LBT IP II LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

On November 19, 2021, LBT IP II LLC (“Plaintiff”), represented by Bruce J. Rose, Michael J Newton and Theodore Stevenson, III of Alston & Bird LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber” or “Defendant”), seeking damages, pre-judgement and post-judgement interests and other reliefs for the Defendant’s alleged infringement of the United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judge Alan D. Albright presiding.

This complaint arises from Defendant’s alleged unlawful infringement of the United States Patents owned by Plaintiff: United States Patent No. 7,728,724 (“the ’724 Patent”), United States Patent No. 7,598,855 (“the ’855 Patent”), United States Patent No. 8,531,289 (“the ’289 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 8,224,355 (“the ’355 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Plaintiff is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’724 Patent and, at a minimum, all substantial rights in the ’724 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce the patent and all rights to pursue damages, injunctive relief, and all other available remedies for past, current, and future infringement.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “On information and belief, Defendant, alone and/or jointly in conjunction with drivers, agents and/or parties under its control, has directly and/or indirectly infringed and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe the ’724 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by using computerized methods for coordinating, controlling and providing ride-hailing and food delivery services that are covered by one or more claims of the ’724 Patent including Claim 13 of the ’724 Patent without license or authority.”

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has induced, and continues to induce, the infringing acts of the drivers and riders by engaging in these activities and continuing to encourage and instruct the drivers and riders to use the accused Uber Platform and perform steps of the claimed methods with knowledge of the ’724 Patent by at least the time of this Complaint in this action, and with the actual intent to cause the acts which it knew or should have known would induce direct infringement and/or willful blindness of a high probability of infringement.”

Similar allegations of infringement have been made by the Plaintiff against the other Asserted Patents.

There are four claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, one for the alleged infringement of each of the Asserted Patents.

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court to pass a judgment that Defendant has been and is infringing the ’724 Patent, the ’855 Patent, the ’289 Patent and the ’355 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and/or 271(b) along with an award for permanent injunctive relief and award for damages including all prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Furthermore, the Plaintiff requested the Court for a judgment of costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, prejudgment interest against Defendant and any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.