Yopima, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc.

The patent infringement litigation Yopima, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc. involved Yopima, LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on geolocation and geofencing technologies, as the plaintiff. DoorDash, Inc., a prominent on-demand food delivery and logistics platform, was the defendant. Yopima's business model centers on licensing and litigation rather than product commercialization, a common characteristic of non-practicing entities (NPEs). DoorDash's operations heavily rely on real-time geolocation, driver tracking, and wireless communications for its delivery services.

The core of the dispute was US Patent 9,119,038, titled "Systems and Methods for Comparative Geofencing." This patent describes technology for time-based geolocation queries, including monitoring geolocation information via notifications from portable devices to identify user demographics within identified regions and subregions, and comparing demographic information between locations like restaurants or events. It also covers systems for tracking multiple devices within overlapping geofences. Yopima alleged that DoorDash's location-based delivery coordination systems, which enable mapping population activity and tracking Dashers for delivery services, infringed this patent.

The case was filed in the Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division, on August 29, 2025. The Western District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation, particularly for NPEs, largely due to the efforts of District Judge Alan D. Albright, who has actively sought to attract patent cases and is known for his plaintiff-friendly practices, including fast-moving schedules and a restrictive posture toward certain defensive motions. Although a new rule in July 2022 began randomly assigning patent cases to judges across the district, the Western District of Texas still maintained its position as a top patent venue. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Yopima on January 22, 2026, just 147 days after filing, before DoorDash filed an answer or any summary judgment motion. This swift dismissal, common in NPE litigation, meant no determination was made on the merits of the patent's validity or infringement, and Yopima retains the right to re-file similar claims in the future. The case is notable as part of a broader trend of NPEs targeting e-commerce and software sectors, specifically delivery and rideshare mobile apps with device location tracking functionality, as exemplified by Yopima filing similar lawsuits against other companies like Grubhub, Lime, and Curb Mobility around the same time.

Yopima, LLC's patent infringement lawsuit against DoorDash, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent 9,119,038 concluded swiftly with a voluntary dismissal, without any adjudication on the merits of the claims.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

• 2025-08-29: Complaint Filed. Yopima, LLC initiated the patent infringement action against DoorDash, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038, titled "Systems and methods for comparative geofencing." The Western District of Texas is known for attracting significant patent litigation due to its efficient dockets.

• 2026-01-22: Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. The case was voluntarily dismissed by Yopima, LLC, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This dismissal occurred just 147 days after the complaint was filed, before DoorDash, Inc. had filed an answer or any substantive pre-trial motions, such as a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal order stipulated that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees, and confirmed the dismissal was self-effectuating.

• Outcome: The voluntary dismissal without prejudice means that Yopima, LLC retains the right to refile substantially similar claims against DoorDash, Inc. in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. Crucially, no determination was made regarding the validity of U.S. Patent 9,119,038 or whether DoorDash, Inc. infringed the patent. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings: No inter partes review (IPR) petitions or other Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings were identified for U.S. Patent 9,119,038 in relation to this case. The PTAB provides an alternative forum for challenging patent validity, often at a lower cost and with a faster timeline than federal court litigation.

The following attorneys represented Yopima, LLC in the patent infringement case against DoorDash, Inc.:

• Michael J. Tricarico (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kennedys Law, New York, New York
  • Experience: Michael Tricarico is a seasoned litigator whose practice focuses primarily on insurance coverage, insurance defense, and reinsurance disputes. He has also defended various clients against trademark and copyright infringement claims. He has litigated extensively in various state and federal courts throughout the United States.

• Elizabeth L. Al-Imari (Counsel)

  • Firm: Amaran Law Group, P.A., Aventura, Florida
  • Experience: Elizabeth Amaran's practice focuses on immigration, personal injury, and family law. There is no specific indication of patent litigation experience for Elizabeth L. Al-Imari in the search results.

• Joseph B. Shelton (Counsel)

  • Firm: Shelton Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Note: There are several attorneys named Joseph Shelton, but based on the firm name and other individuals on the filing, this appears to be the most relevant. Other Joseph Shelton attorneys listed in the search results focus on employment law or criminal defense, without mention of patent litigation.)
  • Experience: Joseph B. Shelton's firm, Shelton Law Firm, focuses on criminal defense and family law. There is no specific indication of patent litigation experience for Joseph B. Shelton in the search results.

• Thomas J. S. Mueller (Counsel)

  • Firm: Curtin & Heefner LLP, Yardley, Pennsylvania (Based on similar names and the firm's announcement of a "Partner Tom Mueller" securing summary judgment in a federal court case) (Note: There are multiple attorneys named Thomas Mueller; without the PACER docket directly listing the firm, this is an inference based on available information regarding a Thomas Mueller practicing in federal courts with a firm that has a published news item around litigation. Other Thomas Mueller entries include a civil litigator in Canada, an antitrust attorney, a patent agent/attorney in Germany, and an intellectual property attorney in Wisconsin, none of whom appear to be directly linked to this specific case or plaintiff through the provided snippets.)
  • Experience: A Thomas Mueller at Curtin & Heefner LLP obtained partial summary judgment in a federal court insurance bad faith case. There is no specific mention of patent litigation experience for this Thomas J. S. Mueller, though other Thomas Muellers have patent-related experience in different contexts (e.g., patent agent, intellectual property attorney).

It is worth noting that a "Motion Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of the Local Counsel Requirement" was filed, which might suggest that some of the identified counsel are not local to the Western District of Texas. The case was voluntarily dismissed before significant litigation, so detailed appearances beyond the initial complaint may not be extensively recorded.

Based on the available information, including the swift and voluntary dismissal of Yopima, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc. (7:25-cv-00385 W.D. Tex.) on January 22, 2026, DoorDash, Inc.'s counsel of record is not explicitly identifiable through standard public docket searches.

The case was resolved just 147 days after filing and "critically, before DoorDash filed an answer or any motion for summary judgment." This typically means that formal appearances, which would list counsel of record, may not have been extensively documented or publicly accessible before the dismissal. Therefore, no specific attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, or patent litigation experience can be provided for the defendant in this instance.