X One Inc v. Neighborfavor Inc et al.

Case Overview: X One Inc. Asserts Location-Tracking Patents Against Favor Delivery

Newark, DE – May 1, 2026 – Non-practicing entity (NPE) X One Inc. has initiated patent infringement litigation against on-demand delivery service Neighborfavor Inc., which operates as Favor Delivery, and its parent company, Texas-based grocery giant HEB LP. Filed on April 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the lawsuit is part of a broader assertion campaign by X One, which filed similar complaints against other major players in the food delivery industry, including DoorDash and Domino's, on the same day. The plaintiff, identified as an individual NPE, alleges that Favor Delivery's mobile application and the backend systems supporting its location-based services infringe upon five of its patents related to mobile device tracking and data communication.

The accused technology encompasses the entire Favor Delivery ecosystem, which is wholly owned by HEB LP and operates exclusively in Texas. This includes the customer-facing mobile app used to place orders, the software used by its "Runner" delivery drivers, and the backend infrastructure that processes orders, tracks locations via GPS, provides real-time updates to customers, and integrates with HEB's retail systems. X One's complaint asserts five patents that generally cover methods for monitoring and sharing location information between mobile devices. The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,854,402: Describes a method for a mobile device to obtain and exchange location information with another device or a central server.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,299,071: Covers a system for selectively sharing real-time location data of a mobile device with other authorized devices.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,942,705: Details a method for a server to manage and transmit location data and maps to a user's mobile device.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,778,415: Relates to a system for providing location-based alerts and notifications between a server and a mobile device.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,750,310: Pertains to a method for establishing a temporary, location-sharing connection between mobile devices, such as between a customer and a delivery driver.

The case (2:26-cv-00313) is filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its fast-paced "rocket docket" and reputation for plaintiff-friendly rulings, making it a hotspot for NPE litigation. The case has not yet been assigned to a specific judge. This lawsuit is notable as it reflects a clear pattern of assertion by X One Inc. against the booming "sharing economy," leveraging a portfolio of patents that have previously been asserted against companies like Uber. In a prior case, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld some X One patents against an invalidity challenge by Uber, although one patent was later found obvious by the Federal Circuit, indicating a complex history for this intellectual property.

Legal Developments in X One v. Neighborfavor

Since its filing on April 17, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit initiated by X One Inc. against Neighborfavor Inc. (operator of Favor Delivery) and its parent HEB LP in the Eastern District of Texas has seen no significant legal developments. The case is still in its earliest procedural stages.

As of May 1, 2026, the key events are as follows:

• 2026-04-17: Complaint Filed – X One Inc. filed its complaint for patent infringement, asserting five U.S. patents: 9,854,402; 10,299,071; 9,942,705; 11,778,415; and 10,750,310. The complaint alleges that the Favor Delivery mobile application and its supporting backend systems infringe on these patents related to location-tracking and data communication. This case is one of several similar lawsuits filed by X One on the same day against other delivery service companies, including DoorDash.

• Current Status: Open, Awaiting Answer – The case (2:26-cv-00313) remains open. The defendants, Neighborfavor and HEB, have not yet filed an answer or any counterclaims in response to the complaint. No motions to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay the proceedings have appeared on the docket.

There is no public record of any parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning the asserted patents that may have been filed by the defendants in this case. The USPTO's public databases do not show any new Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions filed by Neighborfavor or HEB against the patents-in-suit since the litigation began.

However, the patents in this case have a history of litigation and PTAB challenges involving other parties. X One previously asserted some of its patents against Uber. While the PTAB upheld two X One patents in that dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later found claims in one of the related patents to be obvious in light of prior art in a May 2020 decision. This mixed history could influence the legal strategies employed by both sides in the current litigation.

Given the very early stage of this case, no claim construction (Markman) hearings, substantive discovery, or trial events have occurred. The next significant development will likely be the defendants' formal response to the complaint, which will set the stage for subsequent motions and proceedings.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, the initial complaint filed by X One Inc. identifies the following attorneys as counsel for the plaintiff. The specific roles, such as lead counsel, have not yet been formally designated on the docket.

• T. John Ward, Jr. (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: A highly experienced patent litigator and former federal judicial law clerk in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as local counsel for major patent cases in the district.

• Wesley Hill (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Frequently litigates patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas alongside his firm colleagues and has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes technology disputes.

• Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Associates LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Founder of a firm known for representing patent holders, particularly non-practicing entities (NPEs), in infringement campaigns across the country.

• Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Associates LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: An attorney at a firm that specializes in plaintiff-side patent litigation, with experience in cases spanning various technology sectors.

Defense Counsel for Neighborfavor and HEB Not Yet on Record

As of May 4, 2026, defendants Neighborfavor Inc. and HEB LP have not yet filed an answer or made a formal appearance in the case X One Inc v. Neighborfavor Inc et al., 2:26-cv-00313, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

A review of the court docket reveals that the case is still in its earliest stage. The complaint was filed by X One Inc. on April 17, 2026, and as of today's date, no responsive pleading or notice of appearance by defense counsel has been entered.

Consequently, the specific attorneys and law firms that will represent the two defendants are not yet a matter of public record. It is standard for defendants to secure counsel and file a responsive pleading, such as an answer or a motion to dismiss, within the time limit set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after being served with the complaint. Until they do so, their legal representation will remain officially unidentified on the case docket.