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 within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services related to geofencing infringe a patent concerning systems and methods for comparing user information across different geographic zones.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of location-based services, a technology central to mobile applications for functions such as ride-hailing, marketing, and social networking, where power and data consumption are critical design constraints.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have granted settlement licenses to other entities in prior disputes. This history suggests a pattern of licensing and enforcement activity.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-05-21	’038 Patent Priority Date
2015-08-25	’038 Patent Issued
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”

Issued August 25, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of portable electronic devices consuming excessive battery power, bandwidth, and processing cycles by continuously performing location queries for geofencing applications, even when the user is not near the designated geographic area (’038 Patent, col. 1:14-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "time-based" geofencing system where a device reduces or suspends location queries until a "planned arrival time" approaches (’038 Patent, col. 2:42-48). As shown in FIG. 1B, the system can switch from a low-frequency "default query" rate to a "high query frequency" only within a specific time window relevant to the event, thereby conserving device resources (’038 Patent, col. 8:4-15). The system also enables a server to receive notifications from multiple devices across different geofenced subregions and compare the user demographics between them (’038 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-36).
• Technical Importance: This resource-conservation approach was significant for improving the user experience and feasibility of location-based mobile applications, which rely on background processes that can drain a device's battery (’038 Patent, col. 7:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’038 patent (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the server-side comparative method.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • Receiving, by a location analyzer, an identification of a first region, a second region, and a third region that includes the first two.
  • Receiving a plurality of arrival notifications from devices that have entered the third region.
  • Receiving user information for each device's user.
  • Identifying a first subset of devices within the first region and a second subset within the second region.
  • Comparing user information of the users in the first subset with the user information of the users in the second subset.
  • Transmitting a comparison metric identifying a difference between the users of the two subsets.
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product by name. It broadly refers to Defendant’s “products claimed by the patent-in-suit” (Compl. ¶6), “products and related products and services” (Compl. ¶12), and “systems and methods for geofencing” (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. It alleges in a conclusory manner that Defendant makes, uses, and sells products that practice the claimed methods (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that support for its infringement allegations is contained in an appended table (Exhibit B) (Compl. ¶11). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint. The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant’s unspecified products and services, which involve geofencing, directly and indirectly infringe one or more of claims 1-20 of the ’038 Patent (Compl. ¶6, ¶12-13). Without a claim chart or more specific factual allegations, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint lacks factual specificity regarding the accused products and their operation. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence in discovery showing that any of Defendant's systems perform the specific steps of the asserted claims, such as receiving "arrival notifications" tied to a planned time or performing a "comparison" of "user information" between distinct geofenced areas.
  • Technical Question: Assuming an accused product is identified, a key question will be whether its functionality matches the claimed invention. For instance, does the accused system merely log device locations, or does it actively perform a comparative analysis between user groups in different subregions and generate a "comparison metric" as required by claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "comparing... user information" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the "comparative geofencing" concept and is the culminating active step of claim 1. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Defendant's data processing activities can be characterized as "comparing user information" within the patent's meaning.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, referring only to "user information," which could be argued to encompass any data associated with a user, such as location history, device type, or network activity (’038 Patent, col. 23:7-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of "comparing user information" that are limited to demographic data, such as "gender ratio," "average ages," and user preferences (’038 Patent, col. 12:35-45). Figures like 4B and 7E exclusively depict demographic comparisons, which may support an interpretation that limits the claim scope to this type of analysis.

• The Term: "arrival notification" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the server-side analysis. Whether the data signals received by Defendant's system qualify as "arrival notifications" is a potential point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's resource-saving contribution is tied to timing location queries around a planned arrival.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with restrictive language in the claim itself. An argument could be made that any data packet indicating a device has entered a geofence constitutes an "arrival notification" (’038 Patent, col. 23:1-2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the system's operation to a "planned arrival time" (’038 Patent, col. 2:42-48). This context suggests that an "arrival notification" may require more than just a location ping; it may need to be generated by a device operating under the patent's time-based query logic, distinguishing it from a signal generated by a conventional, always-on location tracking system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant actively encouraged or instructed its customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the ’038 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which would only support a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willfulness if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 7).

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

• A primary threshold issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence to substantiate its conclusory allegations by identifying a specific accused product and mapping its functionality to the elements of the asserted claims, a step the complaint itself does not take?
• A central question of claim scope will be the interpretation of "comparing... user information." The dispute will likely focus on whether this term is limited to the direct demographic comparisons detailed in the specification or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other forms of data aggregation and analysis performed by a location-based service.