DCT
2:25-cv-00533
Yillio Inc v. Uber Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yillio, Inc. (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00533, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district through its subsidiary, Uber Freight US LLC, located in Frisco, Texas. The complaint advances an alter ego theory to attribute the subsidiary's physical presence to the parent company.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ride-hailing, delivery, and freight logistics services infringe patents related to providing route-based advertising and vendor information.
Technical Context: The technology at issue occupies the domain of location-based services, specifically systems that identify vendors or points of interest in geographic proximity to a user’s planned travel route for advertising and informational purposes.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the three patents-in-suit belong to the same family; U.S. Patent No. 8,650,176 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 8,285,696, and U.S. Patent No. 8,943,037 is a continuation of the application that led to the '176 Patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-06-09 | Priority Date for ’696, ’176, and ’037 Patents |
| 2012-10-09 | U.S. Patent No. 8,285,696 Issues |
| 2014-02-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,650,176 Issues |
| 2015-01-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,943,037 Issues |
| 2021-XX-XX | Uber acquires Transplace, establishing Frisco, TX office |
| 2025-10-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,285,696 - "Apparatus and methods for providing route-based advertising and vendor-reported business information over a network," issued October 9, 2012 (’696 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes prior art methods for finding information like fuel prices as being reliant on potentially outdated "spotter networks" or databases that are tied to a specific location (e.g., zip code) rather than a dynamic travel path (Compl. ¶42; ’696 Patent, col. 1:39-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a user provides a "contemplated route" to a system (Compl. ¶41). The system then accesses a database of "self-reported business information" previously supplied by vendors through a dedicated interface and provides the user with information and advertisements from vendors based on their geographic proximity to that specific route (’696 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-57). A key aspect is that the vendor interface allows vendors to specify an advertising budget, which influences the advertising provided to the user (Compl. ¶44). The user workflow is illustrated in Figure 4 of the patent (’696 Patent, FIG. 4).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method shifted from static, area-based searches to dynamic, route-centric queries that could leverage vendor-supplied, real-time data (Compl. ¶43, 46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶91).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- receiving from a user a query identifying a contemplated route;
- accessing a computer database of self-reported business information from vendors, where that information was supplied by vendors through a vendor interface;
- providing the user with business information from a set of vendors extracted from the database based on geographic proximity to the route, where the vendor interface is configured to allow each vendor to specify an advertising budget; and
- providing the user with advertising from that set of vendors based, at least in part, on the advertising budgets supplied by the vendors.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,650,176 - "Apparatus and methods for providing route-based advertising and vendor-reported business information over a network," issued February 11, 2014 (’176 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '696 Patent, the '176 Patent addresses the same problem of providing route-specific vendor information that is more accurate and relevant than prior art location-based search methods (Compl. ¶56; ’176 Patent, col. 1:21-51).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively similar to that of the '696 Patent, involving a system that receives a user-defined route and provides vendor information and advertising based on proximity to that route (Compl. ¶58). The claims of the '176 Patent, however, introduce a distinct commercial element: the pricing of the advertising itself (’176 Patent, col. 16:1-5).
- Technical Importance: This patent builds on the route-based advertising model by adding a specific mechanism for monetizing the advertisements based on a vendor's distance from the user's path (Compl. ¶57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶113).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- receiving from a user a query identifying a contemplated route;
- accessing a computer database of self-reported business information supplied by vendors through a vendor interface;
- providing the user with business information for a set of vendors extracted based on geographic proximity to the route;
- providing advertising to the user from that set of vendors; and
- pricing the advertising based, at least in part, on the distance of each vendor's geographic location from the contemplated route.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,943,037 - "Apparatus and methods for providing route-based advertising and vendor-reported business information over a network," issued January 27, 2015 (’037 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’037 Patent relates to a method of providing advertising to a user or a community of users over a network (Compl. ¶68). The method involves receiving a route query, accessing a database of self-reported vendor information, and delivering information and advertisements to the user based on the vendors' geographic proximity to the route and their specified advertising budgets (Compl. ¶71, 75).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶133).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Uber's Multi-Store Ordering Feature, and the Powerloop and Fuel Finder functionalities of Uber Freight, of infringing the '037 Patent (Compl. ¶129).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "Uber, Uber Eats, MultiStore Ordering services, and Uber Freight" services, and specifically calls out the "Powerloop" and "Fuel Finder" features within Uber Freight and the "Multi-Store Ordering Feature" within Uber Eats (Compl. ¶77-79).
Functionality and Market Context
- Uber Eats Multi-Store Ordering: This feature allows a user, after placing an order from one merchant, to "Bundle another store" (Compl. p. 22). The complaint alleges the application suggests "nearby merchants whose orders can be conveniently bundled" based on the initial delivery address, which defines a route (Compl. ¶87, 89; p. 22). The complaint provides a screenshot from the Uber Eats app showing a "Bundle another store" button appearing after items have been added to the cart (Compl. p. 22).
- Uber Freight Fuel Finder: This is described as a "map-based tool" within the Uber Freight app that helps carriers find fuel prices along a route (Compl. ¶87). It allegedly displays "real-time pricing information" and shows participating truck stops that offer discounts, allowing a user to "map your stops" (Compl. p. 20). A screenshot from the Uber Freight website depicts a mobile interface with a map showing truck stops and associated fuel prices (Compl. p. 20).
- Uber Freight Powerloop: This service is alleged to provide a system to "match forward and backhauls on a route, booking multiple shipments" or to bundle "multiple loads bundled across Uber Freight's network" (Compl. ¶87, p. 21).
- The complaint positions Uber as the "largest ridesharing company in the world" and alleges these features provide it with "competitive advantages in the retail market" (Compl. ¶76, 81).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,285,696 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) receiving from the user a query identifying a contemplated route; | A user provides a delivery address in Uber Eats or identifies a shipping route in Uber Freight's Powerloop or Fuel Finder features, which the complaint alleges constitutes a contemplated route. | ¶86 | col. 5:22-24 |
| (b) accessing a computer database of self-reported business information from vendors, ... wherein the self-reported business information has been previously supplied by the vendors through a vendor interface... | Uber's systems access a database of information provided by its restaurant and carrier partners (vendors) who allegedly supply their own information, such as geographic location, through a sign-up web page or other interface. | ¶87 | col. 6:4-10 |
| (c) providing to the user, ... information from the database concerning the business information of a set of vendors extracted from the database on the basis of geographic proximity to the route ... and wherein the vendor interface is configured so that each vendor can also specify an advertising budget; | The Uber Eats app suggests additional stores for "bundling" based on geographic proximity to the delivery route. The complaint alleges that vendors can specify an advertising budget to Uber. Uber Freight's Fuel Finder shows nearby fuel stops with pricing information. | ¶89 | col. 2:50-57 |
| (d) providing to the user, ... in response to the query, advertising from the set of vendors based, at least in part, ... on advertising budgets supplied by the set of vendors. | The suggestions for bundled stores, discounted delivery rates on Uber Eats, and discounted fuel prices on Uber Freight are alleged to be advertisements from vendors that are based on advertising budgets they have provided. | ¶90 | col. 15:67-col. 16:2 |
U.S. Patent No. 8,650,176 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) receiving from the user a query identifying a contemplated route; | A user provides a delivery address in Uber Eats or identifies a shipping route in Uber Freight, which is alleged to be a contemplated route. | ¶108 | col. 5:22-24 |
| (b) accessing a computer database of self-reported business information from vendors... | Uber's systems access a database of information provided by its restaurant and carrier partners, who allegedly "self-report" information like geographic location via a vendor interface. | ¶109 | col. 6:4-10 |
| (c) providing to the user, ... information from the database concerning the business information of a set of vendors extracted from the database on the basis of geographic proximity... | The Uber Eats app suggests additional merchants for bundling based on proximity to the delivery route. Uber Freight's Fuel Finder shows nearby fuel stops. | ¶110 | col. 2:50-57 |
| (d) providing to the user, ... advertising from the set of vendors based, at least in part, on data retrieved from the database... | Uber Eats allegedly provides specials and discounted delivery rates based on retrieved data. Uber Freight provides discounted fuel prices. | ¶111 | col. 16:1-5 |
| (e) pricing the advertising based, at least in part, on distance of each vendor's geographic location from the contemplated route. | The complaint alleges, without providing specific supporting facts, that the Accused Products price the advertising based on the distance of the vendor (e.g., restaurant or truck stop) from the user's defined route. | ¶112 | col. 16:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether a point-to-point food delivery path or a freight logistics lane, as used in the accused services, falls within the scope of a "contemplated route" as that term is used in the patents, which provide examples centered on personal vehicle travel and refueling stops.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the '696 and '037 Patents hinges on the existence of a vendor-specified "advertising budget." The complaint's factual support for this element is an assertion without direct citation from the provided source materials (Compl. ¶89; p.22). The case may turn on what evidence demonstrates that Uber's partners provide or use a feature that functions as an "advertising budget" as required by the claims.
- Evidentiary Questions: For the '176 Patent, the complaint makes a conclusory allegation that Uber's services "price the advertising based, at least in part, on distance" but does not provide details on the mechanism by which this is allegedly accomplished (Compl. ¶112). A key point of contention will likely be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that such a distance-based pricing model for advertising is in use.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"contemplated route"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to all asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether the patents can read on the accused functionalities, which include single-destination food delivery and commercial freight hauling, in contrast to the patents' exemplary embodiments focusing on personal vehicle journeys with potential "fillups" ('696 Patent, FIG. 4). Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a simple delivery address constitutes a "route" in the patented sense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit the "route" to a specific type of travel or purpose. The specification mentions a user may "conduct a product-based query that locates particular products along the contemplated route," which is not inherently limited to fuel ('696 Patent, col. 6:1-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section is heavily focused on solving problems related to finding vehicular "fuel prices" ('696 Patent, col. 1:23-26). Figures and descriptions often use terminology like "Plan my fillup," "vehicle type," and "tank volume," suggesting the context of personal vehicle navigation ('696 Patent, FIG. 4).
"advertising budget"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of the '696 and '037 patents and is central to the infringement allegation. The dispute may focus on whether Uber's commercial arrangements with its partners (e.g., commission fees, promotional spending) meet the claim's requirement for a vendor-specified "budget."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a rigid definition, stating only that the vendor interface is configured so a vendor "can also specify an advertising budget" ('696 Patent, col. 16:39-40). This could arguably encompass various forms of financial input that influence ad serving.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's Figure 14, depicting a user interface for "AdRoute," includes a field for "Advertising Budget" with dollar amounts and, notably, a "Remaining Budget" display ('696 Patent, FIG. 14). This may support an argument that the term requires a specific, pre-allocated fund that is depleted as advertisements are served, rather than a more general commission or promotional model.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents, asserting that Uber "knowingly induces, aids, and directs others to use the Accused Products" through its "promotions and instructions" in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶¶97, 101, 119, 122, 139, 143).
- Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful," it requests trebled damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶G). The allegation of knowledge is based on Defendant being aware of the patents "at least since the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶95, 117, 137), which suggests the claim for enhanced damages is predicated on alleged post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "contemplated route," which is described in the patents' specification in the context of personal vehicle navigation for fuel, be construed to cover a single-destination delivery path in a food-ordering app or a commercial freight lane in a logistics platform?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Uber's systems for suggesting merchants or services utilize a vendor-specified "advertising budget" as required by two of the patents, and, more critically for the '176 patent, that this advertising is priced based on the vendor's distance from the user's path?
- A threshold procedural question will be one of corporate identity: will the complaint’s alter ego allegations be sufficient to attribute the physical presence of Defendant’s subsidiary in Frisco, Texas to the parent corporation for the purpose of establishing venue in the Eastern District of Texas?