DCT

7:25-cv-00306

Yopima LLC v. Cellco Partnership

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC (Delaware)
    • Defendant: Cellco Partnership ("Verizon") (Delaware)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00306, W.D. Tex., 10/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant sells products and services within the district and maintains a regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Verizon Family mobile application and associated services infringe a patent related to time-based and comparative geofencing.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for optimizing location queries on mobile devices to conserve resources and systems for comparing the demographics of users across multiple defined geographic areas.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses that it has granted prior settlement licenses, while arguing that these licenses do not trigger patent marking obligations under 35 U.S.C. § 287 because they were executed to terminate litigation without any admission of infringement.

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 Issue Date
2025-10-29 Complaint Filing Date

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 describes that conventional geolocation systems on portable devices tend to consume significant resources, such as battery power and processing cycles, by continuously performing location queries regardless of the user's proximity to a location of interest. ('038 Patent, col. 5:50-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes "time-based geolocation queries" where a mobile device reduces its query frequency until a pre-set "planned arrival time" approaches, at which point it can increase query frequency for higher accuracy. ('038 Patent, col. 1:32-40; Fig. 1B). The patent also describes a central system that can receive location data from multiple devices within various defined "subregions" and perform a "real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between locations," such as different restaurants or clubs. ('038 Patent, col. 1:40-45; Fig. 4B).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was designed to make location-based applications on battery-powered devices more efficient while enabling new functionalities, such as providing real-time demographic analytics for different venues or events. ('038 Patent, col. 12:30-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 7 and independent method claim 13. (Compl. ¶¶14, 16).
  • Independent Claim 7 (System): This claim is directed to a computing device with a "location analyzer" that performs the following essential steps:
    • Receiving an identification of a large geofence (a "third region") containing at least two smaller, distinct geofences (a "first region" and a "second region").
    • Receiving "arrival notifications" from multiple devices as they enter the large geofence.
    • Receiving "user information" for the user of each device.
    • Identifying a first subset of devices within the first smaller geofence and a second subset within the second smaller geofence.
    • "Comparing user information" of the first subset of users against the second subset.
    • Transmitting a "comparison metric" that identifies a difference between the users of the two subsets.
  • Independent Claim 13 (Method): This claim is directed to a method performed by a portable computing device, comprising the essential steps of:
    • Receiving an identification of a "first geofence."
    • Determining the device's current location and comparing it to the geofence.
    • Transmitting an "arrival notification" when the device is determined to be within the geofence.
    • The arrival notification must include an identification of the device's current location within one of a plurality of subregions of the first geofence.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of claims 1-20 and claims dependent on claims 7 and 13. (Compl. ¶¶14, 18, 19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Verizon Family application and its related websites and technology platform ("Service"). (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused Service as a tool that "allows users to locate each other through their mobile devices and helps parents and guardians monitor and manage their child's call, text and online activity." (Compl. ¶12). This functionality inherently involves location tracking and reporting between mobile devices and a central system. The complaint alleges that Defendant receives payment for the service via a "periodic service fee." (Compl. ¶14).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibit B and Exhibit C as support for its infringement allegations but does not include these exhibits in the provided filing. (Compl. ¶¶13, 16). The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theories presented in the body of the complaint.

  • Infringement Theory Summary: The complaint advances theories of both direct and vicarious infringement. It alleges that Verizon's "Technology Platform" directly infringes method claim 13 by providing the geofencing services. (Compl. ¶17). It also alleges that Verizon is liable for its users' infringement of system claim 7 and method claim 13 because Verizon "directs, controls and should otherwise be vicariously liable for its customer's (user's) use." (Compl. ¶¶14-16).

    • Allegations for Claim 7 (System): The complaint alleges that Verizon's platform acts as the claimed "computing device" that receives location information ("arrival notifications") from its users' devices. (Compl. ¶¶14-15). It further alleges that this system is used to track users within defined geographic areas. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not, however, contain specific factual allegations that the Verizon Family service performs the claim steps of "comparing user information" between different subsets of users or "transmitting a comparison metric" reflecting demographic differences.
    • Allegations for Claim 13 (Method): The complaint alleges that users of the Verizon Family App perform the claimed method by using their mobile devices to set geofences, determine their location relative to those geofences, and trigger the transmission of arrival notifications. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide specific facts explaining how the accused app's notification includes an identification of the device's location "within one of a plurality of subregions" of a larger geofence, as required by the claim.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A central question for claim 7 infringement may be whether the Verizon Family service, described as a parental monitoring tool, can be shown to perform the "comparing user information" and "transmitting a comparison metric" elements. The patent specification heavily frames these elements in the context of comparing crowd demographics at public venues, raising the question of whether the claim's scope can extend to the alleged functionality of the accused service. ('038 Patent, col. 12:30-39, Fig. 4B).
    • Technical Questions: For claim 13, a key factual question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused app's "arrival notification" identifies the user's location within a specific, predefined "subregion" of a larger geofence, rather than simply providing a set of geographic coordinates.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "comparison metric" (from Claim 7)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for infringement of system claim 7, as it relates to the core "comparative" aspect of the invention. The dispute may turn on whether any data generated by the accused system qualifies as such a metric. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint lacks specific allegations that the accused service generates demographic comparisons like those described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the metric to identify "a difference between users," which could be argued to encompass any data that differentiates one group of users from another, not necessarily limited to demographics. ('038 Patent, col. 23:13-17).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract, summary, and detailed embodiments consistently describe this concept in the context of comparing demographic information, such as gender ratios and average ages between locations. ('038 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4B; col. 12:35-39). This context may support a narrower construction limited to demographic or statistical comparisons.

  • The Term: "subregions" (from Claim 13)

    • Context and Importance: Infringement of method claim 13 requires the transmitted arrival notification to identify a location within one of several "subregions." The case may depend on whether these subregions must be explicitly predefined areas or if any coordinate-based location report implicitly satisfies this element.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not explicitly state that the subregions must be predefined by a user or a system prior to the notification. An argument could be made that any sufficiently precise location coordinate falls within an implicit subregion (e.g., a grid cell on a map).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification illustrates subregions as distinct, bounded areas within a larger region, such as individual buildings or venues. ('038 Patent, Fig. 4A; col. 15:19-24). This suggests that "subregions" refer to discrete, identified zones rather than arbitrary divisions of a geographic space.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Verizon actively encourages and instructs its customers on how to use the allegedly infringing geofencing features of the Verizon Family service. (Compl. ¶¶18, 19). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the assertion that the service is not a "staple commercial product" and that its only reasonable uses are infringing. (Compl. ¶19).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’038 Patent from "at least the filing date of the lawsuit" to support ongoing infringement claims. (Compl. ¶¶18, 19). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages if discovery reveals that Defendant had knowledge of the patent prior to the suit being filed. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim elements of "comparing user information" and transmitting a "comparison metric," which are described in the patent in the context of analyzing crowd demographics at public venues, be construed to read on the alleged features of a parental location-monitoring service?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional sufficiency: does the complaint provide, or can discovery reveal, sufficient factual support that the accused Verizon Family service performs specific technical functions required by the claims, such as identifying a user's location within one of a plurality of predefined "subregions" as mandated by claim 13?