Yopima v. Neighborfavor: Geofencing Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed After 122 Days
Yopima, LLC filed suit against Neighborfavor, Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting US9119038B2, a patent covering systems and methods for comparative geofencing. Before the defendant served an answer, Yopima filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice — ending the case after just 122 days entirely on plaintiff’s initiative.
Geofencing Patent Suit Ends Before Defendant Could Respond
On August 29, 2025, Yopima, LLC filed an infringement action against Neighborfavor, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00389), asserting US9119038B2 — a patent directed to systems and methods for comparative geofencing. Neighborfavor is a location-based services company, and the asserted patent covers technology that is central to proximity-aware, location-triggered service delivery. Plaintiff was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm with a documented history of asserting software and mobile technology patents.
On December 23, 2025 — before Neighborfavor had served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — Yopima filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because the defendant had not yet filed a responsive pleading, no court order was required; the notice was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit precedent. The court confirmed the termination and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees, closing the docket on December 29, 2025.
The 122-day duration and pre-answer exit are consistent with several possibilities: early-stage settlement negotiations that did not produce a formal agreement on record, strategic withdrawal to refile in a different venue or against a different defendant, or a reassessment of claim scope or infringement read following early case evaluation. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Yopima retains the right to refile against Neighborfavor — meaning this case does not represent a final resolution of the underlying IP dispute.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 122 days
122 days — resolved before defendant answer or summary judgment motion
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a self-effectuating exit before defendant responds
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Neighborfavor had not filed either, Yopima’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically upon filing. No judicial approval was required, and no merits ruling was issued.
No court order requiredThe public record states ‘without prejudice’ — refiling remains possible
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ leaves the door open: the plaintiff may refile in the same or a different court, potentially with refined claims or against additional defendants. The verdict text in this case explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Yopima retains the legal right to reassert US9119038B2 against Neighborfavor in a future action.
Refiling permittedNeighborfavor escapes liability — for now — without a merits ruling
Neighborfavor, represented by Perkins Coie LLP, avoided any finding of infringement, invalidity ruling, or damages exposure in this action. No answer was on record, suggesting early-stage defence strategy was never tested. However, without prejudice status means the threat of re-litigation persists. Neighborfavor and similarly positioned geofencing platforms should treat this as a signal to evaluate their FTO exposure under US9119038B2.
No merits finding — threat persistsGeofencing IP risk remains live for location-service platforms
The voluntary withdrawal without prejudice does not extinguish the commercial risk the patent represents. US9119038B2’s claims on comparative geofencing methods are potentially broad enough to implicate a range of location-aware service providers. Companies building proximity-triggered features — delivery, social, neighbourhood services — should assess whether their implementations read on the asserted claims, particularly given Ramey LLP’s pattern of serial assertion.
Sector risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yopima, LLC | Company | Location technology patent assertion entity — holder of US9119038B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Neighborfavor, Inc. | Company | Neighborfavor, Inc. — location-based neighborhood services 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 | Joseph P. Reid | Attorney | Counsel for Neighborfavor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas N. Millikan | Attorney | Counsel for Neighborfavor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Neighborfavor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was effectuated solely by Yopima’s notice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with no judicial ruling on the merits of infringement or validity. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it preserves Yopima’s right to refile identical or refined claims against Neighborfavor in any competent court. The mutual costs order — each party bearing its own — is consistent with a clean procedural exit rather than a negotiated settlement with payment terms, though the absence of a formal settlement agreement on the public docket does not rule out a confidential resolution.
US9119038B2 — Systems and Methods for Comparative Geofencing
US9119038B2 (application number US13/899348) claims systems and methods for comparative geofencing — technology that enables location-aware applications to define, compare, and act upon geographic boundary conditions relative to user or asset positions. Geofencing of this type is foundational to a wide range of mobile and platform services, including proximity-triggered notifications, neighbourhood service matching, delivery logistics, and social discovery features. The patent’s scope, as asserted in this action, suggests coverage extending to platform-level implementations rather than purely device-level geofencing.
Strategically, US9119038B2 sits in a commercially high-value technology domain. Location-based services are embedded in consumer apps, gig-economy platforms, and enterprise logistics tools alike. A patent covering comparative geofencing methods — particularly if its claims are construed broadly — could implicate a significant portion of the mobile platform ecosystem. For Neighborfavor and competitors in neighbourhood and local-services applications, understanding the precise claim boundaries is essential, especially given the without-prejudice nature of this dismissal and the possibility of future enforcement.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US9119038B2?
Any company building products that incorporate geofencing, proximity detection, or location-triggered service logic — including delivery platforms, neighbourhood apps, social discovery tools, or logistics SaaS — should treat US9119038B2 as a live risk. The voluntary dismissal in this case does not extinguish enforceability. Yopima retains full rights to assert this patent, and the pre-answer exit may indicate a strategic pause rather than an abandonment of enforcement intent. R&D and product teams implementing comparative geofencing functionality are the most directly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables legal and product teams to rapidly map US9119038B2’s claim scope against your specific implementation, surface any related continuation or family patents, and benchmark against prior art that could support a validity challenge. Rather than waiting for a demand letter, teams can run a targeted FTO now — identifying design-around opportunities or claim differentiation arguments before litigation risk materialises. Eureka also tracks new filings citing this patent in real time, so your team is never caught off guard.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9119038B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Geofencing and Location-Services Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving geofencing, location-based service patents, and Ramey LLP-filed actions in the Western District of Texas with comparable pre-answer dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the geofencing and location-services IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in W.D. Texas rarely signals strength — it typically indicates strategic recalibration or undisclosed resolution.
Pre-answer exit is a red flag, not a green light — monitor for refiling
When a plaintiff dismisses without prejudice before the defendant answers, it most commonly signals one of three scenarios: a confidential settlement, a plan to refile with refined claims, or a shift in enforcement targets. Location-service companies should monitor Yopima’s subsequent filing activity and track US9119038B2 for any new actions in any district.
Ramey LLP’s filing pattern warrants proactive portfolio mapping
Ramey LLP is a serial patent asserter in software and mobile technology. Receiving a Ramey-filed complaint — even one later voluntarily dismissed — is a meaningful signal for companies in adjacent technology spaces. Competitors of Neighborfavor operating in the location-services sector should assess their own exposure to US9119038B2 and related continuation patents before a complaint arrives.
Yopima v Neighborfavor — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice means no merits ruling was issued. Yopima retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Neighborfavor in this or any other competent court. The case terminated automatically under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) because Neighborfavor had not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion.
Yes. Because the dismissal is explicitly without prejudice, Yopima is legally permitted to refile claims asserting US9119038B2 against Neighborfavor. Plaintiffs who file a second action after a without-prejudice dismissal may face a ‘two-dismissal rule’ under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B) if a prior action involving the same claims was also voluntarily dismissed — that threshold was not reached here.
US9119038B2 (application US13/899348) is a US utility patent covering systems and methods for comparative geofencing. It relates to technology enabling location-aware platforms to define and compare geographic boundary conditions relative to user or asset positions — foundational to proximity-triggered mobile services, neighbourhood apps, delivery logistics, and social discovery platforms.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A pre-answer voluntary dismissal is consistent with several scenarios: a confidential settlement, a strategic decision to refile with refined claims or in a different venue, early-stage claim scope reassessment, or a shift in enforcement priorities. The absence of a merits ruling means no inference of weakness or strength can be drawn from the outcome alone.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. This is standard for a FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal and does not indicate a finding of exceptional case status or fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Neither party received a cost or fee award from the other.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.