Yopima LLC v. Inmarket Media LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Inmarket Media, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00337, W.D. Tex., 08/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s geofencing products and services infringe a patent related to systems and methods for comparing demographic data of mobile device users across different geographic areas.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns location-based services, specifically using defined virtual boundaries ("geofences") to monitor mobile device locations and analyze user demographics in real-time.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have granted settlement licenses in prior litigation, but alleges these licenses did not permit the production of a patented article and therefore do not trigger marking requirements 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 Issued
2025-08-01	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 describes that conventional geolocation services on portable devices can consume significant resources, such as battery life and processing power, by continuously or frequently transmitting location queries, regardless of whether the user is near a location of interest (’038 Patent, col. 7:6-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "time-based" approach to geofencing. A device conserves resources by only beginning to determine its location at a higher frequency when a "planned arrival time" for a specific geofenced event or venue approaches (’038 Patent, col. 8:46-62). The system also aggregates location and user data from multiple devices to enable real-time, dynamic comparison of user demographics between different geofenced locations or subregions (’038 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-47).
• Technical Importance: This method aims to improve the efficiency of mobile devices performing location tracking while also enabling a novel form of location-based analytics that compares user populations across multiple distinct venues, such as different restaurants or clubs (’038 Patent, col. 1:36-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’038 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are asserted.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method): The essential elements include:
  • Receiving, by a location analyzer, an identification of a first region, a second region, and an overlapping third region.
  • 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 within the second region.
  • Comparing the user information of the users in the first subset with the user information of the users in 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 name specific products, referring generally to Defendant’s "Accused Products" and "products and services" related to geofencing (Compl. ¶3, ¶6, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and advertises "infringing products" and services that perform "infringing processes" (Compl. ¶2, ¶9). Specifically, it alleges Defendant instructs customers on the use of "systems and methods for geofencing" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that "Support for the allegations of infringement may be found in the appended table included as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶11). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint. The body of the complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe one or more of claims 1-20 of the ’038 Patent, but does not provide a narrative claim chart or an element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory (Compl. ¶12). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that Defendant's geofencing systems and services practice the patented methods for comparative demographic analysis.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: A central question will be whether discovery reveals that Defendant's systems perform the specific steps recited in the asserted claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates that Defendant's systems (1) identify distinct subsets of users in different, potentially overlapping geofences, (2) compare demographic "user information" between these subsets, and (3) generate and transmit a "comparison metric" reflecting that comparison, as required by claim 1?
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether Defendant’s location analytics, if any, fall within the scope of the patent’s claims. For instance, does the data provided by Defendant's services constitute a "comparison metric" as that term is used in the patent, or is it merely a raw data feed that does not identify a "difference" in the claimed manner?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

"comparison metric identifying a difference between users" (from Claim 1).

Context and Importance

This term appears central to the inventive concept of "comparative geofencing." The patentability of the claims may rely on this step of not just collecting data, but actively comparing data between two subregions and generating a specific output. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine whether a wide range of location-analytics services infringe, or only those that produce a very specific type of comparative output.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the "comparison metric" can encompass various types of statistical data, stating the location analyzer can compare "user information" and transmit a metric identifying a "difference between users of the first subset... and users of the second subset" (’038 Patent, col. 4:32-36). This could be read broadly to include any output that allows a third party to discern a difference.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s examples and figures provide specific examples of what is compared, such as "gender ratio" and "Average Age" (e.g., ’038 Patent, Fig. 4B; col. 15:43-53). A party could argue that the term "comparison metric" should be limited to these types of direct demographic comparisons, rather than more abstract or raw data outputs.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is premised on allegations that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that 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" (Compl. ¶12-13). It also includes a conditional claim for willfulness and treble damages, contingent on discovery revealing that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶VI.e).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim elements, instead deferring to a non-proffered exhibit. A threshold issue will be whether discovery uncovers evidence that Defendant's geofencing services actually perform the specific multi-step method of claim 1, particularly the comparison of demographic data between distinct sub-regions and the generation of a resulting "metric."
2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim construction, centered on the meaning of "comparison metric." The key question for the court will be whether this term requires a specific, quantitative demographic output (like the gender ratios and ages shown in the patent’s figures), or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any data output from which a user could infer differences between populations in two geofenced areas.
3. Indirect and Willful Infringement: Given that the direct infringement allegations are based on the actions of Defendant's customers using its platform, the claims for indirect infringement will be critical. The viability of these claims, and any claim for willfulness, will depend on what evidence emerges regarding Defendant's knowledge of the patent and its specific intent to encourage the allegedly infringing activities.