Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1780
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-00278-MN
`
`CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`FIRST SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff PayRange Inc. (“PayRange”) hereby alleges as follows for its First
`
`Second Amended Complaint against Defendant CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. (“CSC”).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`This case is about two companies: PayRange, which pioneered a mobile payment
`
`system for unattended retail machines through its patented technology and, CSC, which strung
`
`PayRange along with promises of a partnership all the while copying PayRange’s technology. In
`
`doing so, CSC willfully infringed PayRange’s patent rights.
`
`3.
`
`As background, PayRange’s acclaimed technology enables its customers to
`
`upgrade a coin-operated unattended retail machine into a state-of-the-art mobile payment
`
`solution with a small module, called “BluKey.” PayRange’s mobile app communicates with
`
`BluKey to enable mobile transactions. The United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) awarded PayRange a portfolio of patents for its innovations.
`
`4.
`
`In 2013, a private entity firm (Pamplona Capital Management, LLP) acquired and
`
`merged two companies: Coinmach Service Corporation and AIR-serv Group. From this merger,
`
`CSC was formed as the preeminent owner, nationwide, of coin-operated laundry machines,
`
`which are leased to apartment complexes and hotels for use by occupants. The Ontario
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 1781
`
`Teacher’s Pension Plan and Neurberger Berman private equity firm subsequently acquired a
`
`significant stake in CSC.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, CSC witnessed PayRange’s emergence and devised a
`
`scheme to transform itself from a laundry machine operator into a profitable technology
`
`company. On information and belief, CSC began in 2016 by fraudulently notifying thousands of
`
`CSC customers that CSC was authorized to immediately begin charging a 9.75% administrative
`
`fee. CSC’s assertion was false and this resulted in a class action lawsuit. Undeterred, CSC
`
`sought to accelerate its transformation by deceiving PayRange into disclosing its patented
`
`technology under the guise that CSC was evaluating PayRange’s technology for a partnership.
`
`In truth, there was never to be a partnership. On the contrary, CSC was systematically copying
`
`PayRange’s patented technology to develop its own copycat system (named CSC Go and
`
`CSCPay Mobile).
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, CSC initiated its scheme to deceive PayRange in
`
`October 2016. At an initial meeting, CSC’s Executive Vice President (Taylor Doggett)
`
`commented that PayRange’s “timing is impeccable, as we are looking for ways in payment
`
`systems to take coins out of the room cost effectively …” (emphasis added). CSC clearly
`
`recognized the need to rapidly upgrade its payment systems to increase its profitability and
`
`valuation. To do so, CSC needed PayRange’s patented technology, but, did not want to pay
`
`PayRange for at least two reasons: (1) CSC wanted to reposition itself as a technology company
`
`with current and future investors and (2) paying a license fee would reduce CSC’s profitability.
`
`7.
`
`Impressed with PayRange’s technology, CSC scheduled a face-to-face meeting in
`
`early 2017. On information and belief, even though CSC was working to build its own solution,
`
`CSC continued engaging PayRange under the pretense of “evaluating” its technology. At the
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 1782
`
`meeting, PayRange made a detailed technical presentation. The following annotated meeting
`
`slide emphasizes PayRange’s “patented technology”:
`
`8.
`
`CSC therefore knew that PayRange’s solution was covered by one or more
`
`patents. Further, on information and belief, CSC knew that copying PayRange’s products would
`
`constitute patent infringement. To the extent that CSC did not have pre-suit knowledge of any
`
`patent-in-suit, it was because CSC willfully blinded itself to such knowledge. For example, CSC
`
`may have willfully avoided looking at PayRange patents, despite knowing (or reasonably
`
`suspecting) that PayRange had relevant patents. PayRange’s presentation also provided
`
`information regarding its “connected room” device, named “BluKey Connect”:
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 1783
`
`9.
`
`CSC expressed keen interest in PayRange’s connected room. CSC then requested
`
`sample BluKey devices “for immediate testing.” (emphasis added). PayRange shipped three
`
`devices to CSC at no cost for CSC to evaluate. The invoice included with the order references
`
`the Operator Terms of Service on the PayRange website.
`
`10.
`
`The website referenced on the invoice has clear notification for the PayRange
`
`patents, along with the terms of service which confirm PayRange’s ownership of intellectual
`
`property rights.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 1784
`
`11.
`
`CSC opened the packaging to retrieve the devices upon receipt. The packaging of
`
`the devices has clear notification for the patents plainly visible from the exterior, and CSC likely
`
`opened the package from the back side with the notification to remove the device from the
`
`packaging.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, after CSC removed the devices from the packaging,
`
`the devices were registered the PayRange website. Again, the website has patent notifications.
`
`The user creating the CSC operator account must accept the terms and conditions of the
`
`PayRange service prior to account sign-in. The terms and conditions state that the PayRange
`
`service is protected by intellectual property laws.
`
`13.
`
`CSC’s account (No. A11746) was created on the PayRange platform and is
`
`registered to Mr. Taylor Doggett, who PayRange was communicating with regarding the
`
`evaluation of the product and who had previously commented in October 2016 that PayRange’s
`
`“timing is impeccable, as we are looking for ways in payment systems to take coins out of the
`
`room cost effectively …” (emphasis added).
`
`14.
`
`Once CSC is signed in, it must register the device on the PayRange Manage web
`
`portal. The PayRange BluKey device serial number and PIN are required for registration, which
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 1785
`
`are found on a label on the back of the device. The label contains a patent notification (the device
`
`picture below is the same model sent to CSC, but not the actual serial number).
`
`CSC would have had to look at the device label to obtain the serial number and PIN and would
`
`have been informed that there is at least one, if not more, patents covering the PayRange
`
`technology including United States Patent No. 8,856,045 (“the ’045 Patent”). Further, upon
`
`information and belief, CSC did look at the label because the devices were registered to the CSC
`
`account between April 19, 2017 and May 5, 2017. To the extent that CSC did not have pre-suit
`
`knowledge of any patent-in-suit, CSC’s behavior (including its failure to ever explain non-
`
`infringement or invalidity) is evidence of willful blindness.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 1786
`
`Once registered, CSC performed 32 test transactions using the evaluation devices they received,
`
`unpacked, and registered.
`
`15.
`
`Impressed with the testing results, CSC scheduled an in-depth private meeting at
`
`the June 2017 “Clean Show,” which is a major trade show for laundry route operators. CSC’s
`
`senior management, including its Chief Operations Officer (Phil Emma) and Executive Vice
`
`President (Taylor Doggett) attended the show. After the meeting, Mr. Emma wrote that he was
`
`“impressed with the progress that you and the team have made connecting laundry into
`
`PayRange.” (emphasis added). CSC encouraged PayRange to provide even more detailed
`
`technical information.
`
`16.
`
`Believing that a deal with CSC was imminent, PayRange provided another
`
`detailed presentation which, in the executive summary section, noted that “[a] partnership with
`
`PayRange will include appropriate licenses of our extensive intellectual property portfolio
`
`which can help protect CSC against claims of infringement by others as you will be using our
`
`intellectual property and technology.” (emphasis added). PayRange’s presentation went on to
`
`provide the following overview of its system architecture:
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 1787
`
`17.
`
`PayRange’s technical presentation also identified its then issued patents, including
`
`at least one of the patents-in-suit:
`
`18.
`
`PayRange’s presentation expressly identified the ’045 patent. The ’208 patent is a
`
`continuation of the ’045 patent, thus sharing the same specification and figures. The ’608 patent
`
`is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 9,256,873, which PayRange expressly identified.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 1788
`
`The ’772 patent is an indirect continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,659,296, which is also expressly
`
`identified. To the extent that CSC did not expressly have knowledge of any patent-in-suit by
`
`virtue of the above presentation, CSC willfully blinded itself to such knowledge by failing to
`
`investigate patent families which PayRange identified as relevant.
`
`19.
`
`CSC clearly knew that copying PayRange’s products was patent infringement.
`
`On information and belief, CSC was impressed with PayRange’s proposal, including PayRange’s
`
`extensive patent portfolio. PayRange, in fact, met with CSC twice more to discuss PayRange’s
`
`patented technology in even greater detail. After improperly obtaining as much information
`
`from PayRange as it could, in early 2018, CSC abruptly terminated communications with
`
`PayRange. PayRange sought an explanation, but CSC remained suspiciously tight-lipped. To
`
`the extent that CSC did not have pre-suit knowledge of any patent-in-suit, CSC’s behavior
`
`(including its failure to ever explain non-infringement or invalidity) is evidence of willful
`
`blindness.
`
`20.
`
`In April 2018, CSC released its own mobile app (CSCPay Mobile) with
`
`functionality copying the PayRange’s mobile app. Through CSC’s product release, its true
`
`motives came to light. CSC had extracted information from PayRange to provide CSC with a
`
`technical shortcut, thus brazenly disregarding PayRange’s patent rights. The release of CSC Go
`
`coincided with CSC’s valuation increasing from $3 billion in 2018 to over $4 billion in 2020 as
`
`it was now repositioned from an operator of automated retail machines into a technology
`
`company operating automated retail machines. That same year, CSC released a second mobile
`
`app (CSC Go) which like the original CSCPay App, copied the functionality of the PayRange
`
`App.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 1789
`
`21.
`
`On Mach 4, 2021, CSC was deposed in another patent lawsuit brought by
`
`PayRange against KioSoft, its technology supplier at the time. On information and belief, the
`
`fact that CSC’s technology supplier was being accused of patent infringement caused CSC to
`
`investigate PayRange’s patent portfolio, resulting in CSC attaining knowledge of the patents-in-
`
`suit.
`
`22.
`
`On March 3, 2023, PayRange sent CSC’s counsel a detailed presentation
`
`discussing its intellectual property and CSC’s continued infringement. PayRange also sent a
`
`draft complaint which included specific and detailed allegations for each patent-in-suit. CSC did
`
`not substantively respond and, on information and belief, took no steps to abate its ongoing
`
`infringement. Rather, CSC continued to directly infringe with new installations and continued to
`
`induce end-users to infringe the patents-in-suit.
`
`23.
`
`PayRange brings this case to hold CSC accountable for its willful infringement of
`
`PayRange’s patent rights. PayRange has suffered monetary damages and is entitled to a money
`
`judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for CSC’s infringement, together with interest
`
`and costs as fixed by the Court. PayRange also seeks to enjoin further installations of infringing
`
`payment modules and to remove the infringing apps from the Google Play Store and Apple App
`
`Store.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`24.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`25.
`
`As set forth in more detail below, CSC has been infringing and continues to
`
`infringe PayRange’s patents, namely, the ’045 Patent and United States Patent Nos. 10,438,208;
`
`10,891,608; and 11,481,772 (the “’208 Patent,” “’608 Patent,” and “’772 Patent”) respectively
`
`or, collectively the “patents-in-suit”) and continues to do so through the present date.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 1790
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`26.
`
`PayRange is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business at 9600
`
`NE Cascades Pkwy, Suite 280, Portland, OR 97220.
`
`27.
`
`CSC is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at 35 Pinelawn
`
`Road, Suite 120, Melville, NY 11747. On information and belief, CSC operated as a Delaware
`
`corporation for some time prior to March 22, 2019.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`28.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`29.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this patent infringement action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`30.
`
`Also, upon information and belief, CSC has infringed PayRange’s patents-in-suit
`
`in this District by, among other things, engaging in infringing conduct within and directed at, or
`
`from, this District. For example, upon information and belief CSC engaged in infringing
`
`conduct while organized as a Delaware Corporation. CSC has purposefully and voluntarily
`
`placed one or more of its infringing products, as described below, into the stream of commerce
`
`with the expectation that these infringing products will be used in this District. CSC’s infringing
`
`products have been and continue to be used in this District.
`
`31.
`
`This Court also personal jurisdiction over CSC because CSC has consented to
`
`personal jurisdiction for this case.
`
`32.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over CSC because, upon information and
`
`belief, its corporate parent CSC ServiceWorks Holdings, Inc., is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. On information and belief, CSC is a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of Coinmach Laundry, LLC, a Delaware corporation. CSC operates as an
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 1791
`
`agent or alter ego of its Delaware parent, CSC ServiceWorks Holdings, Inc. For example, in the
`
`Apple App store, CSC ServiceWorks Holding, Inc. is identified as the publisher of CSC Go but
`
`the “developer’s privacy policy” identifies CSC as the publisher. Similarly, CSC ServiceWorks
`
`Holding, Inc. is identified as the publisher of CSCPay Mobile, yet the “App Support” link is
`
`directed to the website for CSC. Further, CSC is a wholly owned subsidiary of CSC
`
`ServiceWorks Holding, Inc.
`
`33.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b). CSC has consented to venue for purposes of this case. Additionally, CSC has
`
`consented to venue in this District through its appointment of a registered agent for service of
`
`process in Delaware: The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange
`
`St., Wilmington, DE, 19801.
`
`PAYRANGE’S PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`34.
`
`To protect its unique and innovative technologies, PayRange filed a provisional
`
`patent application (No. 61/917,936) on December 18, 2013.
`
`35.
`
`On October 7, 2014, the USPTO issued the ’045 Patent, titled “MOBILE-
`
`DEVICE-TO-MACHINE PAYMENT SYSTEMS.” A true and correct copy of the ’045 Patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`36.
`
`On October 8, 2019, the USPTO issued the ’208 Patent, titled “SYSTEMS AND
`
`METHODS FOR INTERACTING WITH UNATTENDED MACHINES USING
`
`DETECTABLE TRIGGER CONDITIONS AND LIMITED-SCOPE AUTHORIZATION
`
`GRANTS.” A true and correct copy of the ’208 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`37.
`
`On January 12, 2021, the USPTO issued the ’608 Patent, titled “METHOD AND
`
`SYSTEM FOR AN OFFLINE-PAYMENT OPERATED MACHINE TO ACCEPT
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 1792
`
`ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS.” A true and correct copy of the ’608 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 3.
`
`38.
`
`On October 25, 2022, the USPTO issued the ’772 Patent, titled “METHOD AND
`
`SYSTEM FOR PRESENTING REPRESENTATIONS OF PAYMENT ACCEPTING UNIT
`
`EVENTS.” A true and correct copy of the ’772 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. On
`
`November 22, 2023, PayRange filed a disclaimer in the ’772 Patent, which disclaims Claims 1-6,
`
`8-10 and 12-20 of the ’772 Patent. A true and correct copy of the disclaimer is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 5.
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’045 PATENT
`
`39.
`
`PayRange realleges and incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs
`
`of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`PayRange is the assignee and owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’045 Patent. PayRange has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any product
`
`embodying the ’045 Patent throughout the United States, and to import any product embodying
`
`the ’045 Patent into the United States.
`
`41.
`
`The ’045 Patent is an invention of systems and methods for facilitating a cashless
`
`transaction for purchase of at least one product or service by a user from a payment accepting
`
`unit, e.g., a laundry machine or vending machine.
`
`42.
`
`One aspect of the ’045 Patent that was counterintuitive was using the mobile
`
`device as an intermediary between the mobile device and the server. In conventional systems,
`
`payment accepting machines were designed to include a long-range communication interface,
`
`such as a telephone based modem or cellular modem. This approach allowed for the payment
`
`accepting unit to request and/or receive authorizations from a trusted server. A typical
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 1793
`
`transaction would involve the customer initiating a purchase with his or her phone. That request
`
`would be conveyed to a remote server which, in turn, would determine whether to authorize the
`
`purchase. The server would then communicate with the payment accepting unit. In other words,
`
`the payment accepting unit would communicate only with a server and the mobile device would
`
`likewise only communicate with a server. One disadvantage with this conventional approach is
`
`that retrofitting payment accepting machines with a modem (e.g., a long-range communication
`
`interface) to communicate with a server is expensive and complicated for a technician. Further,
`
`cellular communication typically requires a subscription which could become prohibitively
`
`expensive, especially for infrequently used machines. As a result, many operators elected to
`
`retain a coin-based operations or to utilize a card-based solution instead.
`
`43.
`
`Because the ’045 Patent used the customer’s phone as the mechanism for
`
`communicating with a server, substantial cost savings were achieved for the owner of the
`
`payment accepting units. The ’045 Patent therefore used an unconventional approach whereby
`
`the mobile phone was used by the payment accepting unit as a mechanism for achieving long-
`
`range communication. To that end, the payment accepting unit may include an adapter module
`
`which encrypts the authorization request such that only the server can decrypt the request.
`
`According to the claims of the ’045 Patent, the mobile device plays a discrete role in the payment
`
`process, namely that of an intermediary requiring little, or no, trust. That was an unconventional
`
`use of a mobile device, which was far from routine.
`
`44.
`
`A further unconventional advantage of the mobile device’s discrete role is funds
`
`being stored on the server as a prepaid balance. Prepayment allows transactions to process as if
`
`cash was inserted into the machine, minimizing transaction costs. Further it allows for an up-to-
`
`date balance to be displayed on the mobile device or even for the balance to be forwarded to the
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 1794
`
`payment accepting unit to be displayed to the user without ever looking at the mobile device.
`
`Additionally, separating the steps of payment with purchase was an unconventional way to
`
`substantially reduce the hardware costs as it eliminated the need for a credit card reader installed
`
`in each machine
`
`45.
`
`Another unconventional aspect of the ’045 Patent was concept of surrounding the
`
`adapter module (within the payment accepting unit) with both a payment zone and an
`
`authorization zone. The conventional approach was to treat payment and authorization as part of
`
`the same process. For example, in a vending machine with a credit card reader, the process of
`
`paying would result in authorization to disperse the goods or services. The use of multiple zones
`
`provided numerous advantages, including pre-payment of digital currency to minimize credit
`
`card transaction fees and mitigate the impact of areas with poor cellular coverage.
`
`A key challenge that existed prior to the ’045 Patent’s invention is that the mobile phone is
`
`entrusted to send an authorization code to the payment accepting unit. The ’045 Patent describes
`
`and claims adding security mechanisms to prevent the mobile phone from being able to generate
`
`its own authorization codes. Alternative techniques, at the time of the invention, involve
`
`downloading software to the mobile phone that generates authorization codes and processes
`
`transactions on the mobile phone. This introduces possible security vulnerabilities. The ’045
`
`Patent remedied this by adding an adapter module with its own security technology. When
`
`payment is received, the adapter module generates a secured authorization. When the secured
`
`authorization is sent to the mobile phone, it is encrypted and undecipherable by anything but the
`
`server. The mobile phone then forwards the encrypted authorization to the server to process the
`
`transaction.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 1795
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, CSC has and is infringing at least claims 1-4 and
`
`10-12 of the ’045 Patent in this District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other
`
`things, directly or through intermediaries, making, using, selling and/or offering for infringing
`
`products with mobile payment functionalities, covered by one or more claims of the ’045 Patent.
`
`CSC is directly infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’045 Patent under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. CSC is thus liable for infringement of the ’045 Patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`47.
`
`CSC infringes at least the above-identified claims of the ’045 Patent by including
`
`a mobile-device-to-machine payment system for facilitating a cashless transaction for purchase
`
`of at least one product or service by a user from a payment accepting unit having input
`
`mechanisms, the user having a mobile device having both short-range communication
`
`technology and long-range communication technology, the payment accepting unit capable of
`
`dispensing at least one product or service, said system comprising: (a) an adapter module
`
`associated with the payment accepting unit, said adapter having short-range communication
`
`technology for communicating with the short-range communication technology (e.g., Bluetooth)
`
`of the mobile device; (b) a server having long-range communication technology for
`
`communicating with the long-range communication technology of the mobile device; (c) said
`
`adapter module for sending an authorization request for funds to the mobile device using short-
`
`range communication technology, the mobile device forwarding said authorization request for
`
`funds to said server using long-range communication technology; and (d) said server for sending
`
`an authorization grant for funds to the mobile device using long-range communication
`
`technology, the mobile device forwarding said authorization grant for funds to said adapter
`
`module using short-range communication technology; (e) wherein the payment accepting unit
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 1796
`
`dispenses the at least one product or service in response to receiving user input to the payment
`
`accepting unit input mechanism if said adapter module has received said authorization grant.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, CSC will continue to directly infringe the ’045
`
`Patent unless enjoined.
`
`49.
`
`To the extent CSCPay Mobile and/or CSC Go as installed on a smartphone, do
`
`not directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’045 Patent, CSC contributes to infringement of the
`
`same under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) inasmuch as infringing products offered for sale and sold by CSC
`
`are components of a patented machine or an apparatus used in practicing a patented process,
`
`constituting a material part of PayRange’s invention, knowing the same to be especially made or
`
`especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’045 Patent.
`
`50.
`
`CSCPay Mobile and/or CSC Go as installed on a smartphone directly infringe the
`
`’045 Patent and are being provided by CSC to install in their community laundry rooms, in-home
`
`units, or commercial site. Upon information and belief, CSC will continue to contribute to
`
`infringement of the ’045 Patent unless enjoined.
`
`51.
`
`CSC actively encourages their business partners and/or customers to use CSCPay
`
`Mobile and/or CSC Go as installed on a smartphone in an infringing manner. Despite knowing
`
`of PayRange’s patented technology, CSC actively induced its business partners and/or customers
`
`to use CSCPay Mobile and/or CSC Go in an infringing manner. CSC encouraged this
`
`infringement with a specific intent to cause its business partners and customers to infringe.
`
`CSC’s acts thus constitute active inducement of patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(b).
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, CSC will continue to induce infringement of the
`
`’045 Patent unless enjoined.
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 1797
`
`53.
`
`CSC’s direct infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement of
`
`infringement have irreparably harmed PayRange. For example, but for CSC’s infringement,
`
`PayRange would have installed its competing solution. PayRange’s business and its valuation is
`
`enhanced with each machine added to its payment network, which in turns adds more users to
`
`the network. The full value of each installation may not be amenable to calculation due in part to
`
`the network effect of devices and users. Additionally, the continued infringement harms
`
`PayRange’s reputation in the marketplace by discouraging other potential customers from
`
`entering into agreements for PayRange’s solutions. CSC’s infringement also encourages other
`
`potential customers to develop their own infringing solutions instead of working with PayRange.
`
`These reputational and business harms cannot be adequately remedied by monetary
`
`compensation.
`
`54.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, PayRange is entitled to damages adequate to
`
`compensate for the infringement.
`
`55.
`
`CSC’s infringement has been and is willful and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284,
`
`PayRange is entitled to treble damages. CSC’s willful infringement is based at least on CSC’s
`
`knowledge of PayRange, its products, and its patents. For example, prior to filing this lawsuit
`
`PayRange had several communications with CSC regarding PayRange’s patents, including a
`
`presentation on PayRange products and a draft complaint to be filed with this court listing the
`
`’045 Patent. CSC’s conduct is egregious as it continued offering, selling, making, and using
`
`infringing products despite knowledge of the infringement. CSC either willfully and wantonly
`
`infringed the ’045 Patent or have recklessly avoided knowledge of its own infringement, even
`
`when faced with knowledge of PayRange’s own products and patents.
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 19 of 29 PageID #: 1798
`
`56.
`
`This case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and PayRange
`
`is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’208 PATENT
`
`57.
`
`PayRange realleges and incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs
`
`of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`PayRange is the assignee and owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’208 Patent. PayRange has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any product
`
`embodying the ’208 Patent throughout the United States, and to import any product embodying
`
`the ’208 Patent into the United States.
`
`59.
`
`The ’208 Patent is an invention of systems and methods for interactions with
`
`unattended retail machines using detectable trigger conditions and limited-scope authorization
`
`grants.
`
`60.
`
`A significant advantage of the ’208 Patent is the ability to preemptively authorize
`
`a transaction when a customer approaches an unattended retail machine. This, in addition to the
`
`use of the mobile phone’s long-range communication capabilities (rather than requiring a long-
`
`range communication unit is a significant improvement over the prior art.
`
`61.
`
`Upon information and belief, CSC has and is infringing at least claim 1 of the
`
`’208 Patent in this District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, directly or
`
`through intermediaries, making, using, selling and/or offering for sale products with built-in
`
`mobile payment functionalities, covered by one or more claims of the ’208 Patent to the injury of
`
`PayRange. CSC is directly infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’208 Patent
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. CSC is thus liable for infringement of the ’208 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 73-2 Filed 04/03/24 Page 20 of 29 PageID #: 1799
`
`62. When placed into operation by CSC or users of CSC infringe at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’208 Patent. When, for example, CSCPay Mobile and/or CSC Go is installed on a mobile
`
`phone it performs a method of, at a mobile device with one or more processors, memory, and a
`
`communications unit, and prior to user selection of any items or services provided by an
`
`automatic retail machine: notifying an electronic payment device coupled with the automatic
`
`retail machine that the mobile device has entered an authorization zone associated with the
`
`automated retail machine: in response to notifying the electronic payment device that the mobile
`
`device has entered the authorization zone, receiving from the electronic payment device, via the
`
`communications unit, a request to preemptively obtain authorization to make funds available for
`
`cashless transactions with the automatic retail machine; sending the request to a server via the
`
`communications unit; in response to sending the request to the server, receiving, from the server,
`
`an authorization grant of an amount of funds corresponding to a maximum amount associated
`
`with an item or service provided by the automatic retail machine, wherein the authorization grant
`
`expires upon satisfaction of one or more predetermined criteria; detecting, by an application
`
`executing on the mobile device, a trigger condition to initiate a cashless transaction with the
`
`automatic retail machine; and in response to detecting the trigger condition and in accordance
`
`with a determination that the one or more predetermined criteria have not been satisfie