Yopima LLC v. DoorDash Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Doordash, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00385, W.D. Tex., 08/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s food delivery platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for location tracking and comparative analysis within defined geographic areas (geofences).
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using time-based triggers for location queries on mobile devices to conserve resources and enabling the comparison of user demographics across different geofenced locations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have previously granted settlement licenses to other entities, though it asserts none of these licenses were for producing a patented article that would trigger marking requirements.

Case Timeline

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

• 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 notes that conventional geolocation services on portable devices can consume significant resources, such as battery life and processing power, by continuously transmitting location queries, regardless of whether the user is near a relevant location. (’038 Patent, col. 7:7-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "time-based" geofencing system. A portable device receives an identification of a region and a "planned arrival time." The device conserves resources by only beginning to determine its location when the current time is within a predetermined window before that planned arrival. (’038 Patent, col. 1:42-53). A central server can also use location data from multiple devices to identify and compare demographic information (e.g., gender ratios, average age) between different geofenced subregions, such as two different nightclubs. (’038 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-50).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to make location-based services more efficient by reducing unnecessary power consumption while also enabling real-time, dynamic comparison of user groups across different physical locations. (’038 Patent, col. 1:33-41).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20. (’038 Patent, col. 23:1-26:26; Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a method claim directed to a central "location analyzer," and its essential elements include:
    • Receiving an identification of a first region, a second region, and a third, larger region that includes the first two.
    • Receiving arrival notifications from multiple 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 the user information of the first subset against 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 other claims, including 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 related products and services." (Compl. ¶¶3, 12). The context implies the accused instrumentality is the DoorDash platform, which utilizes "systems and methods for geofencing." (Compl. ¶13).

• Functionality and Market Context:

  • The DoorDash platform is a service that connects customers with merchants and delivery drivers ("Dashers"). It relies on geolocation technology to track the location of Dashers, provide estimated times of arrival to customers, and manage delivery logistics.
  • The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality of the accused platform beyond general allegations that it practices the claimed methods of the ’038 Patent. (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’038 Patent but does not provide a detailed infringement theory or claim chart, instead referring to an appended table (Exhibit B) that was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint’s narrative theory is limited to broad assertions that Defendant’s products and services, through their use of geofencing, practice the methods claimed in the patent-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶6, 13).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires comparing user information between two distinct subsets of users in different subregions to generate a "comparison metric." The patent specification describes this in the context of comparing social demographics at venues like nightclubs. (’038 Patent, col. 12:32-38). A primary question will be whether the DoorDash platform, which tracks individual drivers for logistical purposes, performs any function that could be construed as the claimed "comparing" of user groups to generate and transmit such a "metric."
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the DoorDash system performs the specific step of transmitting a "comparison metric" as required by claim 1? The infringement analysis may focus on whether the platform’s internal processing of driver location data for delivery coordination and efficiency constitutes the specific comparative analysis claimed by the patent, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical purpose and operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "comparison metric" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the "comparative geofencing" concept. The outcome of the case may depend on whether any data generated and transmitted by the DoorDash system qualifies as a "comparison metric identifying a difference between users" of two distinct groups.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which may support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any data that reflects a difference between two groups.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly frames the comparison in terms of demographics, such as gender ratios and average ages at social venues, which may suggest a narrower construction tied to user attributes rather than logistical data. (’038 Patent, col. 12:32-45). The claim itself requires the metric to identify a difference "between users," not just between device locations or operational states. (’038 Patent, col. 24:10-14).

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

  • Context and Importance: This active step defines the core analysis performed by the claimed "location analyzer." Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will require evidence that the accused system actively compares data associated with one group of users (e.g., Dashers near Restaurant A) against data from another group (e.g., Dashers near Restaurant B).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that any server-side process that evaluates data from two user groups in relation to each other meets this limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description shows this comparison is for demographic purposes, stating the location analyzer "may identify a gender ratio of users in the geofenced region." (’038 Patent, col. 12:28-30). This context suggests the comparison is more than a simple logistical calculation and is tied to the attributes of the users themselves.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶¶12-13). It asserts inducement based on Defendant allegedly encouraging and instructing customers on how to use its services. (Compl. ¶12). It supports contributory infringement with the conclusory allegation that "[t]he only reasonable uses of the products and services are infringing uses." (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’038 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which may support a claim for post-filing willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶12-13). Plaintiff also reserves the right to amend its complaint if discovery reveals evidence of pre-suit knowledge. (Compl. ¶12, fn. 1).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the "comparative geofencing" system described in the ’038 Patent, which is rooted in the context of comparing social demographics of user groups at venues, be construed to cover a delivery and logistics platform that tracks individual drivers for operational efficiency?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: what evidence, if any, demonstrates that the accused DoorDash platform performs the specific, multi-step method of Claim 1, particularly by "comparing user information" of two distinct user subsets to generate and transmit a "comparison metric," as opposed to simply monitoring individual driver locations for logistical purposes?