Yopima LLC v. Grubhub Holdings Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Grubhub Holdings Inc. d/b/a Grubhub, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00388, 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 throughout this District," including an office in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s food delivery platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for comparative geofencing.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using virtual geographic boundaries (geofences) to monitor the location of portable devices and perform real-time comparisons of user demographics between different defined areas.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has never sold a product. It also discloses that Plaintiff or its predecessors have granted prior settlement licenses and argues that these licenses did not create a patent marking obligation under 35 U.S.C. §287 because they were for method claims and did not involve the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-05-21	’038 Patent Priority Date
2015-08-25	’038 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-29	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 background describes two primary issues with existing geolocation systems. First, continuous location querying by portable devices to monitor for entry into a geofence consumes significant battery, bandwidth, and processing power, particularly when the device is far from the target area (’038 Patent, col. 7:6-15). Second, conventional geofencing typically associates a device with only one geofence at a time, making it difficult to compare user activity and demographics across multiple nearby locations simultaneously (’038 Patent, col. 13:58-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for "comparative geofencing" managed by a central server. This system receives notifications from numerous portable devices as they enter a broad, overarching geofence that contains multiple smaller, distinct "subregions" (e.g., different nightclubs on the same street) (’038 Patent, col. 3:24-40; Fig. 4A). The server then identifies which devices are in which subregions, retrieves user information (such as demographics), compares this information between the subregions, and transmits a "comparison metric" reflecting the differences (’038 Patent, Abstract). This allows for real-time analysis of the demographic makeup of crowds at different venues.
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a method for businesses, such as event promoters or restaurant owners, to gather and compare real-time demographic intelligence about patrons at their location versus competing locations, enabling dynamic marketing or operational adjustments (’038 Patent, col. 12:32-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (’038 Patent, Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a method claim directed to the actions of a central location analyzer (server).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving an identification of a first, second, and third geofenced region, where the third region encompasses the first two.
  • Receiving "arrival notifications" from a plurality of 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 against the users in the second subset.
  • Transmitting a "comparison metric" that identifies a difference between the users of the two subsets.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "products and related products and services," which contextually refers to the Grubhub food delivery platform (Compl. ¶12, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the accused platform's operation. It alleges that Defendant instructs its customers and partners on "the use of systems and methods for geofencing" (Compl. ¶13). The Grubhub platform is a service that connects customers, delivery drivers, and restaurants, a process which involves tracking the real-time location of drivers and customers relative to defined geographic areas, such as restaurant locations and delivery addresses.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in an appended table (Exhibit B) to support its allegations (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not included in the publicly filed document. The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations mapping specific product features to claim elements, nor does it contain any screenshots or diagrams of the accused platform. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations presents several potential points of contention that may arise during litigation.

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the patent's claims, which are described in the context of comparing user demographics at consumer venues like "restaurants, clubs, or events," can be construed to cover a food delivery logistics platform (’038 Patent, col. 1:40-41). The purpose of the accused platform (logistics and order fulfillment) may differ from the stated purpose of the invention (real-time demographic analysis for marketing or business intelligence).
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not allege facts showing that the Grubhub platform performs the final two, and arguably most critical, steps of claim 1: comparing user information between different subregions and transmitting a comparison metric that identifies a demographic difference. A key technical question will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that the accused system performs this specific comparative analysis, as opposed to merely tracking device locations for logistical purposes.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "comparison metric" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the final output of the claimed method. The infringement analysis for claim 1 will hinge on whether any data generated and transmitted by the Grubhub platform qualifies as a "comparison metric." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no facts identifying what this metric is in the accused system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition for the term. The specification gives examples, such as transmitting "demographics information or ratios" (’038 Patent, col. 15:47-49) or showing a table with gender ratios and average age (Fig. 4B). A party could argue these are merely illustrative examples and that any transmitted data that reflects a "difference" between two groups of users meets the claim limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the metric to "identify[] a difference between users." The specification consistently frames the invention around comparing personal demographics like gender and age (’038 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:32-38). A party could argue that "comparison metric" must be construed to mean a calculated value resulting from a demographic analysis, not merely raw location or logistical data.

The Term: "user information" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term dictates the type of data that must be "compared" to meet the claim limitation. Whether this term is limited to personal demographics or can include logistical data will be critical.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a list of what "user information" may include, such as "user identifier, user profile, user demographic information such as gender or age, and/or geographic coordinates" (’038 Patent, col. 9:28-31). This explicit inclusion of "geographic coordinates" could support an argument that the term is not limited to personal demographics.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The central purpose of the invention is the comparison of demographics between venues (’038 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-35). A party could argue that in the context of the "comparing" step of the claim, the term "user information" should be interpreted as the specific demographic data (e.g., age, gender) that enables the novel comparative functionality of the invention, rather than general data like location, which is separately recited in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers to use its products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12). The basis for contributory infringement includes the allegation that Defendant instructs on the use of geofencing and that its services are not a "staple commercial product" with 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," which provides a basis for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶12, ¶13). The prayer for relief also requests a finding of willfulness and treble damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶(e), p. 7).

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

• A core issue will be one of functional purpose and technical scope: does the Grubhub platform, which is designed for food delivery logistics, perform the specific method of comparing user demographic data between distinct geographic subregions and transmitting a "comparison metric" as required by Claim 1? Or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused system's logistical tracking and the patent's claimed method of comparative demographic analysis?
• A central evidentiary question will be what facts, if any, the Plaintiff can produce through discovery to substantiate its infringement theory. Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations mapping accused features to the "comparing" and "transmitting a comparison metric" limitations, the case will likely turn on whether such evidence exists and can be obtained.