IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ALLIANCE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 24-733 (MN)
`
`ORDER
`
` At Wilmington this 9th day of September 2025:
`
`WHEREAS, on June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed
`a Complaint for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of at least some claims of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 11,972,423 (“’423 Patent”), 11,966,920 (“’920 Patent”), and 11,481,772 (“’772 Patent”)
`1
`against Defendant PayRange Inc. (“Defendant”) (see generally D.I. 1);
`WHEREAS, on August 23, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer and Counterclaims to
`Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.I. 11) that disputed Plaintiff’s noninfringement claims, asserted
`counterclaims of infringement of “at least claim 1” of the ’423 Patent and ’920 Patent, “claim 11”
`of the ’772 Patent, and added a counterclaim of infringement of “at least claim 1” of U.S. Patent
`No. 10,891,608 (“’608 Patent) (id. at 12-14 ¶¶ 67-99, 20-30 ¶¶ 23-75);
`WHEREAS, on September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s
`Counterclaims for failure to state a claim (D.I. 14);
`
`1 Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that it does not infringe “at least claims 1, 13, and 15” of the
`’423 Patent, “at least claims 1, 13, and 15” of the ’920 Patent ,” and “at least claim 11” of
`the ’772 Patent. (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 71, 83, 94).
`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 36 Filed 09/09/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1780
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`WHEREAS, on October 4, 2024, Defendant filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims
`(D.I. 18) asserting infringement of “ at least claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8- 15, 17, 19, and 20 of the
`’423 Patent” (id. at 27 ¶ 48), “at least claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 of the ’920 Patent”
`(id. at 23 ¶ 32), “claim 11 of the ’772 Patent,” (id. at 29 ¶ 61) and “at least claim 1, 2, 5, 6-8, 11-
`13, and 17-19 of the ’608 Patent” (id. at 34 ¶ 76);
`WHEREAS, on October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”)
`Counts I-III of Defendant’s Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 21) arguing that the asserted claims of
`the ’423 Patent, ’920 Patent, and ’772 Patent 2 are directed to ineligible subject matter under
`325 U.S.C. § 101 (D.I. 22 at 1);
`WHEREAS, across the four patents asserted in this case, there are eighty claims, and
`Plaintiff requests that the Court find twenty-seven of those claims to be directed to patent ineligible
`subject matter at the motion to dismiss stage;
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff asserts that there are two representative claim s for all claims
`challenged under § 101 (D.I. 22 at 13), which Defendant disputes, asserting that Plaintiff “fails to
`establish” representativeness and “ignores the asserted dependent claims” (D.I. 24 at 12, 15);
`WHEREAS, should this case proceed to trial, the asserted claims will be narrowed through
`the parties’ disclosures and discovery and, as such, most of the claims subject to Plaintiff’s § 101
`motion will not be at issue in later stages of the case (including at trial);
`
`2 Plaintiff states that it did not move to dismiss Count IV of Defendant’s Amended
`Counterclaims (infringement of the ’608 Patent) at this time but “maintains that the asserted
`claims of [the ’608 Patent] also fail to claim eligible subject matter pursuant to Section
`101” and “reserves all rights to challenge the claims of this patent at an appropriate time.”
`(D.I. 21 at 1).
`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 36 Filed 09/09/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1781
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`WHEREAS, it is not an efficient use of the Court’s time to address the patent eligibility of
`twenty-seven asserted claims – even with purportedly representative claim s – at the motion to
`dismiss stage, particularly where the parties dispute whether those claims are representative; and
`WHEREAS, on August 26, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a notice (D.I. 33) informing the Court
`that (1) the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted post-grant review3
`of all claims of the ’423 Patent and ’920 Patent4 and (2) Plaintiff intends to file a motion to stay
`the present litigation pending final resolution of the PTAB proceedings, but no such motion has
`yet been filed (id. at 1).5
`THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
`(D.I. 21) is DENIED without prejudice to renew at an appropriate time.
`
`
`
`
` The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
` United States District Judge
`
`
`3 Plaintiff’s § 101 arguments regarding the ’423 Patent and ’920 Patent – those presented in
`the instant Motion – are within the scope of the PTAB’s post -grant review, are addressed
`in the institution decisions, and will be further evaluated by the PTAB prior to the issuance
`of the final written decisions. (See D.I. 33-1; D.I. 33-2).
`
`4 Plaintiff also notes that its petitions for inter partes review of the other two patents at issue
`in this case – the ’772 Patent and ’608 Patent – are pending before the PTAB. (D.I. 33 at
`1). The ’772 Patent is also challenged in Plaintiff’s Motion. (D.I. 21).
`
`5 The Court considers it likely that the claims in this case will be narrowed following the
`PTAB’s completed review of the multiple pending proceedings.
`Case 1:24-cv-00733-MN Document 36 Filed 09/09/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1782
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`