Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CARD CONCEPTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§ C.A. _____________
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1.
`
`Pursuant to Section 1338 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Plaintiff
`
`PayRange Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “PayRange”) alleges for its Complaint against Defendant Card
`
`Concepts Inc. (“CCI”) (“CCI” or “Defendant”), on personal knowledge and information and
`
`belief as noted.
`
`2.
`
`This Complaint arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271 et seq., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`PayRange is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business at 9600
`
`NE Cascades Pkwy, Suite 280, Portland, OR 97220.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, CCI is an Illinois company with employees who work
`
`both from home as well as from offices located at 302 South Stewart Ave., Addison, IL 60101.
`
`5.
`
`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
`
`-1-
`
`24-339
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 16
`
`transactions. The United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) awarded PayRange a
`
`portfolio of patents for its innovations.
`
`6.
`
`PayRange’s patent portfolio is prominently identified on its website pursuant to
`
`PayRange’s virtual patent marking practices: https://payrange.com/patents/
`
`7.
`
`PayRange found success in the laundry and vending industries, attracting
`
`significant customers including WASH Multifamily Laundry Systems (“WASH”).
`
`Unfortunately, competitors took notice and copied PayRange’s technology. As a result,
`
`PayRange initiated litigation against a major competitor (KioSoft) and subsequently against
`
`KioSoft’s major customer (CSC). In response, KioSoft and CSC challenged the validity of
`
`PayRange’s patents before the USPTO. PayRange prevailed with confirmed claims in every
`
`USPTO challenge that proceeded to a Final Written Decision.
`
`8.
`
`On January 31, 2024, PayRange and KioSoft issued a press release announcing a
`
`settlement. KioSoft’s President, Charles Lee, is quoted:
`
`“While we had challenged the PayRange patents vigorously, the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld the PayRange patents and, although we disagreed
`with the result, we must now accept that PayRange has valid claims,” stated
`Charles Lee, President of KioSoft. “We respect the technologies that have helped
`the self-service industry thrive; and we look forward to continuing to lead
`innovation and development by providing best-in-class service to our customers
`with this fully-licensed technology, without any further legal distractions.”
`
`9.
`
`KioSoft agreed to license PayRange’s technology for an amount that could exceed
`
`$62 million over a ten-year period, dependent on outcomes with a base license of $40 million.
`
`10.
`
`In April 2024, on the heels of its settlement with KioSoft, PayRange also resolved
`
`its patent infringement dispute with KioSoft’s customer CSC.
`
`11.
`
`In May 2024, PayRange reached a patent licensing deal with WASH, one of the
`
`largest providers of laundry facilities in the United States. The agreement licenses PayRange’s
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 16
`
`patents for use with the WASH-Connect Mobile Payment App and will continue for the term of
`
`PayRange’s patents. In the press release, WASH’s CEO, Jim Gimeson stated:
`
`“We’re a privately held company founded in 1947 and we hold dear our reputation
`for integrity and ethical practices,” says WASH CEO Jim Gimeson. “As operators,
`we hold a deep respect for the innovations PayRange has brought to elevate the
`laundry industry.”
`
`12.
`
`PayRange hoped that its other competitors would respect its intellectual property.
`
`PayRange hoped that its competitors would, like KioSoft, accept that PayRange had valid patent
`
`claims. PayRange hoped that its other competitors would, like, WASH, act with integrity and
`
`adhere to ethical practices.
`
`13.
`
`On March 21, 2024, PayRange sent CCI a letter (See Exhibit 6) providing notice
`
`of its potential infringement and inviting licensing discussions. PayRange provided detailed
`
`claim charts showing that CCI infringes at least:
`
`a. U.S. Patent Nos. 11,481,772 (the “’772 patent”);
`
`b. Allowed claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/197,071, which issued as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,972,423 (the “’423 patent”); and
`
`c. Allowed claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/197,071, which issues as
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,966,920 (the “’920 patent”).
`
`14.
`
`In response, CCI advanced several unsubstantiated arguments about non-
`
`infringement and invalidity, but those arguments were meritless. Unfortunately, CCI provided no
`
`indication that it would cease infringement, take a license, or even accept PayRange’s invitation
`
`to meet. PayRange was, again, compelled to file this action to protect its innovations and stop
`
`CCI’s patent infringement.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 4 of 16
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this patent infringement action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`17.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI 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. CCI 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. CCI’s infringing products have been and continue to be
`
`used in this District.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). CCI has a regular
`
`and established place of business in this District. For example, CCI has one or more employee
`
`working in this District. On information and belief, an individual by the name of Adam Arafat is
`
`CCI’s Remote Product Support Technician and he resides in Harker Heights, Texas. Mr.
`
`Harker’s LinkedIn profile identifies his job responsibilities as:
`
`[P]roviding diagnostic and troubleshooting support to end users with technical
`issues of varying complexity involving computer hardware and software, network
`connectivity, related peripheral equipment, and proprietary hardware. Escalating
`support requests as necessary. Monitor and maintain ticket management system,
`CRM data, SLA agreements and inventory records.
`
`See Exhibit 7.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, based on his job responsibilities, Mr. Arafat conducts
`
`his work responsibilities from his residence in this District. On information and belief, Mr.
`
`Arafat has been working remotely for CCI at this place for over three years, meaning that it is
`
`regular and established. On information and belief, based on Mr. Arafat’s job responsibilities, he
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 5 of 16
`
`would necessarily possess property of CCI at his residence in this District and would send and/or
`
`receive equipment from customers or distributors. As such, CCI was holding out to the relevant
`
`public that it had a presence in this District. On information and belief, Mr. Arafat has personal
`
`knowledge regarding the design and operation of the accused products.
`
`20.
`
`Further, CCI previously registered to do business in Texas, as shown below:
`
`See Exhibit 8.
`
`21.
`
`As shown, CCI had appointed Mr. Arafat as its registered agent in Texas. On
`
`information and belief, CCI’s registered office address in Texas was Mr. Arafat’s residence.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 6 of 16
`
`PAYRANGE’S PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`22.
`
`To protect its unique and innovative technologies, PayRange filed a provisional
`
`patent application (No. 61/917,936) on December 18, 2013. Several patents issued based on this
`
`original application, including the patents-in-suit, a summarized below.
`
`23.
`
`On January 12, 2021, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 10,891,608 (the “’608
`
`patent”), titled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AN OFFLINE-PAYMENT OPERATED
`
`MACHINE TO ACCEPT ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS.” A true and correct copy of the ’608
`
`patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`24.
`
`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 2. 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 3.
`
`25.
`
`On April 23, 2024, the USPTO issued the ’920 patent, titled “METHOD AND
`
`SYSTEM FOR PRESENTING REPRESENTATIONS OF PAYMENT ACCEPTING UNIT
`
`EVENTS.” A true and correct copy of the ’920 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`26.
`
`On April 30, 2024, the USPTO issued the ’423 patent, titled “METHOD AND
`
`SYSTEM FOR PRESENTING REPRESENTATIONS OF PAYMENT ACCEPTING UNIT
`
`EVENTS.” A true and correct copy of the ’423 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’608 PATENT
`
`27.
`
`PayRange realleges and incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs
`
`of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 7 of 16
`
`28.
`
`PayRange is the assignee and owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’608 patent. PayRange has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any product
`
`embodying the ’608 patent throughout the United States, and to import any product embodying
`
`the ’608 patent into the United States.
`
`29.
`
`A significant advantage of the ’608 patent is the ability to emulate an analog
`
`signal generated by the coin receiving switch of the offline payment-operated machine. Another
`
`advantage was receiving a wireless request via the short-range wireless transceiver from a
`
`mobile device. A further advantage is causing an offline payment-operated machine to initiate
`
`the requested cashless operation by issuing the first number of electrical pulses. These
`
`advantages were not routine, well-understood or conventional.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI has and is infringing at least claim 1 of the ’608
`
`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 payment devices,
`
`including FasCard, covered by one or more claims of the ’608 patent to the injury of PayRange.
`
`CCI is directly infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’608 patent under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. CCI is thus liable for infringement of the ’608 patent pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`31. When placed into operation by CCI or CCI’s users, CCI’s infringing products
`
`infringe at least claim 1 of the ’608 patent. They include a payment module (FasCard) for an
`
`offline payment-operated machine (e.g., laundry machine) including a coin receiving switch, the
`
`payment module comprising: a short-range wireless transceiver (e.g., NFC) configured to
`
`communicate with one or more mobile devices; one or more processors; a first interface module
`
`configured to output to a control unit of the offline payment-operated machine one or more
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 8 of 16
`
`electrical pulses, each of the one or more electrical pulses emulating an analog signal generated
`
`by the coin receiving switch of the offline payment-operated machine in response to insertion of
`
`a single coin of a predetermined type in the offline payment-operated machine; and memory
`
`(e.g., Flash memory) with one or more programs for execution by the one or more processors,
`
`the one or more programs including instructions for: storing, in the memory of the payment
`
`module, a number of the electrical pulses that must be received by the control unit to initiate an
`
`operation of the offline payment operating machine; receiving a wireless request via the short-
`
`range wireless transceiver from a respective mobile device of the one or more mobile devices to
`
`initiate a cashless operation of the offline-payment operated machine; and in response to the
`
`wireless request: determining a first number of electrical pulses to output via the first interface
`
`module to the control unit of the offline payment-operated machine in order to initiate the
`
`requested cashless operation of the offline payment-operated machine; causing the offline
`
`payment-operated machine to initiate the requested cashless operation by issuing the first number
`
`of electrical pulses to the control unit via the first interface module; and sending operation
`
`information corresponding to the initiated operation of the offline payment-operated machine to
`
`the respective mobile device via the short-range wireless transceiver.
`
`32.
`
`To the extent CCI payment devices (including FasCard), without more, do not
`
`directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’608 patent, CCI actively encourages their business
`
`partners, end-users and/or customers to use CCI payment devices in an infringing manner. CCI
`
`encourages infringement with a specific intent to cause its business partners and customers to
`
`infringe. CCI’s acts thus constitute active inducement of patent infringement in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 9 of 16
`
`33.
`
`In addition, CCI contributes to infringement of the same under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c)
`
`inasmuch as the infringing products offered for sale and sold by CCI are each a component of a
`
`patented machine or an apparatus used in practicing a patented process, constituting a material
`
`part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in
`
`infringement of the ’608 patent.
`
`34.
`
`CCI’s direct infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement of
`
`infringement have irreparably harmed PayRange.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI will continue to infringe the ’608 patent unless
`
`enjoined.
`
`36.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, PayRange is entitled to damages adequate to
`
`compensate for the infringement. PayRange has complied with its patent marking obligations
`
`including by virtually marking its patents through the following URL:
`
`https://payrange.com/patents/
`
`37.
`
`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 ’920 PATENT
`
`38.
`
`PayRange realleges and incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs
`
`of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`39.
`
`PayRange is the assignee and owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’920 patent. PayRange has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any product
`
`embodying the ’920 patent throughout the United States, and to import any product embodying
`
`the ’920 patent into the United States.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 10 of 16
`
`40.
`
`A significant advantage of the ’920 patent is the ability to identify payment
`
`accepting units based on the location or identifier corresponding to the payment accepting units.
`
`Another significant advantage is displaying a visual indication of the payment accepting units.
`
`Completing a transaction after establishing a wireless communication is another significant
`
`advantage. These advantages were not routine, well-understood or conventional.
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI has and is infringing at least claim 1 of the ’920
`
`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 such as FasCard
`
`app, covered by one or more claims of the ’920 patent to the injury of PayRange. CCI is directly
`
`infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’920 patent under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. CCI is thus liable for infringement of the ’920 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`42.
`
`Exhibit 6, which is incorporated herein, include a chart providing an element-by-
`
`element comparison between CCI and claim 1 of the ’920 patent.
`
`43.
`
`CCI actively encourages their business partners and/or customers to use FasCard
`
`in an infringing manner. CCI encourages infringement with a specific intent to cause its business
`
`partners and customers to infringe. CCI’s acts thus constitute active inducement of patent
`
`infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`44.
`
`To the extent FasCard, without more, does not directly infringe at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’920 patent, CCI contributes to infringement of the same under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) inasmuch
`
`as the infringing products offered for sale and sold by CCI is a component 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 ’920 patent.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 11 of 16
`
`45.
`
`CCI’s direct infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement of
`
`infringement have irreparably harmed PayRange. On information and belief, PayRange has lost
`
`prospective customers and was forced to compete against its own technology, at least in part, due
`
`to CCI’s infringement. The continued infringement harms PayRange’s reputation in the
`
`marketplace and discourages other potential customers from purchasing PayRange’s solutions.
`
`These reputational and business harms cannot be adequately remedied by monetary
`
`compensation.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI will continue to infringe the ’920 patent unless
`
`enjoined.
`
`47.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, PayRange is entitled to damages adequate to
`
`compensate for the infringement, including a reasonable royalty and/or lost profits. PayRange
`
`notified CCI of its infringement even prior to issuance of the ’920 patent.
`
`48.
`
`This case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and PayRange
`
`is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`COUNT III
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’423 PATENT
`
`49.
`
`PayRange realleges and incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs
`
`of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`PayRange is the assignee and owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’423 patent. PayRange has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any product
`
`embodying the ’423 patent throughout the United States, and to import any product embodying
`
`the ’423 patent into the United States.
`
`51.
`
`A significant advantage of the ’423 patent is the ability to identify payment
`
`accepting units based on an identifier corresponding to the payment accepting units. Another
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 12 of 16
`
`significant advantage is displaying a visual indication of the payment accepting units.
`
`Completing a transaction after establishing a wireless communication was another significant
`
`advantage. These advantages were not routine, well-understood or conventional.
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI has and is infringing at least claim 1 of the ’423
`
`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 such as FasCard
`
`app, covered by one or more claims of the ’423 patent to the injury of PayRange. CCI is directly
`
`infringing, literally infringing, and/or infringing the ’423 patent under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. CCI is thus liable for infringement of the ’423 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a).
`
`53.
`
`Exhibit 6, which is incorporated herein, includes a chart providing an element-
`
`by-element comparison between CCI and claim 1 of the ’423 patent.
`
`54.
`
`CCI actively encourages its business partners, end-users and/or customers to, for
`
`instance, use FasCard in an infringing manner. CCI encourages infringement with a specific
`
`intent to cause its business partners and customers to infringe. CCI’s acts thus constitute active
`
`inducement of patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`55.
`
`To the extent FasCard, without more, does not directly infringe at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’423 patent, CCI contributes to infringement of the same under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) inasmuch
`
`as the infringing products offered for sale and sold by CCI is a component 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 ’423 patent.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 13 of 16
`
`56.
`
`CCI’s direct infringement, contributory infringement, and inducement of
`
`infringement have irreparably harmed PayRange. On information and belief, PayRange has lost
`
`prospective customers and was forced to compete against its own technology, at least in part, due
`
`to CCI’s infringement. The continued infringement harms PayRange’s reputation in the
`
`marketplace and discourages other potential customers from purchasing PayRange’s solutions.
`
`These reputational and business harms cannot be adequately remedied by monetary
`
`compensation.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI will continue to infringe the ’423 patent unless
`
`enjoined.
`
`58.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, PayRange is entitled to damages adequate to
`
`compensate for the infringement, including a reasonable royalty and/or lost profits. PayRange
`
`notified CCI of its infringement even prior to issuance of the ’423 patent.
`
`59.
`
`This case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and PayRange
`
`is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`COUNT IV
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’772 PATENT
`
`60.
`
`PayRange realleges and incorporates the allegations of the preceding paragraphs
`
`of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`PayRange is the assignee and owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’772 patent. PayRange has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any product
`
`embodying the ’772 patent throughout the United States, and to import any product embodying
`
`the ’772 patent into the United States.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 14 of 16
`
`62.
`
`A significant advantage of the ’772 patent is the capability to display multiple
`
`payment accepting units on a mobile device. This allows a user to select one of many different
`
`machines and initiate payment to the selected machine using a mobile device.
`
`63.
`
`The ’772 patent was unconventional in several respects. For example, claim 11 of
`
`the ’772 patent was unconventional. Before users request products and/or services, the mobile
`
`payment application shows available payment accepting units and the prepared balance. When
`
`users request products and/or services, the mobile payment application shows an indication of
`
`the initiation of transaction. Conventionally, the information described above was not easily
`
`accessible to users or the information was shown on the interfaces of the payment accepting
`
`units, which were limited in the amount and the type of information that can be displayed.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI has and is infringing claim 11 of the ’772
`
`patent in this District and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, directly or
`
`through intermediaries, using products with mobile payment functionality, covered by claim 11
`
`of the ’772 patent to the injury of PayRange. CCI is directly infringing, literally infringing,
`
`and/or infringing the ’772 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. CCI is thus liable for
`
`infringement of the ’772 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`65.
`
`Exhibit 6, which is incorporated herein, provides an element-by-element
`
`comparison between CCI and claim 11 of the ’772 patent.
`
`66.
`
`CCI actively encourages their business partners and/or customers to use FasCard
`
`in an infringing manner. CCI encouraged infringement with a specific intent to cause its business
`
`partners and customers to infringe. CCI’s acts thus constitute active inducement of patent
`
`infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 15 of 16
`
`67.
`
`CCI’s direct infringement and inducement of infringement have irreparably
`
`harmed PayRange. On information and belief, PayRange has lost prospective customers and was
`
`forced to compete against its own technology, at least in part, due to CCI’s infringement. The
`
`continued infringement harms PayRange’s reputation in the marketplace and discouraging other
`
`potential customers from purchasing PayRange’s solutions. These reputational and business
`
`harms cannot be adequately remedied by monetary compensation.
`
`68.
`
`Upon information and belief, CCI will continue to infringe the ’772 patent unless
`
`enjoined.
`
`69.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, PayRange is entitled to damages adequate to
`
`compensate for the infringement.
`
`70.
`
`This case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and PayRange
`
`is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, PayRange requests that the Court find in its favor and against CCI, and
`
`that the Court grant PayRange the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that CCI infringes the patents-in-suit;
`
`b. Judgment that CCI is jointly and severally liable for infringement of the patents-in-
`
`suit.
`
`c. That PayRange be granted with injunctive relief against CCI and its officers,
`
`employees, agents, servants, attorneys, instrumentalities, and/or those in privity with
`
`them, to prevent the recurrence of the infringing activities complained of herein,
`
`including an injunction against further installations of infringing payment modules,
`
`discontinue providing service to installed modules practicing infringing technology,
`
`and removing all infringing mobile apps from all third party app stores such as the
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00339-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/24/24 Page 16 of 16
`
`Google Play Store and Apple App Store, and for all further proper injunctive relief
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
`
`d. Judgment that CCI account for and pay to PayRange all damages and costs incurred
`
`by PayRange, caused by CCI’s infringing activities complained of herein;
`
`e.
`
`Judgment that CCI willfully infringed and increase the damages award to PayRange
`
`up to three times the amount assessed, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`f. That PayRange be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages;
`
`g. That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award PayRange reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`h. That PayRange be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial
`
`by jury of this action.
`
`Dated: June 24, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Ryan R. Smith
`
`James C. Yoon (Admitted to Practice WDTX;
`CA State Bar No. 177155)
`Ryan R. Smith (Admitted to Practice WDTX;
`CA State Bar No. 229323)
`Jamie Y. Otto (PHV forthcoming)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff PayRange Inc.
`
`-16-
`
`