Yopima LLC v. Curb Mobility LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Curb Mobility, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05397, E.D.N.Y., 09/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to systems and methods for comparing user demographics within different geofenced areas.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to location-based services and geofencing, a method of defining virtual boundaries for real-world geographic areas, which is a foundational technology for ride-sharing, logistics, and targeted marketing applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have granted prior "settlement licenses" to other entities in different litigation, which it argues did not create a patent marking requirement under 35 U.S.C. §287.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-05-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038 Priority Date
2015-08-25	U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038 Issues
2025-09-25	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038 - "Systems and methods for Comparative Geofencing"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038, "Systems and methods for Comparative Geofencing," issued August 25, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that portable devices with geolocation capabilities often transmit frequent location queries to a service provider, which can needlessly consume device resources like battery life, bandwidth, and processing power, especially when the user is not near a relevant geofenced area (’038 Patent, col. 7:6-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a time-based geofencing method where a portable device activates its location-querying function only when a user's current time is within a predetermined window before a "planned arrival time" at a geofenced location (’038 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:43-50). This conserves device resources by avoiding constant tracking. The system also enables the collection of geolocation data from multiple users to allow for real-time, dynamic comparison of user demographics (e.g., gender ratios, age groups) between different locations or sub-regions within a larger geofence (’038 Patent, col. 1:38-42; Fig. 4B).
• Technical Importance: This approach addresses the critical challenge of power consumption in mobile devices by linking location tracking to a specific event timeline rather than having it operate continuously, while also providing a framework for location-based demographic analytics.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’038 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving, by a location analyzer, an identification of a first, second, and third region, where the third region (defined by a third geofence) includes the first and second regions.
  • Receiving a plurality of arrival notifications from devices that have entered the third region.
  • Receiving user information for the user of each device.
  • Identifying a first subset of devices within the first region and a second subset of devices within the second region.
  • Comparing user information of the users of the first subset with user information of the users of the second subset.
  • Transmitting a comparison metric that identifies a difference between the users of the two subsets.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify a specific accused product or service by name (Compl. ¶6). It refers generally to "products and related products and services" and "systems and methods for geofencing" offered by Defendant Curb Mobility, LLC (Compl. ¶12-13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of claims 1-20 of the ’038 Patent but provides no narrative infringement theory in the body of the complaint. It instead refers to an "appended table included as Exhibit B" for support, which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11). Consequently, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

• Identified Points of Contention: The lack of specific allegations raises foundational questions for the dispute.
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the Defendant's mobility platform can be shown to perform the "comparative" aspect of the asserted claims. Specifically, does the accused system identify distinct subsets of users in separate sub-regions (e.g., two different city blocks) within a larger geographic area and then actively compare their demographic information as required by Claim 1?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system utilizes a nested, three-tiered geofence architecture (a larger region containing two smaller, distinct regions)? The complaint does not describe the architecture of the accused system, making this a central point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "comparing user information of the users of the first subset... and user information of the users of the second subset"

• Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the "comparative geofencing" concept. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused system performs an active comparison of user data between two distinct groups, or merely collects location data without such a comparison. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific data processing step beyond simple location tracking.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the type of "user information" or the nature of the "comparing" step, potentially allowing for a wide range of analytical operations to meet the limitation (’038 Patent, col. 23:7-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures provide specific examples of comparing demographic data, such as "Gender ratio" and "Average Age," presented in a table format (e.g., Fig. 4B). A defendant may argue this context limits the claim to explicit demographic comparisons rather than other forms of data analysis.

• The Term: "a third region defined by a third geofence including the first region and second region"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required spatial relationship between the geofences. Infringement requires proof that the accused system utilizes this specific nested architecture. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused system's architecture maps onto this three-part structure.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes geofences abstractly as defining "geographic locations" of any shape or size, which could support an argument that any system with larger and smaller monitored areas meets the limitation (’038 Patent, col. 5:57-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4A depicts a clear architecture where a large geofence (400A) wholly contains smaller, non-overlapping sub-region geofences (400B, 400C, 400D). This visual embodiment may be used to argue that the "including" limitation requires a distinct, hierarchical relationship between the defined regions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). For inducement, it alleges Defendant instructed customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner. For contributory infringement, it alleges the products are not staple articles of commerce and that their only reasonable uses are infringing (Compl. ¶13). These allegations are not supported by specific facts in the complaint.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’038 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). This pleading seeks to establish a basis for willful infringement based on post-filing conduct. The prayer for relief also seeks a finding of willfulness should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: given the complaint's lack of factual detail, can Plaintiff produce evidence in discovery to demonstrate that the accused mobility platform actually performs the specific multi-step method of Claim 1, including the required comparison of user demographics between two distinct sub-regions?
• A key technical question will be one of architectural alignment: does the accused system’s underlying geofencing architecture map onto the nested, three-tiered structure required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed invention and the technical operation of the accused services?