Yopima v. InMarket Media: Geofencing Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Yopima, LLC brought a patent infringement action against InMarket Media, LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting US9119038B2 covering systems and methods for comparative geofencing. The case resolved by agreed judgment — dismissed with prejudice — in just 94 days, with each party bearing its own costs, suggesting a confidential settlement was reached.
A swift geofencing patent dispute resolved on agreed terms
Yopima, LLC filed suit against InMarket Media, LLC on August 1, 2025, in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00337), asserting infringement of US9119038B2 — a patent covering systems and methods for comparative geofencing. InMarket Media is a location-based marketing and audience intelligence company whose core products rely on geofencing and location data, placing it squarely within the scope of the asserted claims.
The case closed on November 3, 2025, via an agreed judgment entered by the court. All pending claims were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ agreement, and each side was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice under an agreed judgment of this kind typically signals that the parties reached a confidential settlement — the prejudice bar prevents Yopima from re-asserting the same claims against InMarket Media in future litigation.
The 94-day duration from filing to closure is notably brief for a patent infringement action, suggesting the parties moved quickly toward a negotiated resolution — possibly reflecting an existing licensing relationship or early commercial discussions. The public record does not disclose whether any license, royalty payment, or other consideration was exchanged. The mutual cost-bearing order and absence of any damages finding means the financial outcome remains entirely private.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 94 days
94-day resolution — significantly faster than the W.D. Tex. median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed judgment means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any future refiling on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, meaning Yopima cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against InMarket Media based on US9119038B2. The ‘agreed judgment’ framing indicates both parties consented to this outcome, distinguishing it from a unilateral voluntary dismissal. This is the standard procedural mechanism used to close litigation once a confidential settlement has been reached.
Rule 41 / Agreed JudgmentYopima permanently waives its right to pursue InMarket on this patent
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Yopima, LLC surrendered its ability to reassert US9119038B2 against InMarket Media in any future action. This is a significant concession for a licensing-oriented plaintiff. However, the structure is consistent with a negotiated licence or lump-sum payment — Yopima retains the patent and can continue asserting it against other defendants not party to this judgment.
Future enforcement limited vs. InMarketInMarket Media secures permanent peace from this patent assertion
InMarket Media exits this litigation with full certainty: Yopima cannot bring the same geofencing patent claims again. Whether that peace was purchased through a licence fee or achieved by demonstrating non-infringement early in the process is not disclosed. The each-party-bears-own-costs order removes any fee-shifting risk, which is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a court-adjudicated win for either side.
Permanent bar on re-assertionUS9119038B2 remains active and assertable against other geofencing players
The agreed dismissal resolves only this bilateral dispute. US9119038B2 survives in full force and can be asserted against other location-based advertising, retail analytics, or geofencing technology companies. The rapid resolution may signal that the patent is commercially valuable enough to incentivise early settlement — a data point relevant to any competitor operating in the comparative geofencing space who has not yet been approached by Yopima.
Patent still in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yopima, LLC | Company | Location-data IP licensing entity — holder of US9119038B2 (comparative geofencing)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | InMarket Media, LLC | Company | InMarket Media, LLC — location-based marketing and audience intelligence platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Yopima, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Yopima, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher W. Patton | Attorney | Counsel for InMarket Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric W. Pinker | Attorney | Counsel for InMarket Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, L.L.P. | Law Firm | Representing InMarket Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lynn, Pinker, Hurst & Schwegmann L.L.P. | Law Firm | Representing InMarket Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The agreed judgment’s language — ‘all pending claims alleged by Plaintiff shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ — is unambiguous: this is a final, bilateral resolution with no path to relitigation. The mutual cost-bearing provision is notable; in a pure defendant win, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 would typically be pursued. Its absence strongly suggests a negotiated exit rather than a substantive adjudication, leaving the patent’s validity and infringement merits untested on the public record.
US9119038B2 — Systems and methods for comparative geofencing
US9119038B2 (application no. US13/899348) covers systems and methods for comparative geofencing — technology that goes beyond simple location-boundary triggers to compare multiple geofenced regions for purposes such as audience segmentation, competitive proximity analysis, or behavioural targeting. The patent’s claims are relevant to any platform that evaluates a device’s relationship to more than one geofenced zone simultaneously, a capability central to modern location-based advertising infrastructure.
For the location intelligence and mobile advertising sector, US9119038B2 represents a potentially broad enforcement instrument. Comparative geofencing is embedded in competitive conquest advertising (targeting consumers near a rival’s location), retail analytics dashboards, and audience intelligence products — all core to InMarket Media’s business and to dozens of competing platforms. The patent remaining in force after this settlement means any company in this space should treat it as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9119038B2?
Any company operating location-based advertising technology, mobile audience intelligence, or geofencing-driven targeting products should evaluate their exposure to US9119038B2. The patent’s focus on comparative — rather than single-zone — geofencing means products that analyse device proximity to multiple locations, competitive trade areas, or layered geofence hierarchies are potentially within its scope. The InMarket settlement demonstrates that Yopima is actively licensing this asset.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9119038B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prosecution history estoppel, surface relevant prior art, and flag related continuations or family members that may extend the enforcement footprint. For R&D teams building or expanding geofencing capabilities, an early FTO reduces the risk of a demand letter disrupting product roadmap timelines.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9119038B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar geofencing and location-data patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions asserting location-based advertising and geofencing technology claims in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the location-based advertising IP landscape
A 94-day resolution on confidential terms suggests US9119038B2 carries credible licensing leverage across the geofencing sector.
Speed of resolution signals strong early settlement incentive
Cases settling in under 100 days typically reflect either a credible infringement read or a defendant motivated to avoid discovery costs. For companies in the location-data and geofencing space, Yopima’s rapid success here — whether monetary or otherwise — suggests this patent assertion strategy is working and may be repeated against other targets.
Comparative geofencing IP is actively enforced in W.D. Texas
The Western District of Texas remains a preferred venue for patent assertion entities pursuing technology companies. The Ramey LLP filing pattern in this court is well-established. Companies offering location-based marketing, geofencing targeting, or comparative proximity features should assess their exposure to US9119038B2 before receiving a demand letter.
Yopima v InMarket — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by agreed judgment on November 3, 2025. All claims Yopima asserted against InMarket Media were permanently barred from refiling, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal structure is consistent with a confidential settlement, though no financial terms were disclosed.
Yopima asserted US9119038B2, a patent covering systems and methods for comparative geofencing. The patent relates to technology that evaluates a device’s relationship to multiple geofenced zones — a capability relevant to location-based advertising, competitive conquest targeting, and mobile audience intelligence platforms.
No. The agreed dismissal resolves only the bilateral dispute between Yopima and InMarket Media. It does not constitute a court ruling on the validity or infringement scope of US9119038B2. The patent remains in full force and effect and can be asserted against other parties in future litigation.
The 94-day duration is notably short for a patent infringement action. This pace typically reflects early commercial discussions that were already underway, a credible infringement read that motivated the defendant to settle, or a pre-litigation licensing approach that converted to formal litigation before concluding. The public record does not disclose the specific driver.
Yopima was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm with an established patent assertion practice in the Western District of Texas. InMarket Media was represented by Christopher W. Patton and Eric W. Pinker of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, L.L.P. (also listed as Lynn, Pinker, Hurst & Schwegmann L.L.P.).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.