Litigation

Excalibur IP, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Terminated

1:20-cv-00972

Filed
2020-07-27

Patents at issue (1)

7610277

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Excalibur IP, LLC asserted US Patent 7610277 against Uber Technologies, Inc.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

In a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Excalibur IP, LLC, a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), asserted US Patent 7,610,277 against Uber Technologies, Inc. Excalibur IP is a subsidiary of Altaba Inc., formerly Yahoo, Inc., and its extensive patent portfolio was acquired by Acacia Research on March 31, 2020. RPX, a patent risk management firm, also secured license rights to the Excalibur IP portfolio for a syndicate of its members in February 2020, underscoring Excalibur's business model of monetizing intellectual property through licensing and litigation. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a globally recognized operating company, primarily known for its ride-sharing platform and food delivery service, Uber Eats. While the specific details of the accused products or services in the complaint for this case (1:20-cv-00972) are not publicly detailed in search results, similar patent assertions against Uber often target its core ride-hailing and delivery applications, particularly aspects related to data management and information retrieval. The asserted patent, US Patent 7,610,277, is titled "System and method for searching a hierarchical database" and generally describes techniques for efficiently querying and filtering data within hierarchically organized databases.

The case, assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark, was filed in the District of Delaware, a venue of significant importance for patent litigation. Following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which limited patent venue to where a defendant resides (state of incorporation) or has a regular and established place of business, Delaware has become a predominant forum, as many large corporations, including Uber, are incorporated there. The District of Delaware is favored by litigants for its judicial expertise, predictability in patent law, and efficient procedural mechanisms.

This litigation is notable for fitting into a broader pattern of NPEs asserting patents derived from large portfolios against prominent operating companies. The involvement of Excalibur IP, with its background as a former Yahoo subsidiary now under Acacia Research and subject to RPX licensing, highlights the continued strategies to monetize extensive patent holdings. The case is currently marked as "Terminated," although the specific terms of its resolution, such as a settlement or dismissal with prejudice, were not publicly available through the conducted searches. There is no publicly available record of any Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically challenging US Patent 7,610,277 in relation to this case.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Legal Developments and Outcome in Excalibur IP, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Case Caption: Excalibur IP, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case Number: 1:20-cv-00972
Court: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
Filed: 2020-07-27
Status: Terminated
Patents at issue: US Patent 7610277

The patent infringement litigation between Excalibur IP, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. in the District of Delaware, concerning US Patent 7610277, was initiated in July 2020 and subsequently terminated. Publicly available information regarding the detailed procedural history, including specific docket entries for motions, claim construction, and discovery milestones, is limited without direct access to the court's PACER system. However, general patterns in patent litigation and news sources offer some insights into the likely trajectory and outcome.

Key Legal Developments:

  • Filing of Complaint: Excalibur IP, LLC filed its complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc. on 2020-07-27, asserting infringement of US Patent 7610277.
  • Termination of Case: The case was marked as "Terminated" in the District of Delaware. The specific date and reason for termination (e.g., settlement, voluntary dismissal, or joint stipulation of dismissal) are not explicitly detailed in publicly accessible summaries or news articles through the conducted searches. Often, patent cases are resolved through confidential settlements, leading to a notice of dismissal.
  • Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings related to US Patent 7610277 did not yield any results indicating that Uber Technologies, Inc. filed an IPR petition against this specific patent. The absence of a public IPR filing suggests that Uber may not have pursued this avenue to challenge the patent's validity, or if a challenge occurred, it was not through a publicly recorded IPR. While other Uber-related IPRs exist for different patents, none were found for US Patent 7610277.

Outcome:

The case is officially "Terminated." Without specific docket entries, the precise nature of the termination cannot be definitively stated beyond the fact that the litigation concluded without a full trial or judgment on the merits. It is common for patent infringement cases, particularly those involving non-practicing entities (like Excalibur IP, LLC) and large technology companies, to resolve through confidential settlement agreements, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. The absence of reported substantive rulings, such as on motions to dismiss for patent eligibility (Alice challenges), claim construction (Markman), or summary judgment, suggests an early resolution in the litigation lifecycle. No trial events, verdict, or appeals were found in public records related to this case.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

Initial searches returned little on-point. Let me try more specific angles.

Let me search docket aggregators and IP trade press specifically.

Press and analyst coverage

Note on sourcing: I searched the case caption, the party names, the patent number ("7,610,277"), and the docket number across five query formulations. I found no published article — from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or any trade or mainstream outlet — that reports on Excalibur IP, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00972) itself. No outlet appears to have covered the complaint, any ruling, a settlement, a dismissal, or damages in this case. Searches on the bare docket number returned only unrelated matters in other districts (e.g., Soler v. Commissioner of Social Security, W.D.N.Y., and a Nevada title-insurance stipulation), confirming that this D. Del. docket has not been indexed or surfaced by any reported coverage. This absence is consistent with the earlier sections' findings that the case terminated without substantive public rulings and is not the subject of any known IPR.

The closest thing to coverage is portfolio-level reporting on Excalibur IP, not on this suit. IAM Media has tracked Excalibur's assertion campaign as the monetization vehicle for the former Yahoo!/Altaba portfolio, reporting on Excalibur's Delaware suit against Spotify — described as "the first move to litigate assets" since a former RPX dealmaker, Paul Reidy, took control of the portfolio — and later covering Altaba's dissolution plan alongside Excalibur's continued deal-making. IAM Media also notes Excalibur's licensing activity (e.g., a package deal with Pinterest) and, in the same organisation feed, references unrelated NPE suits against Uber (the GEMSA filings against 20 operating companies). None of that reporting mentions Uber as an Excalibur defendant or the '277 patent, so it should be read as background on the plaintiff's business model rather than as coverage of this case.

One related, later development is worth flagging as a non-press source: a court filing, not journalism, surfaced on Courthouse News — the Databricks v. Acacia Research complaint — which alleges that Acacia acquired Excalibur's portfolio through R2 and used it to seek royalties from Apache-licensed software implementers despite Yahoo's prior Apache License grant. That filing discusses Excalibur's portfolio and monetization strategy but does not mention Uber or the 2020 Delaware action. I found no analysis pieces, no executive statements reported in the press, and no reported damages figure or settlement term for this case; the "Terminated" status in the case metadata therefore remains unexplained by any public reporting I could locate.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Counsel for Plaintiff Excalibur IP, LLC in Excalibur IP, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Based on available information, the following attorneys have been identified with significant patent litigation experience, and are likely to have represented the plaintiff, Excalibur IP, LLC, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Without direct access to the complete PACER docket for case 1:20-cv-00972, their precise roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) within this specific case cannot be definitively assigned, but their general expertise and affiliations suggest their involvement.

  • Benjamin J. Schladweiler

    • Role: Likely local counsel or involved in Delaware-based patent litigation.
    • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
    • Note: Litigates complex commercial and intellectual property disputes, with a particular focus on patent litigation in the District of Delaware, where he has litigated hundreds of matters and more than a dozen patent trials. He has over 20 years of experience across diverse technologies including electronics, software, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.

  • Michael E. Joffre, Ph.D.

    • Role: Likely lead counsel or appellate counsel.
    • Firm: Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.
    • Note: A director and co-chair of Sterne Kessler's Appellate Group, he focuses on intellectual property disputes before trial and appellate courts, including the Federal Circuit, U.S. International Trade Commission, and PTAB. He has litigated cases involving various technologies such as microprocessors, telecommunications networks, mechanical devices, consumer products, and computer software. He is recognized as a "Best-Performing Patent Litigator Representing Plaintiffs" by Patexia (2023).

While R. Wilson Montjoy II (Butler Snow) and Peter S. Rukin (Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP) were also searched, their publicly available profiles primarily highlight experience in energy, economic development, and employment law, respectively. There is no clear indication from the search results that they were involved in patent litigation, particularly in this specific case. Therefore, it is unlikely they were counsel of record for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I am unable to definitively identify the specific counsel of record representing Uber Technologies, Inc. in Excalibur IP, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., case number 1:20-cv-00972 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, based on publicly accessible web search results.

While general information regarding Uber's in-house IP team and counsel in other patent litigation cases (such as those handled by Cooley LLP or Alston & Bird) is available, no specific docket entries or legal news reports explicitly naming the attorneys who appeared for Uber in this particular D. Del. case were found. The case is noted as "Terminated," implying a resolution, but the details of the appearing counsel for the defendant are not readily apparent through standard web searches.