Yopima LLC v. Neighborfavor Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yopima, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: NeighborFavor, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00389, W.D. Tex., 08/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has regular and established places of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe 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 demographics of mobile device users within different locations and provide comparative data.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors have granted prior settlement licenses to other entities, though it asserts these licenses did not involve admissions of infringement or cover the production of patented articles.

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 Issues
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: Conventional geolocation and geofencing systems on portable devices consume significant resources (e.g., battery, bandwidth, CPU cycles) by performing frequent location queries, regardless of whether the user is near the geofenced area (’038 Patent, col. 7:6-16). These systems also typically associate a device with only one geofence at a time, making it difficult to compare user populations across different nearby locations (’038 Patent, col. 14:60-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient "time-based" geofencing method where location queries are intensified only when a user is expected to arrive at a location, conserving device resources (’038 Patent, col. 1:44-53). It further describes a system where a central "location analyzer" receives notifications from multiple devices across several distinct sub-regions (e.g., different nightclubs) within a larger geographic area, allowing it to collect, compare, and transmit demographic data (e.g., gender ratios, average age) for each sub-region in real-time (’038 Patent, col. 3:26-44; Fig. 4B).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide real-time, comparative demographic analytics for physical venues, allowing businesses to monitor attendance and patrons to make decisions based on the crowd composition at different locations (’038 Patent, col. 12:31-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative:
• A method for tracking locations of a plurality of devices within overlapping geofences, comprising:
  • receiving, by a location analyzer executed by a computing device, an identification of (i) a first region defined by a first geofence; (ii) a second region defined by a second geofence distinct from the first geofence; and (iii) a third region defined by a third geofence including the first region and second region;
  • receiving, by the location analyzer, a plurality of arrival notifications from a corresponding plurality of devices...;
  • receiving, by the location analyzer, user information for a user of each of the plurality of devices;
  • identifying, by the location analyzer, a first subset of the plurality of devices that are within the first region and a second subset... that are within the second region;
  • comparing, by the location analyzer, user information of the users of the first subset... and user information of the users of the second subset...; and
  • transmitting, by the location analyzer to a second computing device, a comparison metric identifying a difference between users of the first subset... and users of the second subset...
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not explicitly name an accused product, referring generally to Defendant's "products," "services," and "claimed methods" (Compl. ¶6). The defendant is NeighborFavor, Inc., which operates favordelivery.com, suggesting the accused instrumentality is its on-demand delivery service platform (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and advertises infringing products and services within the district and elsewhere in the United States (Compl. ¶6). It does not, however, provide specific details on the technical functionality of the accused platform or its market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within an appended table, Exhibit B, which was not included in the provided filing (Compl. ¶11). The pleading states that the allegations in the exhibit are "preliminary and are therefore subject to change" (Compl. ¶11). Without this exhibit, the complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to features of the accused instrumentality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue will be establishing the specific functionality of the accused service. The complaint provides no technical details, raising the question of what evidence Plaintiff will present to show that the service performs the claimed steps of defining and comparing distinct geofenced regions.
  • Scope Questions: The patent is framed around comparing demographics of users at venues like restaurants or clubs (’038 Patent, col. 1:40-43). A potential point of contention may be whether the Defendant's delivery service, which may track couriers and customers for logistical purposes, performs the specific claimed function of "comparing user information" to generate a "comparison metric" for demographic analysis, as opposed to for routing or order management.
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused service define a "second region... distinct from the first geofence" and a "third region... including the first and second region" as required by Claim 1? A key technical question will be whether the defendant's system architecture maps to this specific three-tiered geofence structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "comparison metric identifying a difference between users"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the final, output-oriented step of independent claim 1. Its construction is critical because it defines the nature of the data that the system must generate. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused service generates a "metric" that reflects a "difference between users" in a demographic sense, or if it merely tracks device locations for logistical purposes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the type of difference, which could support an argument that any metric showing a difference (e.g., number of users, density of users) meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides specific examples of demographic comparisons, such as "gender ratio," "average age," and user "preferences" (’038 Patent, col. 12:31-45; Fig. 4B). These examples may support a narrower construction requiring the metric to relate to user demographics rather than simple location or count data.

The Term: "a second region defined by a second geofence distinct from the first geofence"

• Context and Importance: The "comparative" nature of the invention rests on the system's ability to analyze two or more "distinct" regions. The definition of "distinct" will be central to determining whether the accused service's architecture infringes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not require the regions to be non-overlapping. "Distinct" could be argued to mean simply that the two geofences are separately defined, even if they share a border or partially overlap.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiment shown in Figure 4A depicts Geofences B, C, and D as geographically separate, non-overlapping areas within the larger Geofence A. This could support an argument that "distinct" requires some degree of spatial separation. Furthermore, the patent states in one embodiment that "the first region and the second region do not overlap" (’038 Patent, col. 3:52-53).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It claims inducement is based on Defendant actively encouraging or instructing customers on how to use its products and services (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). The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. VI.e).

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

Based on the complaint and the patent-in-suit, the litigation appears poised to center on the following questions:

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary support: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unprovided exhibit, a threshold question is what factual basis exists to allege that the accused delivery platform performs the specific functions required by the claims, particularly the comparison of user data across multiple, distinct geofences.
• A key question of claim scope will be whether the term "comparison metric identifying a difference between users" requires demographic analysis (e.g., age, gender) as detailed in the patent's specification, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover logistical data (e.g., courier density, customer locations) that may be generated by a delivery service.
• The case may also present a question of technical architecture: Does the accused system's method for tracking assets align with the patent's specific three-tiered structure of a "first region," a "distinct" "second region," and an overarching "third region"? The answer will be fundamental to the direct infringement analysis.