Phan & Samaha v. Nayax: Patent Infringement Claim on Smart Payment & QR Reader Tech
Kenny Phan and George Samaha filed suit against Nayax Ltd. and Nayax LLC in the Central District of California, asserting US9911273B2 across five cashless payment and self-checkout products. The case closed just 142 days after filing via voluntary dismissal without prejudice — leaving the merits unresolved and the door open to refiling.
A swift voluntary exit: Nayax cashless payment patent dispute ends without ruling
On 10 January 2024, co-plaintiffs Kenny Phan and George Samaha filed a patent infringement action in the Central District of California against Nayax Ltd. (an Israeli-headquartered fintech company) and its US subsidiary Nayax LLC. The asserted patent, US9911273B2, relates to smart QR and barcode reader technology. Plaintiffs alleged infringement across five named Nayax products: the DOT Smart QR and Barcode Reader, EV Meter Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Nova Market Micro Market Self-checkout Solution, Onyx Contactless Card Reader, and VPOS Touch Credit Card Reader.
On 31 May 2024 — just 142 days after filing — plaintiffs’ counsel Mandana Jafarinejad filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal specifying that dismissal was without prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment, and that dismissal is without prejudice by default unless stated otherwise. The public record confirms the ‘without prejudice’ designation was affirmatively specified, preserving the plaintiffs’ right to refile substantially the same claims.
The resolution at 142 days is notably fast for patent litigation, which typically takes years to reach a merits ruling. The speed and mechanism — voluntary dismissal before any substantive Nayax filing appears on the docket — suggests the decision to exit may have been driven by early case-strategy reassessment, licensing discussions, or discovery of a procedural issue, though none of these can be confirmed from the public record alone. Because no merits ruling was entered, no claim construction occurred, and neither invalidity nor non-infringement positions were adjudicated, the underlying patent’s enforceability against Nayax’s product line remains an open question.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 142 days
142 days — well below the median district court patent case lifecycle of 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal — case exits without any merits decision
A voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a) allows a plaintiff to withdraw its complaint, typically before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. No judge decides liability, validity, or infringement. The case is simply removed from the active docket. Critically, this is a procedural exit, not a substantive one — it tells us nothing about the underlying strength or weakness of the patent claims.
No merits adjudicatedPublic record specifies ‘without prejudice’ — but reasons remain unknown
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar plaintiffs from refiling the same claims. ‘Without prejudice’ preserves that right entirely. Here, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal affirmatively states dismissal is without prejudice. This distinction matters enormously: Nayax cannot treat this as a final resolution. Plaintiffs may refile, approach different defendants, or return after further licensing attempts. The public record does not disclose what drove the decision to dismiss at this stage.
Refiling right preservedNayax avoids a merits ruling — but infringement exposure persists
Nayax exits this specific proceeding without a finding of infringement or non-infringement, and without a ruling on the validity of US9911273B2. While this is a near-term litigation win, the without-prejudice dismissal means Nayax’s five named products remain potentially within the scope of future litigation. No res judicata or issue preclusion attaches. Nayax’s IP team should treat this as a temporary reprieve rather than a clearance.
No res judicataSmart payment sector: early dismissals often precede licensing or refiling
In the cashless payment and smart QR reader space, early voluntary dismissals without prejudice are frequently consistent with parallel licensing negotiations or a strategic pivot to inter partes review. Competitors operating QR-based payment terminals, EV charging payment systems, or self-checkout kiosks overlapping with US9911273B2 claims should note that the patent remains active and unlitigated on the merits. The threat of reassertion is a live commercial risk for the sector.
Patent remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kenny Phan | Individual | Patent holders asserting US9911273B2 — smart QR/barcode reader and cashless payment technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | George Samaha | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nayax, Ltd. | Company | Nayax Ltd. & Nayax LLC — fintech company providing cashless payment and self-checkout devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Nayax, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Does | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mandana Jafarinejad | Attorney | Counsel for Kenny PhanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of MAndana Jafarinejad PC | Law Firm | Representing Kenny PhanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice specifies ‘without prejudice’ explicitly, which carries significant legal weight: it preserves all plaintiffs’ rights to refile substantially the same infringement claims against Nayax or its products at a later date. No claim construction, liability finding, or invalidity ruling was entered. For Nayax, the dismissal provides no estoppel protection. For the plaintiffs, it represents a strategic reset rather than a concession on the merits of US9911273B2.
US9911273B2 — Smart QR & Barcode Reader Cashless Payment Technology
US9911273B2, filed under application number US14/818858, covers smart QR and barcode reader technology deployed in cashless payment and self-checkout environments. The patent’s claims are relevant across a range of hardware form factors: countertop card readers, contactless payment terminals, EV charging station payment modules, and self-service micro-market kiosks. The breadth of products named in this litigation — five distinct Nayax SKUs — suggests the patent holder mapped claims against multiple product categories within Nayax’s commercial portfolio.
From a strategic standpoint, US9911273B2 sits at the intersection of QR-based identification, contactless payment processing, and self-service retail infrastructure — all high-growth segments driven by post-pandemic cashless adoption and EV charging network expansion. Any company commercialising QR-reading payment terminals, unattended retail solutions, or EV payment modules in the US market should treat this patent as a monitoring priority. The fact that no merits ruling was entered means its claims have not been tested or limited by judicial construction, preserving maximum assertion leverage for the holder.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9911273B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes QR-code-based payment terminals, contactless card readers, EV charging station payment modules, or self-checkout kiosk systems in the US market, US9911273B2 warrants a formal freedom-to-operate review. This case demonstrates that the patent’s owner is willing to assert it against commercial hardware vendors — and the without-prejudice dismissal means no clearance was granted to anyone. The five Nayax products named span a wide commercial footprint, suggesting broad claim coverage.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9911273B2 against your specific product architecture, identify prior art that may support design-around strategies or an IPR petition, and surface any continuation or related applications that could extend the assertion risk. With no claim construction on record in this case, understanding the full literal and doctrine-of-equivalents scope of the asserted claims is essential before entering or expanding in the cashless payment hardware market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9911273B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: QR reader & cashless payment device litigation in US courts
Explore related infringement actions involving QR-based payment terminals, contactless readers, and self-checkout technology filed in California federal courts.
What this case signals for the cashless payment IP landscape
A fast voluntary exit before merits briefing raises strategic questions for Nayax, its competitors, and anyone operating in the smart payment hardware space.
Without-prejudice exit means Nayax’s products remain exposed to reassertion
No court ruled that Nayax’s DOT Reader, Onyx, VPOS Touch, Nova Market, or EV Meter products are non-infringing. IP teams at Nayax and comparable cashless payment hardware companies should conduct or refresh FTO analyses against US9911273B2 before this case resurfaces in a new complaint or licensing demand.
142-day dismissal suggests pre-answer exit — no substantive Nayax defence recorded
The speed of this dismissal, apparently before Nayax filed any responsive pleading, is consistent with plaintiffs exercising their Rule 41(a)(1) right of voluntary exit without court approval. This means no claim construction, no invalidity briefing, and no prior art record was developed in this forum — leaving the patent’s scope legally uncharted.
Phan v Nayax — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 31 May 2024, 142 days after filing. Plaintiffs Kenny Phan and George Samaha filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under FRCP 41(a). No merits ruling, claim construction, or invalidity finding was entered. The without-prejudice designation means plaintiffs may refile the same claims in future.
The asserted patent is US9911273B2 (application US14/818858), which covers smart QR and barcode reader technology used in cashless payment devices and self-checkout systems. It was asserted against five Nayax products: the DOT Smart QR and Barcode Reader, EV Meter, Nova Market self-checkout, Onyx Contactless Card Reader, and VPOS Touch Credit Card Reader.
A without-prejudice dismissal provides Nayax with no res judicata protection. Plaintiffs retain the right to refile the same patent infringement claims against the same products. No court ruled on infringement, validity, or claim scope, meaning Nayax’s five named products remain potentially exposed to future assertion of US9911273B2.
Five Nayax products were identified: (1) DOT Smart QR and Barcode Reader, (2) EV Meter Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, (3) Nova Market Micro Market Self-checkout Solution, (4) Onyx Contactless Card Reader Cashless Payment Device, and (5) VPOS Touch Credit Card Reader Cash Payment Device. This breadth suggests wide claim mapping across Nayax’s payment hardware portfolio.
Yes. Because the case was voluntarily dismissed before any substantive merits proceedings — and no final written decision from a prior IPR appears in the public record — the PTAB IPR route remains available to parties seeking to challenge the validity of US9911273B2. With no district court claim construction on record, a petition based on prior art anticipation or obviousness could be a cost-effective strategy to neutralise future reassertion risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.