Via Transportation Inc v. RideCo Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Via Transportation, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Rideco Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00457, W.D. Tex., 05/03/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in the district through its operation of transit services in San Antonio, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s on-demand microtransit software and services infringe four U.S. patents related to dynamic vehicle routing and the use of "virtual bus stops."
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the "microtransit" sector, using software algorithms to optimize shared transportation by routing vehicles to dynamically assigned pick-up and drop-off points rather than fixed stops.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of infringement via a bid protest letter to the LA Metro Transit Authority in 2020. Post-filing, the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,816,824 and 10,197,411 were challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and were subsequently confirmed patentable by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-07-20	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2017-02-07	U.S. Patent No. 9,562,785 Issues
2017-11-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,816,824 Issues
2019-02-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,197,411 Issues
2020-05-26	Plaintiff allegedly informs LA Metro of Defendant's infringement
2020-06-09	U.S. Patent No. 10,677,604 Issues
2021-05-03	Complaint Filed
2021-12-14	IPR proceeding initiated against the ’824 Patent (IPR2022-00286)
2022-03-24	IPR proceeding initiated against the ’411 Patent (IPR2022-00740)
2023-09-13	IPR Certificate confirms patentability of asserted claims of ’824 Patent
2023-11-01	IPR Certificate confirms patentability of asserted claims of ’411 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,562,785 - “Continuously updatable computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles and computer transportation systems and computer-implemented methods for use thereof”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiencies of traditional transportation models. Mass public transit is described as rigid, with fixed stops and schedules that may require riders to wait for long periods and walk significant distances. Conversely, door-to-door services like taxis are inefficient for ride-sharing, as they do not optimize routes to avoid significant detours for other passengers (Compl. ¶33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method for dynamically managing a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles. The system receives ride requests in real-time and, instead of routing vehicles directly to each user's door, it assigns them to "virtual bus stops"—dynamically selected pick-up and drop-off points near the user's origin and destination. The system continuously analyzes factors like walking distance, vehicle occupancy, traffic, and existing passenger routes to generate and update vehicle assignments and schedules to optimize overall efficiency (’785 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:43-2:4).
• Technical Importance: This approach combines the demand aggregation of public transit with the on-demand flexibility of private hire vehicles, aiming to increase rider volume and vehicle utilization while lowering costs and wait times (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least dependent Claim 6, which incorporates the limitations of independent method Claim 1 (Compl. ¶37). Key elements of the asserted claim include:

• Electronically receiving, in real-time, a plurality of ride requests, each including origin and destination data.
• Electronically assessing, in real-time, at least one grid of virtual bus stops.
• Dynamically selecting a subset of candidate virtual pickup and dropoff stops based on walking distances.
• Electronically accessing current vehicle location data and ride-sharing data for vehicles with a plurality of current passengers (alleged to be at least one hundred).
• Dynamically determining candidate vehicles based on the selected stops and current ride-sharing data.
• Dynamically determining an assigned vehicle and a pair of virtual bus stops for a new rider based on maximizing vehicle occupancy and minimizing factors such as ride duration, wait time, and walking distance.
• Dynamically generating updated route schedules and displaying them.
• Continuously tracking the vehicle's location and ride-sharing data to identify conditions requiring the reassignment of stops and dynamically revising route schedules.

U.S. Patent No. 9,816,824 - “Continuously updatable computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles and computer transportation systems and computer-implemented methods for use thereof”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as its parent, the ’785 Patent: the rigidity and inconvenience of mass transit and the inefficiency of door-to-door ride-hailing services (Compl. ¶71).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer transportation system that similarly uses dynamic routing and virtual bus stops. The focus of the asserted claim is on the system's components and their interaction: receiving a ride request, receiving current vehicle GPS data, accessing a memory of virtual bus stop locations and current ride-sharing data for existing passengers, using that data to determine and assign a vehicle, updating that vehicle's route, and displaying the updated route to the driver (’824 Patent, col. 29:47-31:11).
• Technical Importance: This system architecture provides a framework for an on-demand, shared transit network that can adapt to new ride requests by considering the status of the entire active fleet and passenger load (Compl. ¶72).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent system Claim 1 (Compl. ¶75). Key elements include:

• A system with a non-transient memory and at least one computer processor.
• Receiving a ride-sharing request from a user's device, including origin and destination data.
• Receiving current vehicle location data (including GPS) for a plurality of ride-sharing vehicles.
• Accessing a memory that stores locations of a plurality of virtual bus stops.
• Accessing current ride-sharing data for passengers already riding in the vehicles.
• Determining a particular vehicle to pick up the user, where the determination is based on the current ride-sharing data.
• Assigning the vehicle a pair of virtual bus stops, with the pickup stop being "at least a block away" from the user's origin.
• Updating the vehicle's existing route schedule by inserting the assigned stops.
• Electronically displaying the updated route on a screen associated with the vehicle.

U.S. Patent No. 10,197,411 - “Continuously updatable computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles and computer transportation systems and computer-implemented methods for use thereof”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system for routing a rideshare vehicle that focuses on managing service disruptions. The system generates an initial time estimate for arrival, continuously tracks the vehicle's location to generate an updated estimate, and if the updated estimate differs from the first by a predefined threshold (e.g., due to traffic), the system cancels the initial vehicle assignment and reassigns another vehicle to the user (Compl. ¶101). Asserted Claim 1 of this patent was confirmed patentable in a 2023 IPR proceeding.
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement based on RideCo's functionality to re-route a new vehicle if the first is delayed and its marketing of guaranteed "arrive-by" times (Compl. ¶110).

U.S. Patent No. 10,677,604 - “Continuously updatable computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles and computer transportation systems and computer-implemented methods for use thereof”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system that incorporates historical data into its routing logic. The system stores and uses historic ridesharing demand data to identify "high demand areas" and directs vehicles to travel along routes that pass through these areas, thereby increasing the probability of aggregating additional riders (Compl. ¶125).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶127).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement based on RideCo's statements that its technology "builds optimized itineraries" to increase passenger ride-sharing, which Plaintiff argues necessitates the use of stored historic demand data (Compl. ¶¶129, 134).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• RideCo's on-demand transit software and services, including its mobile application for riders (Compl. ¶¶36, 38).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentality is described as a software platform that allows users to book "personalized, express transit" (Compl. ¶39). The system aggregates ride requests from multiple passengers and dynamically routes a fleet of shared vehicles to designated "virtual stops" for pick-up and drop-off (Compl. ¶¶40, 42). The complaint provides a map of over 400 such virtual stops deployed for a service in San Antonio, Texas (Compl. ¶41, p.17). The system is alleged to provide users with real-time driver locations and ETAs, as well as continuous updates on ride status (Compl. ¶43). The complaint positions RideCo as a direct competitor to Via in the "microtransit" industry (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Infringement Allegations: U.S. Patent No. 9,562,785

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 as modified by Dependent Claim 6)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
electronically receiving, in real-time...a plurality of electronic riding requests from a plurality of electronic computing devices...wherein each electronic riding request...comprises: an origin location data...and a destination location data	The RideCo mobile application allows multiple users to request rides by inputting origin and destination location data. The complaint includes a screenshot of the RideCo app interface for booking a ride (Compl. p. 14).	¶39	col. 5:62-6:4
for a particular electronic riding request...electronically accessing, in real-time...at least one grid of virtual bus stops for at least one geographic locale...	RideCo uses designated pick-up/drop-off points referred to as "virtual stops" which are stored in a database. The complaint provides a map showing a dense network of such stops in San Antonio (Compl. p. 17).	¶40-41	col. 6:5-12
dynamically selecting, in real-time...from at least one grid of virtual bus stops...a subset of candidate virtual pickup bus stops and a subset of candidate virtual dropoff bus stops based, at least in part, on...walking distance...	RideCo's application dynamically generates trip options for users based on factors including reducing walking distance. A provided screenshot highlights that "Multiple options are dynamically generated" (Compl. p. 18).	¶42	col. 6:13-25
electronically accessing, in real-time...current ride-sharing data which are representative of current routes and current virtual bus stops associated with a plurality of riding passengers...currently riding in the plurality of ride-sharing vehicles	RideCo's system accesses real-time data on current routes and passengers to ensure new riders travel with others "going in the same direction."	¶44	col. 6:31-37
dynamically determining, in real-time...an assigned vehicle and a pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks...based, at least in part, on: i) maximizing a vehicle occupancy to be at least two ride-sharing passengers...and ii) minimizing at least one of...a first duration of time which each ride-sharing passenger spends in each candidate ride-sharing vehicle...a third duration of time...spends walking	The system assigns a vehicle to each rider and advertises shared rides, which allegedly maximizes occupancy to at least two passengers. It also allegedly optimizes routes to minimize factors like walking distance and wait times, as shown in marketing materials claiming to reduce average walk times from 30+ minutes to 4 minutes (Compl. p. 25).	¶47-48	col. 6:38-51
dynamically generating, in real-time...a first updated route schedule, formed by inserting the pair of assigned virtual pick-up and drop-off bus stop tasks...into an existing route schedule	Users requesting a ride are added to existing routes, which the complaint alleges shows that RideCo dynamically generates route proposals by inserting new stops into an existing schedule. The complaint provides screenshots showing a user's ability to track a ride with multiple stops (Compl. p. 27).	¶50	col. 6:55-62
causing to electronically display, in real-time...the assigned virtual pickup bus stop on a screen of a first electronic computing device associated with the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger	The RideCo app displays the rider's assigned pick-up location on the user's mobile phone screen. An annotated screenshot from a RideCo blog post shows this feature (Compl. p. 29).	¶51	col. 6:63-2:1

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether RideCo’s system performs the specific multi-factor optimization required by the claim ("maximizing...occupancy" while simultaneously "minimizing" at least one of four distinct time/duration factors). The complaint cites marketing claims about improved efficiency, which may not be sufficient to demonstrate that the accused system performs the particular complex function recited in the claim.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that RideCo's system "dynamically reassign[s]" vehicle tasks and revises routes, but the evidence cited consists of user-facing screenshots showing "continuous updates" regarding a single ride (Compl. ¶¶54-55). It is an open question whether this evidence is sufficient to show the specific claimed function of reassigning a task from a first assigned vehicle to a second assigned vehicle.

Infringement Allegations: U.S. Patent No. 9,816,824

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving a ride-sharing request from a first electronic computing device operated by a user, wherein the ride-sharing request includes origin location data...and destination location data...	RideCo's application receives ride requests containing origin and destination data from users' mobile devices.	¶78, ¶39	col. 30:57-31:2
receiving current vehicle location data for a plurality of ride-sharing vehicles...wherein the current vehicle location data includes global positioning system (GPS) data...	RideCo tracks its vehicles' locations in real-time using GPS. A "Track My Ride" screenshot in the complaint shows the real-time location of an assigned vehicle on a map (Compl. p. 20).	¶79, ¶43	col. 31:3-8
accessing a memory that stores locations of a plurality of virtual bus stops...	The complaint alleges that RideCo stores the locations of its "virtual stops" in a database for access by its system.	¶80, ¶40-41	col. 31:9-11
determining from among the plurality of ride-sharing vehicles a particular vehicle which can pick up the user, wherein at a time of determining, the particular ride-sharing vehicle is carrying other passengers...	The system determines a vehicle to assign to a new user based on factors including the routes of existing passengers, as evidenced by RideCo's statement that it ensures riders travel with passengers "going in the same direction."	¶82, ¶44	col. 31:16-24
assign[ing] the particular vehicle and a pair of associated virtual bus stops for picking up and dropping off the user...the virtual bus stop for picking up the user being at least a block away from the point of origin of the user	RideCo assigns a vehicle and a pair of virtual stops. The complaint alleges the "at least a block away" limitation is met because stops are within a "5-minute walk" and city blocks take "far less than 5 minutes to walk."	¶83	col. 31:25-29
electronically display[ing] on a screen of the at least one second electronic computing device associated with the vehicle an updated route...	The complaint alleges that because RideCo's routes are dynamic, updated routes must be communicated to and displayed on a driver's device, such as a cellular phone.	¶85, ¶52	col. 31:36-39

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: The construction of "at least a block away" will be critical. The complaint's inference that a "5-minute walk" necessarily satisfies this limitation raises a question of factual and definitional scope, as a stop could be very close to the origin (e.g., across the street) and still be within a five-minute walk.
• Evidentiary Questions: The claim requires displaying the updated route on a screen "associated with the vehicle" (i.e., for the driver). The complaint infers this must occur but provides no direct evidence, such as a screenshot of a driver-facing application, to support this element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "grid of virtual bus stops" (’785 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's architecture. Its construction will determine whether a mere collection of designated points infringes, or if a more structured, grid-like arrangement is required, which could narrow the claim scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may define the term broadly as a set of potential pickup/dropoff locations selected by the system, without requiring a specific geometric arrangement (’785 Patent, col. 8:56-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "grid" itself, and potentially figures in the patent depicting an orderly arrangement of points, could be cited to argue for a more limited, structured meaning beyond just a scattered collection of locations.

• The Term: "at least a block away" (’824 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the invention from door-to-door services and is a specific, measurable limitation. Whether the accused system meets this requirement is a central infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's supporting evidence is inferential.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background distinguishes itself from "door-to-door" services, suggesting "at least a block away" could be construed to mean any non-doorstep pickup location that requires a short walk, consistent with the overall purpose of the invention.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "block" has a common meaning in urban contexts. A defendant may argue that it implies a standard distance (e.g., the distance between intersecting streets) and that the patent provides no special definition to deviate from this plain meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that RideCo induces infringement by providing its software application to consumers and municipal partners with instructions that, when followed, directly infringe the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶63, 91, 115, 142).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on RideCo's alleged copying of Plaintiff's website content in early 2020 and a May 2020 bid protest letter in which Plaintiff explicitly accused RideCo of infringing its "patent for virtual bus stop technology" (Compl. ¶59, 87).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "at least a block away," a specific limitation of distance, be satisfied by evidence showing a designated stop is within a "5-minute walk" of a user, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent's language and the accused system's operation?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: does the complaint, relying primarily on user-facing screenshots and marketing materials, provide a sufficient factual basis to plausibly allege that RideCo's backend algorithms perform the specific, multi-part optimization functions of the ’785 Patent and use the historic demand data required by the ’604 Patent?
• A third central issue relates to willfulness: given the explicit pre-suit notice alleged in the 2020 bid protest letter regarding the "virtual bus stop" patent technology, the question for the court will be the extent to which that knowledge applies across the entire asserted patent family and whether Defendant's continued conduct after that date was objectively reckless.