y. Otto | Attorney | Counsel for PayRange, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan R. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for PayRange, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC. | Law Firm | Representing PayRange, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is self-executing under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and carries no merits determination. The explicit ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ designation is legally significant: it preserves PayRange’s right to re-assert all four patents against Nayax in a future action. The mutual cost-bearing clause eliminates any fee-shifting risk for either party at this stage. No claim construction, validity analysis, or infringement finding was reached, leaving the substantive questions entirely open.
US10891608B2 — mobile cashless payment systems for unattended retail
The four asserted patents — US10891608B2, US11481772B2, US11966920B2, and US11972423B2 — form a patent family covering mobile and cashless payment technology, particularly for unattended retail environments such as vending machines, laundry machines, and kiosk systems. The application number progression (US15/878352 through US18/197071) suggests a deliberate continuation strategy to extend and refine claim coverage over time. The technology addresses how mobile devices authenticate, communicate with, and complete transactions at unattended payment terminals.
For competitors in the cashless payment space — particularly those developing mobile wallet apps for unattended retail, laundry, or vending verticals — this portfolio presents meaningful FTO considerations. PayRange’s enforcement history and the breadth of the four-patent family suggest the company actively monitors competitive products. The accused products (Monyx Wallet and WASH-Connect) indicate that PayRange views unattended-retail-specific mobile payment implementations as core protectable territory, increasing risk for similar application-layer payment solutions.
Should you run an FTO against US10891608B2 and the PayRange mobile payment family?
Any company developing mobile payment applications for unattended retail — including vending, laundry, EV charging, or kiosk environments — should assess freedom-to-operate against PayRange’s four-patent family. The claims appear to cover application-layer payment workflows and device communication protocols, meaning both app developers and hardware integrators may face exposure. The without-prejudice dismissal against Nayax confirms these patents remain active enforcement risks.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of US10891608B2, US11481772B2, US11966920B2, and US11972423B2, identify file wrapper prosecution history that may limit or expand claim breadth, and surface related continuation applications that could extend risk beyond the four asserted patents. Use Eureka to generate a defensible FTO opinion before launch or before entering the unattended retail payment market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10891608B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile payment patent cases in W.D. Texas and Federal Circuit
Explore related mobile payment and cashless transaction patent infringement cases filed in the Western District of Texas involving comparable fintech and payment application IP disputes.
What this case signals for the mobile payment IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal across four patents in W.D. Texas typically signals leverage dynamics have shifted — or that a private resolution has been reached.
Pre-answer dismissals preserve maximum re-filing optionality for plaintiffs
PayRange’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) exit leaves all four patents untested and fully enforceable. Companies in the cashless payment space should treat this as a deferred — not resolved — dispute. Monitoring PayRange’s portfolio for continuation filings or new assertions against Nayax or third parties is advisable.
W.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for mobile payment patent enforcement
Filing in the Western District of Texas — a historically plaintiff-friendly venue for patent cases — signals PayRange selected jurisdiction strategically. Even with the dismissal, the venue choice itself communicates enforcement seriousness to competitors. Other mobile payment platforms with overlapping technology should consider their own FTO exposure against this four-patent portfolio.
PayRange v Nayax — key questions answered
The public record does not disclose the reason. Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), PayRange was entitled to dismiss as of right because Nayax had not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. The without-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing clause are consistent with either a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision to defer — but no settlement or licensing terms are publicly confirmed.
PayRange asserted four US patents: US10891608B2 (app. US15/878352), US11481772B2 (app. US17/654732), US11966920B2 (app. US18/197071), and US11972423B2 (app. US18/197070). These patents cover mobile and cashless payment system technologies, particularly for unattended retail environments. All four remain enforceable following the without-prejudice dismissal.
A without-prejudice dismissal means PayRange retains the right to re-file identical patent infringement claims against Nayax in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any equitable defenses such as laches. No merits determination was made in this case, so Nayax cannot rely on this dismissal as a bar to future assertions by PayRange.
The accused products were Nayax’s Monyx Wallet app and its WASH-Connect Mobile Payment App. Both products are mobile payment applications operating in the unattended retail sector. The case was dismissed before any claim construction or infringement analysis was conducted, so no judicial determination of infringement was reached.
No. The without-prejudice dismissal provides Nayax with no infringement safe harbor and no invalidity finding against the four asserted PayRange patents. The patents remain presumptively valid and enforceable. Nayax and similarly situated mobile payment companies should conduct independent FTO analysis against PayRange’s portfolio rather than relying on this procedural exit as substantive clearance.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.