Yopima LLC v. Neutron Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., D/B/A LIME (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00386, W.D. Tex., 08/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing an office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s location-based services infringe a patent related to comparative geofencing, which involves tracking and comparing demographic information of users across different defined geographic areas.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that monitor the presence and demographics of mobile device users within multiple, potentially overlapping, virtual geographic boundaries (geofences) to enable real-time comparative analysis.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors-in-interest have previously granted settlement licenses to other entities, asserting that these licenses did not require patent marking under 35 U.S.C. §287(a).

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
2025-08-29	Complaint Filed

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 describes the problem of tracking device locations within multiple geofences to compare user demographics, noting that conventional systems lack the ability to make meaningful comparisons between regions and lack advanced geofence knowledge (’038 Patent, col. 15:1-4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a central location analyzer that receives arrival notifications from a plurality of mobile devices entering a broad geographic area containing multiple smaller, distinct sub-regions (geofences). The analyzer identifies which sub-region each device is in, receives user information, compares the demographic user data between the sub-regions, and transmits a "comparison metric" identifying the difference (’038 Patent, col. 3:24-40; Fig. 5). This allows for dynamic, real-time comparison of user demographics (e.g., gender ratio, average age) between locations like different nightclubs or restaurants (’038 Patent, col. 1:8-12; col. 12:31-38).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables real-time, comparative demographic analysis between different physical venues by aggregating location and user data from individual mobile devices, a capability valuable for marketing and business analytics (’038 Patent, col. 12:31-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (’038 Patent, col. 23:1-25:26; Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Claim 1 (Method):
  • Receiving, by a location analyzer, an identification of a first region, a second region, and a third region that includes the first two.
  • 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 of devices within the second region.
  • Comparing user information of the first subset of devices with the user information of the second subset.
  • Transmitting a comparison metric identifying a difference between the users of the first and second subsets.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the broad allegation covering claims 1-20 implicitly includes them (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses Defendant’s “products and related products and services” of infringement (Compl. ¶12). Based on the defendant’s business (Lime), this refers to the system managing its fleet of shared vehicles (e.g., scooters, bikes), which tracks vehicle and user locations.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint broadly alleges that Lime makes, uses, sells, and advertises infringing products and services in the district (Compl. ¶6). It does not provide specific technical details about how the accused Lime system operates. It generally accuses Lime of practicing the claimed methods of the patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶6). The complaint does not detail the accused product's market positioning but alleges Lime derives substantial revenue from its services provided to residents of the district (Compl. ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an appended claim chart (Exhibit B) to support its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit in the filing (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that Lime’s system infringes by practicing the claimed methods (Compl. ¶6). Based on the patent’s claims, the infringement theory appears to be that Lime’s central servers act as the claimed "location analyzer." These servers allegedly receive location data (or "arrival notifications") from users’ mobile devices running the Lime app when they enter a general service area ("third region"). The system then allegedly identifies users within specific sub-regions (e.g., designated parking zones, university campuses, or different city districts, representing the "first region" and "second region"). The theory would further require that Lime's system compares user information between these sub-regions and generates some form of "comparison metric," perhaps for internal analytics, fleet management, or marketing purposes. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Lime’s internal data analytics, presumably used for operational efficiency or business intelligence, constitute the "comparison metric" that is "transmit[ted]" as required by claim 1. The defense may argue its internal data processing does not meet this claim element.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify what constitutes the "first region," "second region," and "third region" within the Lime system. A key factual question will be whether Lime's system actually defines and treats geographic areas in the hierarchical and comparative manner required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the inventive concept of providing a comparative output. The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on whether Lime’s internal analytics or reports are found to be a "comparison metric." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether simple data aggregation and internal analysis meet the claim limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not narrowly define the term, stating only that the analyzer transmits a metric "identifying a difference between users of the first subset... and users of the second subset" (’038 Patent, col. 4:34-36). This could be argued to cover any data output that reflects a delta in user characteristics.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The examples provided in the patent focus on displaying demographic differences to end-users or venue operators, such as gender ratios or average ages, for purposes of selection or marketing (’038 Patent, col. 12:31-45; Fig. 4B). This may support a narrower construction requiring the metric to be a specific type of demographic comparison provided for external or third-party use, not merely internal operational data.

• The Term: "arrival notification" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the claimed method. Whether the routine location updates sent from the Lime app to its servers qualify as "arrival notifications" will be a likely point of dispute.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an arrival notification is sent when a device determines "it has entered the third geofence" (’038 Patent, col. 4:22-24). This could be interpreted broadly to include any location update that places the device within the defined broader region.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes time-based triggers, where notifications are sent in connection with a "planned arrival time" for an event (’038 Patent, col. 2:43-51). This context could support an argument that an "arrival notification" is a specific, event-driven communication rather than a continuous or periodic location ping common in asset-tracking systems.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it asserts that Lime "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12). For contributory infringement, it alleges that Lime's products and services have no reasonable non-infringing use and that Lime provides them with instructions suggesting an infringing use (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. Instead, it asserts that Lime has known of the ’038 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and reserves the right to amend if earlier knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶12, n.1). This pleading strategy aims to establish a basis for willful infringement for any infringing acts that occur after the complaint was served.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that Defendant’s internal data processing, which is not public-facing, satisfies the claim requirements of "comparing user information" between distinct geographic sub-regions and "transmitting a comparison metric"?
• A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Does routine location tracking data from a fleet management system constitute the specific "arrival notifications" envisioned by the patent, which is described in the context of users attending events at specific venues?
• Finally, a significant question of claim construction will be determinative: Can the term "comparison metric," as used in the patent, be construed to cover internal operational analytics, or is it limited to the specific, user-facing demographic comparisons illustrated in the patent’s embodiments?