Yopima LLC v. E2open Parent Holdings Inc

In a recent case highlighting the ongoing assertion of location-based technology patents, Yopima LLC has filed a patent infringement suit against E2open Parent Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Yopima LLC, appears to be a patent assertion entity, as it has filed numerous similar lawsuits against a wide range of companies, from food delivery services to mobility companies, all asserting the same patent. The defendant, E2open, is a major publicly traded operating company that provides a cloud-based, end-to-end software platform for supply chain management, logistics, and global trade to thousands of clients across various industries. E2open was acquired by the Australian logistics software company WiseTech Global in August 2025.

The lawsuit accuses E2open's supply chain management platform of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038. The '038 patent, titled "Systems and Methods for Comparative Geofencing," generally describes technology for tracking devices within multiple distinct or overlapping virtual boundaries (geofences) and analyzing data associated with those devices. Yopima's infringement contentions target E2open’s services that provide supply chain visibility and tracking, which can include features like "geo-coordinate mapping for raw materials" to monitor and manage the movement of goods. The technology allows for comparing data between different geographic areas, a function critical to modern logistics and analytics.

The case was filed on April 22, 2026, in the Northern District of Texas and has been assigned to Judge Ada Brown. While the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas have historically been the most popular venues for patent plaintiffs, the Northern District maintains a significant patent docket and has specific local rules and procedures for managing such cases. This case is notable as another instance in Yopima's broad litigation campaign, which began in 2025 with suits against companies like DoorDash, Grubhub, Verizon, and InMarket Media, all targeting the use of geofencing technology. The suit against E2open extends this campaign into the critical supply chain and logistics software sector, potentially impacting a foundational technology used for tracking goods and assets globally.

Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 1, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Yopima LLC and E2open Parent Holdings Inc. is in its earliest stage. Having been filed only nine days prior, on April 22, 2026, there have been no substantive legal developments regarding the core infringement claims. The case is currently open before Judge Ada Brown in the Northern District of Texas.

A chronological summary of events to date is as follows:

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2026-04-22)

• Complaint: Yopima LLC filed its complaint against E2open Parent Holdings Inc. on April 22, 2026, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038, which relates to "Systems and Methods for Comparative Geofencing." The complaint accuses E2open's supply chain management platform, which includes features for tracking and managing goods using virtual geographic boundaries, of violating Yopima's patent rights. This filing is part of a broader litigation campaign by Yopima, which began in 2025, targeting companies that use geofencing technology.
• Initial Court Filings: Alongside the complaint, Yopima's counsel, William Ramey of Ramey LLP, filed a motion to be exempted from the court's requirement to retain local counsel (Docket Entry 5).
• Court Order on Counsel: On the same day the case was filed, Judge Ada Brown denied the plaintiff's motion for waiver of the local counsel requirement (Docket Entry 6). The court ordered Yopima to have a local attorney make an appearance within thirty days, warning that failure to comply could result in the case being dismissed without prejudice.
• Defendant's Response: As of May 1, 2026, defendant E2open Parent Holdings Inc. has not yet filed an answer or any other responsive pleading to the complaint. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond after being served with the summons and complaint.

Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, and Discovery

Given the case's recent filing, no substantive pre-trial motions—such as motions to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay proceedings—have been filed. The litigation has not advanced to key stages like claim construction (Markman hearings), discovery, or summary judgment.

Settlement or Final Disposition

The case remains active and in its preliminary phase. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions have been filed by E2open or any other entity challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,119,038. Such a filing would be a common defensive strategy for an accused infringer, but as of this date, no such action has been taken. The absence of a PTAB challenge means there is currently no parallel proceeding that could lead to a stay of the district court litigation.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of May 1, 2026, only one attorney has formally appeared for the plaintiff, Yopima LLC. The court has ordered Yopima to designate local counsel, but no such appearance has been entered on the docket yet.

Name	Role	Firm	Office Location	Notable Experience
William Ramey	Lead Counsel	Ramey LLP	Houston, TX	Represents patent assertion entities in numerous litigation campaigns, including against major tech and automotive companies.

William Ramey (Lead Counsel)

• Firm: Ramey LLP (Houston, TX)
• William Ramey filed the original complaint on behalf of Yopima LLC (Docket Entry 1) and is listed as the lead attorney. He also filed a motion to waive the requirement for local counsel, which was subsequently denied by the court (Docket Entries 5, 6). His firm, Ramey LLP, specializes in intellectual property litigation and has a track record of representing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in patent assertion campaigns across the country. Ramey has been counsel in many of Yopima's other lawsuits asserting the '038 patent.

Local Counsel

• As of May 1, 2026, no local counsel has appeared for the plaintiff. In an order dated April 22, 2026, Judge Ada Brown denied William Ramey's motion to waive the local counsel requirement and instructed the plaintiff to designate local counsel within 30 days. Failure to comply could result in dismissal.

Defendant Representatives

As of May 1, 2026, no counsel has formally appeared on the court docket for the defendant, E2open Parent Holdings Inc.

The complaint was filed on April 22, 2026. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant must typically serve an answer or other responsive pleading within 21 days after being formally served with the summons and complaint. Given this timeline, E2open's response is not yet due, and it is standard for their counsel not to have entered an appearance at this early stage.

Information on E2open's legal representation will be added once a notice of appearance or a responsive pleading is filed with the court.