Infringement action filed 28 Oct 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 22 Jun 2026, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
In some embodiments, the present invention provides a computer-implemented transportation system which can include at least the following components: a specialized computer machine, including: a non-transient memory, electronically storing particular computer executable program code; a specifically programmed computer processor of the specialized computer machine of the computer-implemented transportation system that is configured to perform at least the following operations: electronically receiving, in real-time, via a computer network, a plurality of electronic riding requests from a plurality of electronic computing devices operated by a plurality of ride-sharing requesting passengers; where each electronic riding request from each ride-sharing requesting passenger includes: a passenger-requested origin point, and a passenger-requested destination point; for a particular electronic riding request, dynamically determining, in real-time, from a plurality of candidate vehicles an assigned vehicle for picking up the particular ride-shaming requesting passenger and a pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks.
In some embodiments, the present invention provides a computer-implemented transportation system which can include at least the following components: a specialized computer machine, including: a non-transient memory, electronically storing particular computer executable program code; a specifically programmed computer processor of the specialized computer machine of the computer-implemented transportation system that is configured to perform at least the following operations: electronically receiving, in real-time, via a computer network, a plurality of electronic riding requests from a plurality of electronic computing devices operated by a plurality of ride-sharing requesting passengers; where each electronic riding request from each ride-sharing requesting passenger includes: a passenger-requested origin point, and a passenger-requested destination point; for a particular electronic riding request, dynamically determining, in real-time, from a plurality of candidate vehicles an assigned vehicle for picking up the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger and a pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks.
The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs."
Case 26-1101 · Fed. Cir. · closed 22 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
26-1101 is a patent infringement action brought by Rideco Inc. against Via Transportation, Inc., filed on 28 Oct 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 22 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 26-1101?
US10197411B2 (“Continuously updatable computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles and computer transportation systems and computer-implemented methods for use thereof”), assigned to VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., currently active; US9562785B1 (“Continuously updatable computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles and computer transportation systems and computer-implemented methods for use thereof”), assigned to VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., currently active; US9816824B1 (“Continuously updatable computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles and computer transportation systems and computer-implemented methods for use thereof”), assigned to VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC.. The record also lists application and service.
How was case 26-1101 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: "The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs."
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 26-1101 take?
237 calendar days, from filing on 28 Oct 2025 to closure on 22 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 26-1101?
Abran J. Kean, Eric A. Buresh and Michelle Lyons Marriott are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Rideco. Elizabeth Moulton, Jordan Ross Jaffe, Lauren Weber and Samantha Michelle Leff appear for defendant Via Transportation.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 26-1101 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 26-1101 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
