X One Inc v. Dominos Pizza Franchising LLC et al.

Case Overview: NPE X One Sues Domino's Over Mobile Ordering Technology in a Renewed NPE Hotbed

In a lawsuit filed on April 17, 2026, X One Inc., a non-practicing entity (NPE), has accused Domino's Pizza of infringing five U.S. patents with its mobile application and backend ordering systems. The case, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, targets the core of Domino's digital ordering infrastructure, which has been a major driver of its business. This lawsuit is notable as it represents a continued trend of NPEs targeting the food delivery and service industry's reliance on location-based mobile technology and highlights the Eastern District of Texas's resurgence as a top venue for patent litigation.

The plaintiff, X One Inc., is identified as a non-practicing entity of the "Individual Inventor" type, meaning it generates revenue by licensing and litigating its patents rather than producing its own products. X One has a history of asserting its patents, which generally relate to location-sharing technology, against major tech and logistics companies, including a notable past dispute with Uber. The defendants are Domino's Pizza Inc. and its franchising arm, Dominos Pizza Franchising LLC, the operating companies behind the global pizza delivery giant. Domino's is the world's largest pizza company, with a business model that heavily relies on its franchise network and a technology-forward approach to ordering and delivery. The allegedly infringing products are the "Domino’s Pizza USA" mobile application and the entire supporting ecosystem that enables customers to place orders, track their pizza's progress, and facilitate delivery, leveraging location services and real-time communication.

The lawsuit asserts five patents against Domino's:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,854,402: Covers methods for a mobile device to obtain and display location information for other devices.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,299,071: Relates to a system for selectively sharing real-time location information between mobile devices.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,942,705: Describes technology for creating and managing temporary location-sharing groups.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,778,415: Pertains to a server-based system for managing location data exchange between devices.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,750,310: Involves methods for displaying the location of a user on a map along with the location of other "buddies."

The case (2:26-cv-00311) is filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue that has historically been favored by patent plaintiffs for its local rules and tendency to move cases quickly to trial. After a period of decline following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which tightened venue rules, the Eastern District of Texas has recently regained its status as the nation's top district for patent and NPE litigation in the first quarter of 2026. This resurgence makes the district a critical battleground. The case is significant due to the high-profile nature of the defendant and the ubiquitous technology at issue, which is central not only to Domino's but to the entire modern food delivery and service economy. The outcome could have broad implications for how companies in this sector utilize location-based services in their customer-facing applications.

Early Stages of Litigation Mark X One, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza

As of May 4, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit filed by X One Inc. against Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC and Domino's Pizza Inc. is in its nascent stages. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, has seen minimal activity on the public docket beyond the initial complaint.

Key Legal Developments (Chronological):

• 2026-04-17: Complaint Filed. X One Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Domino's entities. The lawsuit asserts five patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,854,402; 10,299,071; 9,942,705; 11,778,415; and 10,750,310) related to location-based communication and tracking technologies. The accused products encompass the Domino’s Pizza mobile application and its associated backend ordering and location-tracking ecosystem. A notice of the patent lawsuit was also sent to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the same day.

Current Status and Next Steps:

The case is currently open and awaiting the defendants' response. Domino's has not yet filed an answer, a motion to dismiss, or any other responsive pleading. Consequently, no attorneys for Domino's have formally appeared on the court docket. The deadline for a response is typically 21 days from the service of the complaint, meaning a filing is expected in the near future.

There have been no substantive motions, claim construction hearings, or discovery milestones to date. The litigation is still in the initial pleading stage.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

A search of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) public records does not indicate any current or past inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings filed by Domino's or any other party against the five patents-in-suit.

However, the plaintiff, X One Inc., has a history of litigating its location-tracking patents. In a previous case against Uber, some of X One's patents were challenged at the PTAB. While the PTAB initially upheld two of X One's patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later reversed one of those decisions, finding certain claims obvious in light of prior art in May 2020. This history suggests that Domino's may consider challenging the validity of the asserted patents at the PTAB as a defensive strategy, which could lead to a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of such a review.

Given Domino's history of aggressively defending patent assertions, including taking cases through PTAB review and appeal, a vigorous defense is anticipated. The company was previously successful in invalidating patents asserted by Ameranth, Inc. and was awarded $2.7 million in attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff Representatives

Based on court filings and the professional histories of the attorneys involved, the following counsel represent the plaintiff, X One Inc., as of May 4, 2026.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Co-founder of his firm, Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in intellectual property litigation and has frequently litigated patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A registered patent attorney, Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, with extensive experience in the Eastern District of Texas.

Local Counsel

• Name: Christopher A. Honea
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea, PLLC (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: A partner at his firm, Honea has significant experience in the Eastern District of Texas, including a notable role in the i4i, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. case which resulted in a $290 million award.

The legal team for X One Inc. combines the patent-focused litigation experience of Stamoulis & Weinblatt, a firm known for representing plaintiffs in patent disputes, with the local expertise of Christopher A. Honea, a seasoned litigator in the Eastern District of Texas. The docket entry for the complaint filing specifically names "(Honea, Christopher)," confirming his role in the initial phase of the case.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendants, Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC and Domino's Pizza Inc., has not yet formally appeared on the docket for X One Inc v. Dominos Pizza Franchising LLC et al., 2:26-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.).

The complaint was filed on April 17, 2026. Typically, defendants have 21 days to respond to a summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, though this period can be extended. Given this timeline, an appearance by counsel is expected shortly.

Information regarding legal representation will become public once attorneys for Domino's file a notice of appearance or a responsive pleading, such as an answer or a motion to dismiss, with the court. At that point, the identities of the lead, local, and any other counsel will be entered into the official case docket. Until such a filing is made, the specific attorneys and law firms representing the defendants are not a matter of public record.