Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`ALLIANCE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`C. A. No.: __________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Alliance Laundry Systems LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Alliance”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Defendant PayRange
`
`Inc. (“Defendant” or “PayRange”) and in support of its Complaint alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Alliance designs, invents, manufactures, distributes and sells premium
`
`commercial laundry equipment for many businesses, including laundromats, multi-housing
`
`facilities, hospitals, long-term care facilities, and on-premises laundries.
`
`2.
`
`Alliance is a world leader in commercial laundry research and development and is
`
`the assignee of numerous patents for its commercial laundry solutions.
`
`3.
`
`Alliance is also a world leader in commercial laundry sales, with its products
`
`distributed to more than a hundred countries around the world.
`
`4.
`
` On information and belief, Defendant PayRange is the assignee of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 11,972,423, 11,966,920, and 11,481,772 (collectively, the “DJ Patents”).
`
`5.
`
`Beginning in March 2024, PayRange sent a series of letters alleging that Alliance
`
`infringes certain claims of the DJ Patents, either directly or through contributory infringement, or
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`by inducement, in connection with the installation and use of its “Speed Queen” and “Huebsch”
`
`mobile applications and payment systems.
`
`6.
`
`Alliance brings this action to protect its “Speed Queen” and “Huebsch” mobile
`
`applications and payment systems, and customers who use such applications and systems, from
`
`PayRange’s claim that use of those instrumentalities infringes the DJ Patents.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Alliance is a limited liability company organized in Delaware with a principal
`
`place of business at 221 Shepard Street, Ripon, Wisconsin, 54971. Alliance designs, develops,
`
`manufactures, distributes, and sells commercial laundry equipment, including payment
`
`mechanisms for such equipment.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant PayRange is a Tennessee corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 9600 NE Cascades Parkway, Suite 280, Portland, OR 97220.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a), because this action involves claims arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`2201 and 2202.
`
`10.
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, an actual and justiciable controversy exists under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 between Alliance and PayRange regarding the alleged infringement of
`
`the DJ Patents.
`
`11.
`
`PayRange is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District at least because (1) on
`
`information and belief, PayRange conducts business in Delaware, including by distributing
`
`products or services in Delaware, and (2) because of PayRange’s purposeful, systematic, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`continuous contacts with Delaware in connection with its filing of a complaint in this District
`
`asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772, its filing of other complaints in this District asserting other
`
`members of the same patent family, and its enforcement activities against Alliance, which is
`
`incorporated and conducts business in Delaware.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court as to PayRange pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)
`
`and/or 1391(c), because PayRange is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and because
`
`a substantial part of the events giving rise to Alliance’s claims, including the filing of the
`
`complaint asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772, occurred within this District.
`
`13.
`
`Further, as explained more fully below, personal jurisdiction and venue are proper
`
`in this Court as to PayRange for at least the following reasons:
`
`i. PayRange has previously initiated judicial action (i.e., filing a complaint for
`
`patent infringement) in this Court for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772,
`
`which PayRange has also accused Alliance of infringing and which is one of the
`
`patents that is the subject of this Action (Count I);
`
`ii. It would not be unduly burdensome for PayRange to litigate in this District,
`
`particularly where PayRange previously initiated a suit against CSC
`
`Serviceworks, Inc. to enforce the same U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772 in this
`
`District;
`
`iii. PayRange has identified to Alliance its prior action asserting U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,481,772 against CSC in this District, in a series of letters alleging Alliance’s
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772 (discussed more fully below);
`
`iv. PayRange has purposefully directed its enforcement activities with respect to the
`
`DJ Patents at Alliance, which is incorporated in Delaware; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`v. PayRange’s enforcement activities directly impact Alliance’s ability to conduct
`
`business in this forum and Alliance’s customers in this forum (discussed more
`
`fully below).
`
`THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PATENTS
`
`14.
`
`The following patents, referred to herein as the DJ Patents, are at issue in this
`
`litigation.
`
`15.
`
`On October 25, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,481,772 (“the ’772 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Presenting
`
`Representations of Payment Accepting Unit Events,” to Paresh K. Patel. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’772 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1. On information and belief,
`
`PayRange is the current assignee of the ’772 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`On April 23, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,966,920 (“the ’920 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Presenting
`
`Representations of Payment Accepting Unit Events,” to Paresh K. Patel. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’920 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2. On information and belief,
`
`PayRange is the current assignee of the ’920 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`The ’920 Patent is a continuation of the ’772 Patent.
`
`On April 30, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,972,423 (“the ’423 Patent”), entitled “Method and System for Presenting
`
`Representations of Payment Accepting Unit Events,” to Paresh K. Patel. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’423 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3. On information and belief,
`
`PayRange is the current assignee of the ’423 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`The ’423 Patent is a continuation of the ’772 Patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`PayRange’s Prior Litigation with Kiosoft
`
`20.
`
`Beginning in early 2020, PayRange began an aggressive campaign of patent
`
`litigation against companies that make, use, sell, or develop mobile payment systems. More
`
`specifically, on March 3, 2020, PayRange filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Southern District of Florida against Kiosoft Technologies, LLC (“KioSoft”), alleging
`
`infringement of other patents in the same family as the DJ Patents here. See Case No. 1:20-cv-
`
`20970.
`
`21.
`
`The dispute between PayRange and Kiosoft evolved to include numerous cases in
`
`both this Court and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), including a second patent
`
`litigation case brought by PayRange against Kiosoft, also in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Southern District of Florida, filed on October 21, 2020, Case No. 1:20-cv-24342, and a petition
`
`to institute post grant review of the ’772 Patent. See KioSoft Technologies, LLC v. PayRange
`
`Inc., PGR2023-00042 against U.S. Patent No. 11,481,772 (one of the DJ Patents).
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, a complete listing of the cases between PayRange and
`
`Kiosoft is provided below:
`
`i.
`
`PayRange Inc. v. Kiosoft Technologies, LLC, Case No. 1-20-cv-20970,
`
`Southern District of Florida;
`
`ii.
`
`PayRange Inc. v. Kiosoft Technologies, LLC, Case No. 1-20-cv-24342,
`
`Southern District of Florida;
`
`iii.
`
`PayRange Inc. v. KioSoft Technologies, LLC, 2023-2378, Federal Circuit
`
`(appeal from Case No. 1-20-cv-20970);
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`iv.
`
`PayRange Inc. v. KioSoft Technologies, LLC, 2023-2425, Federal Circuit
`
`(appeal from Case No. 1-20-cv-20970);
`
`v.
`
`PayRange Inc. v. KioSoft Technologies, LLC, PGR2023-00050 against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,501,296, PTAB;
`
`vi.
`
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC v. PayRange Inc., PGR2023-00045 against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,488,174, PTAB;
`
`vii.
`
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC v. PayRange Inc., PGR2023-00042 against U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,481,772 (one of the DJ Patents), PTAB;
`
`viii. Kiosoft Technologies LLC et al. v. PayRange Inc. et al, CBM2020-00026
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 9,659,296, PTAB;
`
`ix.
`
`Kiosoft Technologies LLC et al. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2021-00086 against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,659,296, PTAB;
`
`x.
`
`Kiosoft Technologies LLC et al. v. PayRange Inc., PGR2021-00077 against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,719,833, PTAB;
`
`xi.
`
`Kiosoft Technologies LLC et al. v. PayRange Inc., PGR2021-00084 against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608, PTAB;
`
`xii.
`
`Kiosoft Technologies LLC et al. v. PayRange Inc., PGR2021-00093 against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,891,614, PTAB; and
`
`xiii. Kiosoft Technologies LLC et al. v. PayRange Inc., PGR2022-00035 against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,074,580, PTAB.
`
`23.
`
`On December 14, 2022, the PTAB issued a final written decision in PGR2021-
`
`00093 finding that claims 1-6, 8-10, 14, 15, and 18-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,614 (“the ’614
`
`Patent”) recite patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims recite
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
`
`high level of generality. See Exhibit 4 at 43.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, PayRange did not appeal the PTAB’s final written
`
`decision in PGR2021-00093.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`The ’614 Patent is the parent to the ’772 Patent.
`
`In KioSoft’s petition to institute post-grant review of the ’772 Patent, which
`
`asserted that claims 1-20 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103, KioSoft noted that
`
`several of the challenged ’772 Patent claims were very similar to the claims found to be
`
`ineligible in PGR2021-00093 for the ’614 Patent. See KioSoft Technologies, LLC v. PayRange
`
`Inc., PGR2023-00042, PTAB, D.I. 2 at 15, 38.
`
`27.
`
`As shown in the below table1, claim 1 of the ’772 Patent is materially identical to
`
`claim 1 of the ’614 Patent.
`
`’772 Patent, claim 1
`
`’614 Patent, claim 1
`
`1. A method of presenting representations of
`payment accepting unit events, comprising:
`
`1. A method of presenting representations of
`payment accepting unit events, comprising:
`
`at a mobile device with one or more
`processors, memory, one or more output
`devices including a display, and one or more
`radio transceivers:
`
`at a mobile device with one or more
`processors, memory, one or more output
`devices including a display, and one or more
`radio transceivers:
`
`identifying one or more payment accepting
`units in proximity to the mobile device that are
`available to accept payment from a mobile
`payment application executing on the mobile
`device, the identifying based at least in part on
`an identifier corresponding to the one or more
`payment accepting units, wherein the one or
`more payment accepting units are payment
`
`identifying one or more payment accepting
`units in proximity to the mobile device that are
`available to accept payment from a mobile
`payment application executing on the mobile
`device, the identifying including detecting
`predefined radio messages broadcast by the
`one or more payment accepting units, wherein
`the one or more payment accepting units are
`
`
`1 Underlined text reflects differences in the wording used between each claim.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`’772 Patent, claim 1
`
`’614 Patent, claim 1
`
`operated machines that accept payment for
`dispensing of products and/or services;
`
`vending machines that accept payment for
`dispensing of products and/or services;
`
`displaying a user interface of the mobile
`payment application on the display of the
`mobile device,
`the user
`interface being
`configured to display a visual indication of the
`one or more payment accepting units and
`accept user input to (i) receive selection by a
`user of the mobile device of an available
`payment accepting unit of the one or more
`payment accepting units and (ii) trigger
`payment by the mobile payment application
`for a transaction initiated by the user of the
`mobile device with the available payment
`accepting unit of the one or more payment
`accepting units;
`
`displaying a user interface of the mobile
`payment application on the display of the
`mobile device,
`the user
`interface being
`configured to display a visual indication of the
`one or more payment accepting units and
`accept user input to (i) receive selection by a
`user of the mobile device of an available
`payment accepting unit of the one or more
`payment accepting units and (ii) trigger
`payment by the mobile payment application
`for a vending transaction initiated by the user
`of the mobile device with the available
`payment accepting unit of the one or more
`payment accepting units;
`
`establishing via the one or more radio
`transceivers a wireless communication path
`including the mobile device and the available
`payment accepting unit of the one or more
`payment accepting units;
`
`establishing via the one or more radio
`transceivers a wireless connection between the
`mobile device and the available payment
`accepting unit of the one or more payment
`accepting units;
`
`wireless
`the
`establishing
`after
`communication path, enabling user interaction
`with the user interface of the mobile payment
`application to complete the transaction;
`
`exchanging information with the available
`payment accepting unit via the one or more
`radio transceivers, in conjunction with the
`transaction; and
`
`information,
`the
`exchanging
`after
`displaying, on the display, an updated user
`interface of the mobile payment application to
`the user of the mobile device.
`
`after establishing the wireless connection,
`presenting the user interface of the mobile
`payment application and enabling user
`interaction with the user interface of the
`mobile payment application to complete the
`vending transaction;
`
`exchanging information with the available
`payment accepting unit via the one or more
`radio transceivers, in conjunction with the
`vending transaction; and
`
`in response to receiving the information,
`displaying, on the display, an updated user
`interface of the mobile payment application to
`the user of the mobile device.
`
`28.
`
`On November 22, 2023, PayRange disclaimed claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 of the
`
`’772 Patent. See Exhibit 5.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`29.
`
`As a result, only claim 11—the claim PayRange contends is infringed upon by
`
`Alliance—remained at issue in PGR2023-00042.
`
`30.
`
`On February 5, 2024, KioSoft and PayRange filed a joint motion to dismiss
`
`PGR2023-00042 before the PTAB made a decision on institution or reached a final written
`
`decision. See KioSoft Technologies, LLC v. PayRange Inc., PGR2023-00042, PTAB, D.I. 7.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`In January 2024, PayRange and Kiosoft resolved their dispute with a settlement.
`
`PayRange issued a press release following its settlement with KioSoft. As of the
`
`time of this filing, the press release is still available at the following link:
`
`https://payrange.com/news/*payrange-settles-patent-dispute-with-kiosoft-securing-62-million-
`
`licensing-deal/. A true and correct copy of this press release is attached to this Complaint as
`
`Exhibit 6.
`
`33.
`
`The press release further states that “[PayRange] will continue to pursue
`
`enforcement of our payment app solution patents against all infringers.” See Ex. 6.
`
`PayRange’s Prior Litigation with CSC
`
`34. While the litigation with Kiosoft was ongoing, PayRange initiated another wave
`
`of litigation, in this Court, against defendant CSC Serviceworks, Inc. (“CSC”). PayRange filed
`
`the first action against CSC in this Court on April 19, 2022 (the “First Delaware CSC Action”).
`
`See Case No. 22-cv-00502-VAC.
`
`35.
`
`The First Delaware CSC Action alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Numbers
`
`8,856,045, 10,438,208, and 10,891,608. See Case No. 22-cv-00502-VAC, D.I. 1. The DJ Patents
`
`are continuations of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Less than one year later, PayRange filed a second patent infringement action
`
`against CSC, also in this Court, and asserting the ’772 Patent against CSC (the “Second
`
`Delaware CSC Action”). See Case No. 23-cv-00278-MN, Second Amended Complaint, D.I. 73.
`
`37.
`
`In addition to the ’772 Patent, the Second Delaware CSC Action asserted U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,856,045, 10,438,208, and 10,891,608. See Case No. 23-cv-00278-MN, Second
`
`Amended Complaint, D.I. 73. The DJ Patents are continuations of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,045.
`
`38.
`
`On March 4, 2024, PayRange filed a third patent infringement action against
`
`CSC, also in this Court (the “Third Delaware CSC Action”). See Case No. 24-cv-00279-MN,
`
`D.I. 1.
`
`39.
`
`The Third Delaware CSC Action alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Numbers
`
`10,719,833, 10,891,614, and 11,488,174. See Case No. 24-cv-00279-MN, D.I. 1. The DJ Patents
`
`are continuations of U.S. Patent Number 10,891,614.
`
`40.
`
`Like the dispute between PayRange and Kiosoft, the dispute between PayRange
`
`and CSC evolved to include a number of cases in both District Court and at the PTAB. On
`
`information and belief, a complete listing of the various matters between PayRange and CSC is
`
`provided below:
`
`i. PayRange Inc. v. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc., 24-cv-00279-MN, D. Del.;
`
`ii. PayRange Inc. v. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc., 23-cv-00278-MN, D. Del.;
`
`iii. PayRange Inc. v. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc., 22-cv-00502-VAC, D. Del.;
`
`iv. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01449 against the ’772
`
`Patent, PTAB;
`
`v. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01186 against U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,856,045, PTAB;
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`vi. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01188 against U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,891,608, PTAB; and
`
`vii. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01187 against U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,438,208, PTAB.
`
`41.
`
`CSC’s petition for inter partes review of the ’772 Patent, filed on October 9,
`
`2023, asserted that claims 1-6 and 8-20 of the ’772 Patent are unpatentable as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. See CSC Serviceworks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01449, PTAB, D.I. 1.
`
`42.
`
`On November 22, 2023, PayRange disclaimed claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-20 of the
`
`’772 Patent. See Ex. 5.
`
`43.
`
`As a result, only claim 11—the only ’772 Patent claim that PayRange contends is
`
`infringed upon by Alliance—remained at issue in IPR2023-01449.
`
`44.
`
`On April 12, 2024, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of claim 11 of the
`
`’772 Patent. In its institution decision, the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that CSC would
`
`prevail in establishing that claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See CSC
`
`Serviceworks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01449, PTAB, D.I. 14, Exhibit 7.
`
`45.
`
`On April 17, 2024, CSC filed a motion to dismiss in the Second Delaware CSC
`
`Action, asserting that the ’772 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. PayRange Inc. v. CSC
`
`ServiceWorks, Inc., 23-cv-00278-MN, D.I. 79.
`
`46.
`
`On April 24, 2024, PayRange filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice,
`
`of the Second Delaware CSC Action. PayRange Inc. v. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc., 23-cv-00278-
`
`MN, D.I. 82.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`47.
`
`On the same day, PayRange also filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with
`
`prejudice, of the Third Delaware CSC Action. See PayRange Inc. v. CSC ServiceWorks, Inc., 23-
`
`cv-00279-MN, D.I. 8.
`
`48.
`
`On April 25, 2024, PayRange and CSC jointly moved to terminate IPR2023-
`
`01449. See CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. v. PayRange Inc., IPR2023-01449, D.I. 16.
`
`49.
`
`As a result, a final decision regarding the patentability of claim 11 of the ’772
`
`Patent was never reached in the proceedings before this District or the PTAB.
`
`PayRange’s Accusations and Threats Against Alliance
`
`50.
`
`Shortly after PayRange resolved its dispute with Kiosoft in January 2024, on
`
`March 14, 2024, PayRange sent a demand letter to Alliance, accusing Alliance of infringing the
`
`’772 Patent that it had asserted against CSC in this Court, along with allowed claims from the
`
`applications that subsequently issued as the ’920 and ’423 Patents.
`
`51.
`
`PayRange’s March 14, 2024 Letter accused Alliance of infringing the following
`
`claims:
`
`i. Claim 11 of the ’772 Patent (infringement alleged only under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents);
`
`ii. Then-pending, but allowed, claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-20 of U.S. Patent Application
`
`18/197,070 (later issued as the ’423 Patent); and
`
`iii. Then-pending, but allowed, claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-20 of U.S. Patent Application
`
`18/197,071 (later issued as the ’920 Patent).
`
`Collectively, the above claims shall be referred to herein as “the DJ Claims.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`52.
`
`PayRange’s March 14, 2024 Letter accused Alliance of infringing the DJ Claims
`
`by making, using, selling, or offering to sell the “Speed Queen” and “Huebsch” applications on
`
`the Google Play Store and the Apple App store, as shown in the images below:
`
`
`
`Collectively, the Speed Queen and Huebsch applications are referred to herein as the “Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.”
`
`53.
`
`PayRange’s March 14, 2024 Letter also included claim charts purporting to
`
`demonstrate Alliance’s infringement of the DJ Claims.
`
`54.
`
`Alliance substantively responded to PayRange’s March 14, 2024 Letter via a
`
`response letter sent on April 25, 2024.
`
`55.
`
`Alliance’s April 25, 2024 Letter explained in detail why Alliance does not
`
`infringe the DJ Claims, and also why the DJ Clams were likely to be found invalid or
`
`unpatentable in the pending disputes with CSC or otherwise. Alliance further demonstrated that
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`the DJ Claims from the ’423 and ’920 Patents were nearly identical to the claims of the ‘772
`
`Patent that PayRange had disclaimed during its litigations with CSC.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`PayRange responded to Alliance’s April 25, 2024 Letter on May 17, 2024.
`
`PayRange’s May 17, 2024 Letter rejected Alliance’s arguments, and continued to
`
`assert that Alliance infringed the DJ Claims.
`
`58.
`
`PayRange’s May 17, 2024 Letter also included, and emphasized, the following:
`
`i. PayRange has for the last several years pursued enforcement of its payment app
`
`solutions against purported infringers, including through multiple litigations and
`
`related PTAB proceedings;
`
`ii. PayRange’s prior litigation against CSC in this District, including the action
`
`involving the ’772 Patent, and the resolution relating thereto;
`
`iii. PayRange’s representation that after the PTAB instituted inter partes review
`
`against claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent, and after CSC re-filed its motion to dismiss
`
`for lack of eligible subject matter pursuant to Section 101 in this Court against
`
`claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent, that CSC settled and took a license from PayRange
`
`that was favorable to PayRange;
`
`iv. That PayRange continues to “firmly believe” that Alliance infringes claim 11 of
`
`the ’772 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents; and
`
`v. The May 17, 2024 Letter also urged Alliance to take a license.
`
`59.
`
`Alliance currently sells and distributes equipment to operators in Delaware.
`
`Accordingly, PayRange’s enforcement activities directly impact Alliance’s ability to conduct
`
`business in this forum and Alliance’s customers in this forum.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`60.
`
`On May 31, 2024, counsel for Alliance sent a response email to PayRange,
`
`acknowledging receipt of PayRange’s May 17, 2024 Letter.
`
`61.
`
`On June 12, 2024, PayRange sent an additional letter to Alliance (“the June 12,
`
`2024 Letter”). PayRange’s June 12, 2024 letter stated:
`
`i.
`
` “Alliance must immediately cease and desist the unlicensed, infringing activities
`
`identified in [PayRange’s] March 14, 2024 notice letter”; and
`
`ii. “If Alliance does not promptly engage in negotiations with PayRange, we will
`
`assume that it prefers to resolve this matter in litigation.”
`
`62.
`
`PayRange’s March 14, 2024, May 17, 2024, and June 12, 2024 Letters to Alliance
`
`are referred to collectively as “PayRange Letters.”
`
`63.
`
`On June 14, 2024, counsel for Alliance sent a response email to PayRange,
`
`acknowledging receipt of PayRange’s June 12 Letter.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`On June 19, 2024, counsel for PayRange sent a response email to Alliance.
`
`In the PayRange June 19, 2024 email, PayRange stated that “[u]nless Alliance has
`
`a clear, definitive, and legitimate defense to PayRange’s infringement charges in its next
`
`correspondence (which we did not see in your prior letters), PayRange is expecting that Alliance
`
`will either cease and desist selling and operating infringing products or accept the invitation to
`
`engage in a licensing discussion. Otherwise, Alliance is forcing PayRange to address this matter
`
`through litigation.”
`
`66.
`
`In view of the foregoing, an actual controversy exists between Alliance and
`
`PayRange with respect to infringement of the DJ Patents, and this controversy is likely to
`
`continue. Further, a threat of actual and imminent injury exists as to Alliance that can be
`
`redressed by judicial relief. The injury to Alliance includes uncertainty as to whether the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`development, use, and sale of certain Alliance products and services (as more particularly
`
`identified below, in Counts I through III), will be free from infringement claims on each of the
`
`DJ Claims. Consequently, the injury is sufficiently immediate to warrant the issuance of a
`
`declaratory judgment.
`
`COUNT I: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’772 PATENT
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Alliance incorporates by reference the preceding allegations of the Complaint.
`
`The PayRange Letters claim that Alliance infringes, directly or indirectly, one or
`
`more claims of the ’772 Patent.
`
`69.
`
`The ’772 Patent purports to disclose methods and systems for presenting
`
`representations of payment accepting unit events. Claim 1 of the ’772 Patent (from which Claim
`
`11 depends) recites:
`
`A method of presenting representations of payment accepting unit events, comprising:
`
`
`at a mobile device with one or more processors, memory, one or more output devices
`including a display, and one or more radio transceivers:
`
`identifying one or more payment accepting units in proximity to the mobile device that
`are available to accept payment from a mobile payment application executing on the
`mobile device, the identifying based at least in part on an identifier corresponding to
`the one or more payment accepting units, wherein the one or more payment accepting
`units are payment operated machines that accept payment for dispensing of products
`and/or services;
`
`displaying a user interface of the mobile payment application on the display of the
`mobile device, the user interface being configured to display a visual indication of the
`one or more payment accepting units and accept user input to (i) receive selection by a
`user of the mobile device of an available payment accepting unit of the one or more
`payment accepting units and (ii) trigger payment by the mobile payment application
`for a transaction initiated by the user of the mobile device with the available payment
`accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units;
`
`establishing via the one or more radio transceivers a wireless communication path
`including the mobile device and the available payment accepting unit of the one or
`more payment accepting units;
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`after establishing the wireless communication path, enabling user interaction with the
`user interface of the mobile payment application to complete the transaction;
`
`exchanging information with the available payment accepting unit via the one or more
`radio transceivers, in conjunction with the transaction; and
`
`after exchanging the information, displaying, on the display, an updated user interface
`of the mobile payment application to the user of the mobile device.
`
`Ex. 1, ’772 Patent, Claim 1.
`
`70.
`
`Claim 11 of the ’772 Patent recites:
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein the user interface of the mobile payment application,
`after establishing the wireless communication path, includes:
`
`
`a visual representation of the available payment accepting unit;
`
`an indication of a prepared balance; and
`
`an affordance that when slid, indicates the initiation of the transaction;
`
`wherein the affordance is slid in response to receiving a user input of swipe on the
`affordance displayed on the display of the mobile device.
`
`Ex. 1, ’772 Patent, Claim 11.
`
`71.
`
`Alliance has not infringed and does not infringe at least claim 11 of the ’772
`
`Patent, either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, including
`
`through its making, using, selling, or offering to sell certain Alliance instrumentalities, including
`
`but not limited to the Alliance Speed Queen and Huebsch mobile applications.
`
`72.
`
`PayRange cannot establish that the Speed Queen and Huebsch mobile
`
`applications practice at least the following limitations of claim 11 of the ’772 Patent: “displaying
`
`a user interface of the mobile payment application on the display of the mobile device, the user
`
`interface being configured to display a visual indication of the one or more payment accepting
`
`units and accept user input to (i) receive selection by a user of the mobile device of an available
`
`payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units and (ii) trigger payment by
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00733-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/20/24 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`the mobile payment application for a transaction initiated by the user of the mobile device with
`
`the available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units;” “establishing
`
`via the one or more radio transceivers a wireless communication path including the mobile
`
`device and the available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units;”
`
`and “wherein the affordance is slid in response to receiving a user input of swipe on the
`
`affordance displayed on the display of the mobile device.”
`
`73.
`
`For example, Alliance’s Speed Queen and Huebsch applications establish a
`
`wireless communication path prior to triggering payment by the mobile payment application for
`
`a transaction (sub-limitation (ii) above).
`
`74. Moreover, Alliance’s Speed Queen and Huebsch applications do not include or
`
`use a “wireless communication path including the mobile device and the available payment
`
`accepting unit [i.e., laundry machine].” Instead, for the accused Alliance applications and
`
`systems, the only “wireless communication path” is between the mobile device and online cloud
`
`services. The online