X One Inc. v. Domino's Pizza Inc.

In a new campaign targeting the food delivery sector, patent holding company X One Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Domino's Pizza Inc. in the Northern District of California. X One, which describes its intellectual property as foundational to the "Sharing Economy," is a non-practicing entity (NPE) that has previously asserted its patent portfolio against ride-sharing companies like Uber. Its business model focuses on developing and licensing a portfolio of patents related to sharing location data between mobile devices. The defendant, Domino's Pizza, is a major operating company and the world's largest pizza chain, which has invested heavily in technology and digital channels to drive sales. More than 80% of its U.S. sales are generated through digital platforms that are central to its business strategy.

The lawsuit accuses Domino's of infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,299,071 ('071 Patent). The patent, titled "Server-Implemented Methods and Systems for Sharing Location Amongst Web-Enabled Cell Phones," generally covers technology for sharing real-time location information between users on a map displayed on a mobile device. The accused services include Domino's online and mobile ordering platforms, the popular "Domino's Tracker®" which allows customers to follow an order's progress, and the "Pinpoint Delivery" service that enables delivery to locations without a traditional address, such as parks and beaches. These services form the core of Domino's digital customer experience, which relies on displaying the location of delivery drivers and destinations to customers in real-time. This lawsuit is part of a broader assertion strategy by X One, which filed similar suits on the same day against other food delivery companies, including DoorDash and Pizza Hut, in various federal courts.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a significant venue for patent litigation due to its proximity to Silicon Valley and its experienced judiciary. The N.D. Cal. is widely regarded as a defendant-friendly forum, with judges who are more likely than those in other popular patent venues to grant early motions to dismiss based on patent ineligibility (Alice motions) and to stay litigation pending inter partes review (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The case's notability stems from its targeting of a technology central to the modern on-demand economy and X One's history of litigation against major tech players. X One previously faced IPR challenges from Uber on other patents in its portfolio, with mixed results, including a reversal by the Federal Circuit which found claims of a related patent obvious. Domino's may pursue a similar IPR strategy, making the court's willingness to stay the case a potentially critical factor.

Factual Inconsistencies Detected in Case Metadata

Initial investigation reveals a factual inconsistency between the provided case metadata and publicly available litigation records. The metadata lists the case X One Inc. v. Domino's Pizza Inc. as Case No. 4:26-cv-03260, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

However, multiple docket tracking services indicate that X One Inc. filed suit against Domino's Pizza, Inc. and its related entities on the same date, 2026-04-17, but in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under Case No. 2:26-cv-00311. This is part of a broader litigation campaign launched by X One on that day, which also included separate lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Texas against DoorDash (2:26-cv-00312) and Pizza Hut (2:26-cv-00314).

While some databases do associate the Northern California case number (4:26-cv-03260) with a lawsuit between X One and Domino's filed on that date, the primary docket information points strongly to the Eastern District of Texas as the correct venue. For the remainder of this analysis, I will proceed assuming the Eastern District of Texas case (2:26-cv-00311) is the primary litigation, while noting the conflicting information. This discrepancy may be due to a clerical error in one of the data sources or a quickly dismissed or transferred case that is not fully reflected in all databases.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of 2026-05-07, the case is in its earliest stages, with no substantive legal rulings or significant events beyond the initial filing.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-04-17: Complaint Filed
  X One Inc. filed its patent infringement complaint against Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza LLC, and Domino's Pizza Franchising LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,299,071. The filing fee was paid, and the case was officially opened. On the same day, X One's counsel filed the required AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form with the court, which was transmitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

• Current Status: Awaiting Defendant's Response
  The docket does not yet show a record of Domino's Pizza having been formally served, nor has it filed an answer or any other responsive pleading. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond after being served with the summons and complaint. Given the filing date, this response is not yet overdue. The case status is currently "Open" as it proceeds through the initial phases of litigation.

Anticipated Future Developments:

• Answer or Motion to Dismiss: Domino's will likely respond by filing an Answer to the complaint, which may include affirmative defenses (e.g., non-infringement, invalidity) and potential counterclaims (e.g., seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity). Alternatively, Domino's may file a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), potentially arguing that X One's patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter, a common early defense strategy in software patent cases.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings (Potential): Given X One's litigation history, a key strategic development will be whether Domino's decides to challenge the '071 patent at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). X One has previously seen its patents challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings by other defendants, such as Uber. In one notable instance, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision, finding claims of a related X One patent obvious. Should Domino's file an IPR petition against the '071 patent, it would likely also file a motion in the district court to stay the litigation pending the PTAB's review, a motion frequently granted in venues like the Eastern District of Texas to promote judicial efficiency. There is currently no public record of any IPR or other post-grant proceeding having been filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,299,071.

At this early stage, there have been no motions, claim construction hearings, discovery milestones, or dispositive outcomes. The case remains at the initial pleading stage.

Based on docket information from parallel lawsuits filed on the same day as part of a broader litigation campaign by X One Inc., the company is represented by the intellectual property litigation boutique Garteiser Honea PLLC. While a notice of appearance has not yet been identified in the public docket for the specific case against Domino's Pizza in the Northern District of California, the firm's attorneys are listed as counsel of record in identical suits filed in the Eastern District of Texas, making it highly probable they are also lead counsel in this matter.

The following attorneys from Garteiser Honea PLLC are expected to be counsel for Plaintiff X One Inc.:

• Randall T. Garteiser | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Garteiser Honea PLLC (Tyler, Texas)
  • Noted Experience: Formerly with Quinn Emanuel in Silicon Valley, he clerked for the Honorable James Ware, a former Chief Judge of the Northern District of California.

• Christopher A. Honea | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Garteiser Honea PLLC (Tyler, Texas)
  • Noted Experience: Previously practiced with McKool Smith and Quinn Emanuel, and was part of the team that won a $290 million verdict for i4i against Microsoft.

• Scott Fuller | Of Counsel / Counsel

  • Firm: Garteiser Honea PLLC (Tyler, Texas)
  • Noted Experience: His presence is noted on dockets in parallel cases, such as the one against Pizza Hut, alongside Garteiser and Honea.

Counsel for X One Inc. is named on the dockets for concurrently filed cases, including X One Inc. v. Pizza Hut LLC et al, 2:26-cv-00314 (E.D. Tex.) and X One Inc. v. Dominos Pizza, Inc. et al, 2:26-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.). Both Christopher Honea and Randall Garteiser are licensed to practice in California and their firm's website notes its familiarity with the Northern District of California.

As of May 7, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Domino's Pizza Inc., has not yet filed a notice of appearance in the case X One Inc. v. Domino's Pizza Inc., 4:26-cv-03260. The complaint was filed on April 17, 2026, and a responsive pleading or appearance from the defendant is typically not due for several weeks.

While no attorneys are officially on record for this specific matter, an analysis of Domino's Pizza's recent and significant patent litigation defense provides likely candidates for counsel.

Likely Defense Counsel (Based on Prior Representation)

Domino's has previously retained the intellectual property firm Brooks Kushman P.C. for high-stakes patent litigation and achieved favorable results. This firm is a strong candidate to lead the defense in the current matter.

• Firm: Brooks Kushman P.C.

  • Note: This firm represented Domino's in a multi-year patent infringement case brought by Ameranth, Inc. regarding online and mobile ordering systems. The firm successfully invalidated the asserted patents through inter partes review (IPR) and district court proceedings, and ultimately secured a $2.7 million award of attorney's fees for Domino's. Key attorneys from the firm involved in that seminal case are listed below.

• Name: Frank Angileri

  • Role: Potential Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman P.C. (Southfield, MI)
  • Relevant Experience: Led the Brooks Kushman team that successfully defended Domino's against Ameranth, Inc., in a case involving online ordering technology.

• Name: Thomas Cunningham

  • Role: Potential Counsel
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman P.C. (Southfield, MI)
  • Relevant Experience: Was part of the core team, alongside Frank Angileri and John Rondini, that secured victory for Domino's in the Ameranth litigation.

• Name: John Rondini

  • Role: Potential Counsel / Co-Chair of Litigation
  • Firm: Brooks Kushman P.C. (Southfield, MI)
  • Relevant Experience: Served as lead counsel with Frank Angileri and Thomas Cunningham in the successful defense of Domino's against Ameranth's patent claims. He is also Co-Chair of the firm's litigation group.

Another firm noted as representing Domino's in other types of litigation is DLA Piper. While their involvement was in an antitrust matter, large companies sometimes use the same national firms for various high-stakes litigation.

This section will be updated as counsel files a formal appearance on the public docket.