LBT IP II v. Uber Technologies: Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Invalidity
LBT IP II, LLC asserted US7598855B2 — a patent covering apparatus and methods for locating individuals and objects via tracking devices — against Uber Technologies. The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance of invalidity, ending the challenge after 618 days without a written opinion.
A location-tracking patent dies on appeal: Rule 36 ends LBT’s challenge
LBT IP II, LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US7598855B2, appealed a finding that the patent’s claims covering apparatus and methods for locating individuals and objects using tracking devices were unpatentable. The appeal was filed on 28 February 2024 before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, docketed as Case No. 24-1526, with Uber Technologies, Inc. as the appellee defending the invalidity determination.
On 7 November 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability finding via a Rule 36 judgment — a single-line order stating the court found no reversible error in the decision below. Alston & Bird represented LBT IP II, while O’Melveny & Myers defended Uber. The Rule 36 disposition means no new legal reasoning was published; the lower tribunal’s analysis governs and the patent’s claims remain cancelled.
The 618-day duration is consistent with a fully briefed Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting the panel considered the arguments carefully before issuing summary affirmance rather than a full opinion. The public record does not disclose whether oral argument was requested or heard. What is clear is that LBT’s appellate path is now exhausted at the Federal Circuit level, and the patent cannot be deployed against Uber or any other party in its current form.
Filing to Unpatentable in 618 days
618 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting substantive briefing complexity
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 judgment means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: no reversible error found below
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment is a summary affirmance — the court confirms the lower tribunal reached the correct result but declines to issue a written opinion. It carries full precedential weight for the parties but creates no new citable law. The unpatentability finding therefore stands on the reasoning of the lower decision, and LBT cannot use the Rule 36 order itself to argue any new legal principle.
Summary affirmance — no opinion publishedUS7598855B2 is cancelled — LBT’s enforcement position collapses
With the invalidity ruling affirmed, US7598855B2 cannot be enforced as originally issued. LBT IP II’s ability to assert claims against Uber or any other potential target in the ride-hailing, fleet management, or location-services space is extinguished for these specific claims. The only remaining routes — continuation claims, design-arounds, or petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court — face steep practical and legal barriers.
Patent unenforceable as issuedUber secures a clean patent-cleared position on tracking technology
The Federal Circuit affirmance gives Uber a definitive, appellate-level ruling that the asserted tracking patent is invalid. Uber faces no further liability exposure from this specific patent and this specific assertion. The Rule 36 form of the judgment means no new legal theory was created that a future plaintiff could exploit; Uber’s freedom to operate in location-based services is meaningfully strengthened by this outcome.
FTO strengthened at Federal Circuit levelAffirmed invalidity raises the bar for location-tracking NPE assertions
This outcome is consistent with a broader Federal Circuit pattern of scrutinising functional claiming in location-tracking and IoT patents. Ride-hailing, logistics, and fleet-management companies facing similar NPE assertions can point to this affirmance as evidence that the PTAB and Federal Circuit are receptive to unpatentability challenges in this space. Companies holding similar device-tracking patents should audit claim language for vulnerability.
NPE risk reduced in tracking tech spaceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LBT IP II, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7598855B2 (location tracking apparatus and methods)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Uber Technologies, Inc. | Company | Uber Technologies, Inc. — global ride-hailing and mobility platform defending invalidity findingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Timothy Lawn Douglas | Attorney | Counsel for LBT IP II, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirk T. Bradley | Attorney | Counsel for LBT IP II, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mary Isabelle Riolo | Attorney | Counsel for LBT IP II, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Wolff Howell | Attorney | Counsel for LBT IP II, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Newton | Attorney | Counsel for LBT IP II, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Alston & Bird, LLP | Law Firm | Representing LBT IP II, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Haber | Attorney | Counsel for Uber Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brooke Wilner | Attorney | Counsel for Uber Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frances Mackay | Attorney | Counsel for Uber Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Fink | Attorney | Counsel for Uber Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’melveney & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Uber Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36’ — is the court’s most concise form of merits disposition. Under the appellate standard of review applicable to PTAB unpatentability findings, the Federal Circuit reviews claim construction de novo and factual determinations for substantial evidence. A Rule 36 affirmance confirms the panel found no reversible error under either standard, giving the invalidity result maximum finality without introducing new precedent that either party could leverage in future proceedings.
US7598855B2 — Apparatus and method for locating individuals and objects
US7598855B2, filed under application number US11/491370, protects apparatus and methods for locating individuals and objects using tracking devices. The patent sits at the intersection of hardware device design and location-services methodology — a domain that became commercially critical with the proliferation of GPS-enabled handsets, fleet telematics, and on-demand mobility platforms. The application date places its priority period in the mid-2000s, predating the smartphone era’s dominance, which is relevant to prior-art analysis.
From a competitive standpoint, a patent of this scope — if valid — would have been a significant toll-gate asset across ride-hailing, delivery logistics, personal safety, and IoT tracking markets. Uber’s operations depend fundamentally on real-time location tracking of drivers and riders, making this an existential assertion rather than a peripheral nuisance. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of invalidity removes the patent as a risk factor but confirms that the underlying technology space remains a litigation battleground for NPEs holding similar apparatus-and-method claims.
Should you run an FTO against US7598855B2 and related LBT patents?
Any company building or deploying real-time location tracking for people or objects — including ride-hailing platforms, last-mile delivery operators, fleet telematics providers, and personal safety device makers — should assess whether LBT IP II holds surviving family members related to US7598855B2. The cancelled patent’s application number (US11/491370) provides the anchor for a family search. Even with this patent invalidated, continuation or divisional claims filed before the priority date may remain active.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family descended from US11/491370, identify any co-pending or granted continuations held by LBT IP II or related entities, and overlay claim language against your specific product architecture. For companies already in litigation or anticipating NPE outreach in the location-services sector, Eureka can also surface the PTAB prior art record from this case as a ready-to-deploy invalidity reference set.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7598855B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals: location-tracking and mobility patent disputes
Cases mirroring the LBT IP II v. Uber fact pattern — NPE assertions of location-tracking patents appealed to the Federal Circuit — clustered in the ride-hailing and IoT sectors.
What this case signals for the location-tracking IP landscape
A Rule 36 affirmance from the Federal Circuit sends a clear signal: broadly functional location-tracking claims remain vulnerable to validity challenge.
Rule 36 outcomes signal panel confidence — not ambiguity — in invalidity
When the Federal Circuit issues a Rule 36 judgment, it typically signals that the panel unanimously agreed the lower decision was correct and that no new legal question warranted a written opinion. For patent challengers in the mobility and tracking sector, this is a strong endorsement of the invalidity analysis applied below — not a close call left unresolved.
NPEs asserting broad tracking patents face a toughened appellate climate
The combination of PTAB invalidity proceedings and Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmances has created a high-attrition environment for non-practising entities holding apparatus-and-method tracking patents. Companies operating in ride-hailing, last-mile logistics, and fleet telematics should monitor the underlying PTAB record in this case for claim-construction and prior-art arguments that may apply defensively to similar assertions.
LBT v Uber — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US7598855B2 via a Rule 36 summary judgment on 7 November 2025. The court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s invalidity determination, ending LBT IP II’s appeal without a written opinion. The patent’s claims covering apparatus and methods for locating individuals and objects using tracking devices are cancelled.
A Rule 36 affirmance is a one-line order stating the lower decision is affirmed without a published opinion. It carries full legal effect — the invalidity finding is final — but creates no new citable precedent. For LBT IP II, it means US7598855B2 is cancelled, no written reasoning can be appealed further on the merits, and the only remaining option would be a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which faces very high threshold requirements.
Not based on US7598855B2 as issued — the claims are cancelled following the Federal Circuit’s affirmance. However, the public record does not conclusively establish whether LBT IP II holds continuation, divisional, or related applications in the same patent family. Any such surviving applications could potentially support new assertions if their claims are sufficiently distinct. A full patent family search on application US11/491370 is advisable for any party concerned about residual risk.
US7598855B2 covers apparatus and methods for locating individuals and objects using tracking devices. Uber’s core service — matching riders and drivers via real-time GPS location — squarely falls within the commercial application of such technology. The patent’s mid-2000s priority date and broad apparatus-and-method framing made it an attractive assertion vehicle for a patent assertion entity targeting a high-revenue mobility platform.
LBT IP II was represented by Alston & Bird, LLP, with attorneys including Christopher Timothy Lawn Douglas, Kirk T. Bradley, Mary Isabelle Riolo, Matthew Wolff Howell, and Michael J. Newton. Uber Technologies was represented by O’Melveny & Myers LLP, with attorneys including Benjamin Haber, Brooke Wilner, Frances Mackay, and William Fink.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.