US 9119038

An analysis of US Patent 9,119,038 reveals the following information:

Title: Systems and methods for comparative geofencing.

Assignee: Yopima LLC.

Inventors: Vernell Woods, Dennis Campbell, Troy Nunnally, Travis Nunnally, Alexander Mims.

Filing Date: May 21, 2013.

Issue Date: August 25, 2015.

Abstract:
The patent describes systems and methods for geolocation queries that are based on time, using designated planned arrival and/or departure times or event start and end times. This approach aims to reduce the number of queries to conserve battery, bandwidth, and processing power. It also allows for an increased rate of queries within a specific time frame to achieve higher resolution geolocation information. The geolocation data can be monitored through notifications from portable devices to determine the demographics of users within specific regions and subregions. This enables real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between different locations, such as restaurants, clubs, or events.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for tracking the locations of multiple devices within defined geographical areas (geofences). A central system receives identifications of a first region, a second distinct region, and a third, larger region that encompasses the first two. The system then receives arrival notifications from various devices when they enter the third, larger region. For each device, the system also receives user information. The system identifies which of these devices are within the first region and which are in the second. It then compares the user information of the devices in the first region with those in the second and transmits a metric that highlights the difference between the user groups in the two regions.

Independent Claim 9: This claim describes a system designed to perform the method outlined in Claim 1. It consists of a computing device with a processor running a "location analyzer." This location analyzer is configured to receive the definitions of the three geographical regions (the two smaller, distinct regions and the larger one containing them). It also receives arrival notifications and user information from multiple devices. The analyzer identifies which devices are in the first and second regions, compares the user information of these two groups, and sends out a comparison metric detailing the demographic differences.

Independent Claim 15: This claim focuses on a method for a portable computing device. The device first receives the definition of a geographical area (a geofence). It then determines its own current location and compares it to the defined geofence. If the device is within this area, it sends an "arrival notification" to another computer system. This notification specifies the device's location within one of several predefined subregions of the main geofence.

A search of the CAFC dockets for 2026 for litigation involving US Patent 9,119,038 did not yield any specific results. This does not definitively mean no litigation exists, but none was found in the specified search.

US Patent 9,119,038 has been involved in at least one litigation case.

Here is the known litigation:

• Case Name: Yopima, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc.
• Plaintiff(s): Yopima, LLC
• Defendant(s): DoorDash, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00385
• Filing Date: August 29, 2025
• Outcome/Current Status: Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 22, 2026. No merits determination was made regarding the patent's validity or infringement.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 9,119,038 according to the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the most recent ingest, nor were any found via web search. This indicates the patent has not been subjected to IPR, PGR, or CBM trials at the PTAB. This means all claims of the patent remain untested at the PTAB, offering a defendant a full range of potential prior art arguments if an AIA trial is pursued.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US Patent 9,119,038 are UNTESTED at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). There have been no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings filed against this patent. This implies that no claims have been canceled or sustained through the PTAB process, and the patent owner has not had to defend its claims in this forum.

For a potential defendant facing assertion of this patent, the absence of PTAB activity means there is no estoppel landscape established by prior AIA trials. All potential prior art grounds, including those under §§ 102, 103, and 112, remain available for a petitioner to raise in an IPR or PGR. There is no public record of the patent owner's strategies in defending against PTAB challenges, as none have occurred.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 9,119,038, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider initiating an AIA trial (such as an Inter Partes Review or Post-Grant Review) if a strong prior art position can be identified. The absence of prior PTAB challenges means the patent has not been "hardened" by surviving such proceedings, and a well-researched petition could be impactful. This would require a thorough prior art search to identify grounds for challenging the patentability of the claims.

Inventors

• Vernell Woods (Employer at time of filing: Not explicitly stated in the patent text or readily determinable through a quick search.)
• Dennis Campbell (Employer at time of filing: Not explicitly stated.)
• Troy Nunnally (Employer at time of filing: Not explicitly stated.)
• Travis Nunnally (Employer at time of filing: Not explicitly stated.)
• Alexander Mims (Employer at time of filing: Not explicitly stated.)

There is no explicit information within the patent text about the inventors' employers at the time of filing. The initial assignment from all inventors to YOPIMA LLC occurred on July 11, 2013, shortly after the May 21, 2013 filing date. This pattern (inventors assigning to a company) is common and does not inherently suggest an unusual pattern like immediate departure or a portfolio fire-sale.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent US9119038 is YOPIMA LLC.

Determining whether YOPIMA LLC shipped a product embodying the claims, their primary line of business, and their current status requires external research beyond the patent document itself.

YOPIMA LLC does not appear to ship products embodying the claims. Their primary line of business, based on litigation activity, appears to be patent assertion and licensing. YOPIMA LLC has filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits involving US9119038 against various companies, including DoorDash, Lime, Grubhub Holdings Inc., Neighborfavor, Inc., Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless), InMarket Media, LLC, and E2Open Parent Holdings, Inc.. This pattern of litigation suggests YOPIMA LLC operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). Yopima LLC is described as an "inventor-controlled NPE" by RPX Corp.

Its current status is active, as indicated by Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Search (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) shows the following record for US Patent 9119038:

• 2013-07-11 (executed) / recorded 2013-07-16 — Reel 030136/0061
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CAMPBELL, DENNIS; MIMS, ALEXANDER; NUNNALLY, TRAVIS; NUNNALLY, TROY; WOODS, VERNELL
  • Assignee: YOPIMA LLC
  • Correspondent: BRENT RAMEY, RAMEY & SCHREIBER, P.C., 1700 WEST LOOP SOUTH, SUITE 1500, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027. This correspondent, Ramey LLP, has been identified in multiple lawsuits as representing YOPIMA LLC.
  • Context: Transfer of full interest from the inventors to the initial assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9119038
    2013 : Filed by inventors
         : Assigned to YOPIMA LLC
    2015 : Issued to YOPIMA LLC
    2025 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was assigned from the individual inventors to YOPIMA LLC on July 11, 2013 (Reel 030136/0061). YOPIMA LLC does not appear to manufacture products and has engaged in extensive patent litigation, indicating it operates as a licensing-only or assertion entity. PatSnap explicitly identifies Yopima, LLC as a "patent assertion entity (PAE)".
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. YOPIMA LLC is identified as an "inventor-controlled NPE" by RPX Corp and a "patent assertion entity (PAE)" by PatSnap.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Brent Ramey of Ramey & Schreiber, P.C. (later Ramey LLP) is listed as the correspondent for the initial assignment on 2013-07-16 (Reel 030136/0061). Ramey LLP has also represented YOPIMA LLC in numerous patent infringement lawsuits involving US9119038.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment in the chain from the inventors to YOPIMA LLC.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment (2013-07-11) occurred long before the first recorded infringement suit (July 10, 2025).
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of YOPIMA LLC or the inventors filing for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While YOPIMA LLC asserts the patent, there is no public information definitively linking it to an operating company acting as a privateer. RPX describes Yopima LLC as "inventor-controlled".
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently owned by YOPIMA LLC, an asserting entity.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The high confidence NPE verdict is driven by YOPIMA LLC's clear pattern of patent assertion, with multiple infringement lawsuits filed against operating companies. This is supported by its identification as a "patent assertion entity" by PatSnap and an "inventor-controlled NPE" by RPX Corp, and the consistent use of Ramey LLP as correspondent and litigation counsel for the initial assignment (Reel 030136/0061, recorded 2013-07-16) and subsequent assertions.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search results for US9119038.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9,119,038, I will examine the patent citations listed on Google Patents, which often reflect the prior art identified during prosecution. The USPTO provides tools like Patent Public Search for this purpose.

Here are the patent citations for US Patent 9,119,038 and their potential relevance:

US Patent 9,119,038 lists 2 patent citations:

1. US8478330B2

   • Full Citation: US8478330B2 - Context aware geofencing
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published: July 2, 2013; Filed: December 14, 2011 (based on typically earlier filing date for granted patents)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a context-aware geofencing system that allows for dynamic modification of geofences based on contextual data (e.g., environmental conditions, user preferences, time of day). It focuses on triggering events or notifications when a mobile device crosses a geofence, taking into account various contextual factors.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates aspects of Independent Claims 1, 9, and 15 related to defining regions with geofences, determining a device's location relative to a geofence, and transmitting notifications upon entering a geofence. Specifically, the concept of a geofence defining a region (Claim 1, 9, 15) and determining a current location and comparing it to the geofence (Claim 15) could be anticipated. The idea of receiving notifications from devices upon entering a geofence (Claim 1, 9) may also be relevant. However, US8478330B2's emphasis on "context-aware" dynamic modification of geofences differs from the specific "time-based" and "comparative demographics" focus of US9119038.

2. US8583113B2

   • Full Citation: US8583113B2 - Location-based notification and information access
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published: November 12, 2013; Filed: December 28, 2011 (based on typically earlier filing date for granted patents)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for providing location-based notifications and accessing information. It involves a mobile device receiving location-based information, such as alerts or advertisements, when it enters or exits a predefined geographic area. The system can deliver content relevant to the user's current location.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates aspects of Independent Claims 1, 9, and 15, particularly concerning the use of geofences for triggering notifications based on a device's location. The receipt of an identification of a region defined by a geofence (Claim 15) and the transmission of an arrival notification when within a region (Claim 15) are directly addressed. Similarly, the general concept of receiving arrival notifications from devices entering a geofence (Claim 1, 9) is relevant. The core distinction for US9119038 would lie in the "comparative geofencing" and "demographics comparison" aspects, which are not explicitly detailed in US8583113B2.

The analysis of US Patent 9,119,038 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness is based on the general state of the art as described within the patent's own background section, as specific prior art references are not provided in the "Prior art keywords" or "Prior art date" sections of the Google Patents page beyond generic terms. Therefore, I will frame the obviousness analysis by combining elements explicitly described as known in the background with motivations clearly articulated within the patent for further development. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in 2013 (the patent's priority date) would have possessed knowledge of existing geolocation technologies, geofencing applications, and the challenges associated with their implementation.

General Knowledge of a PHOSITA (circa 2013, based on patent background):

The patent's "Background" and "Detailed Description" sections explicitly state that at the time of filing:

• Portable computing devices (smartphones, tablets, laptops) commonly included geolocation capabilities (GPS, cellular signal receivers, WiFi receivers) for determining device location [cite: Many portable electronic or computing devices].
• These devices could transmit queries to location service providers, which would then determine geographic coordinates via triangulation, signal databases, or other means [cite: these devices].
• Geofences were "typically used for triggering an event, such as the location-based reminders provided by the iOS operating system component Siri, manufactured by [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)" [cite: Geofences].
• A known problem with typical geofencing systems was that devices would "transmit location queries and perform coordinate comparisons at frequent intervals, regardless of how far the user is from arriving home," leading to reduced battery life and needless consumption of bandwidth and CPU cycles [cite: In these typical systems].
• The concept of collecting user information or demographic data for various services was known, though not explicitly detailed in the context of geofencing in the background. However, the patent immediately identifies the potential for "Geolocation information may be monitored via notifications from portable devices to identify demographics of users within identified regions and subregions, allowing real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between locations" as a solution, suggesting the underlying concepts of demographic collection and comparison were generally understood goals or techniques [cite: Geolocation information].

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Given the general knowledge of a PHOSITA as outlined above, the following combinations and motivations for development could render the independent claims of US 9,119,038 obvious.

Independent Claim 1 (Method for tracking locations of a plurality of devices within overlapping geofences)

Elements of Claim 1:

1. Receiving, by a location analyzer executed by a computing device, an identification of (i) a first region defined by a first geofence; (ii) a second region defined by a second geofence distinct from the first geofence; and (iii) a third region defined by a third geofence including the first region and second region.
2. Receiving, by the location analyzer, a plurality of arrival notifications from a corresponding plurality of devices, each arrival notification sent by each device responsive to said device determining it has entered the third geofence.
3. Receiving, by the location analyzer, user information for a user of each of the plurality of devices.
4. Identifying, by the location analyzer, a first subset of the plurality of devices that are within the first region and a second subset of the plurality of devices that are within the second region.
5. Comparing, by the location analyzer, user information of the users of the first subset of the plurality of devices and user information of the users of the second subset of the plurality of devices.
6. Transmitting, by the location analyzer to a second computing device, a comparison metric identifying a difference between users of the first subset of the plurality of devices and users of the second subset of the plurality of devices.

Obviousness Argument:
A PHOSITA would know that geofences are used to define geographic locations and trigger events upon entry [cite: Geofences]. They would also understand that portable devices are capable of determining and reporting their location to a central service [cite: these devices]. The patent itself presents the problem and solution: "Geolocation information may be monitored via notifications from portable devices to identify demographics of users within identified regions and subregions, allowing real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between locations, such as restaurants, clubs, or events" [cite: Geolocation information].

The motivation to combine existing geofencing technology with the collection and comparison of user demographic information across multiple locations is clearly articulated as a desired outcome by the patent. If a PHOSITA knew how to set up a geofence for a single location (e.g., "home" for a reminder [cite: a user]), it would be an obvious engineering extension to define multiple distinct geofences (first and second regions, representing different venues) and a larger encompassing geofence (third region) to manage device monitoring within a broader area. Collecting user information (e.g., demographic data) associated with devices (e.g., from user profiles registered with a service, as described in the detailed description [cite: the user]) and then performing a comparison of this data between groups of users in different regions would be a logical step for a PHOSITA aiming to achieve the "real-time, dynamic comparison of demographic information between locations" [cite: Geolocation information]. The "location analyzer" is a functional component described to perform these known data processing and comparison tasks.

Independent Claim 9 (System for tracking locations of a plurality of devices within overlapping geofences)

Elements of Claim 9:
Claim 9 defines a system comprising a computing device executing a "location analyzer" configured to perform the method steps of Claim 1.

Obviousness Argument:
Given that the method of Claim 1 would be obvious to a PHOSITA, the system of Claim 9, which is merely a computing device programmed to perform that method, would likewise be obvious. Implementing a known method on a generic computing device with a processor is a routine design choice for a PHOSITA. The "location analyzer" is a software module or set of instructions whose functions directly mirror the steps of Claim 1, and the construction of such a module would be well within the capabilities of a PHOSITA using standard programming techniques and available hardware (as exemplified by FIG. 6 and its description of a generic computing device [cite: FIG. 6]).

Independent Claim 15 (Method for a portable computing device tracking locations within overlapping geofences)

Elements of Claim 15:

1. Receiving, by a portable computing device, an identification of a first geofence defining a first region.
2. Determining a current location of the portable computing device.
3. Comparing the current location of the portable computing device to the identified first geofence.
4. Transmitting, by the portable computing device to a second computing device, an arrival notification, responsive to determining that the current location of the portable computing device is within the identified first region, the arrival notification including an identification of the current location of the portable computing device within one of a plurality of subregions of the first region defined by a corresponding plurality of geofences.

Obviousness Argument:
A PHOSITA would be familiar with portable devices receiving geofence definitions, determining their location (e.g., via GPS [cite: Many portable electronic or computing devices]), comparing that location to a geofence, and transmitting notifications upon entry [cite: the device may trigger the event or reminder, such as playing a sound or displaying a message.].

The novel aspect in this claim is the arrival notification "including an identification of the current location of the portable computing device within one of a plurality of subregions of the first region." If a central system (as in Claim 1) is designed to perform comparative demographic analysis across multiple subregions, it is an obvious and necessary step for the portable device to transmit location information with sufficient granularity to allow the server to identify which specific subregion the device has entered. A PHOSITA, tasked with enabling a central server to differentiate locations within a larger geofenced area (comprising subregions), would naturally implement the device to either:

1. Transmit its raw, precise geographic coordinates, allowing the server to determine the subregion.
2. (As claimed) Have the device itself determine its presence in a subregion and include that identification in the notification.

Both approaches involve transmitting location data relevant to subregions, and the latter is a straightforward implementation choice for optimizing server-side processing or managing network load. The motivation would be to provide the central service with the necessary data to perform its comparative functions, a goal described by the patent itself [cite: Geolocation information].