Marshall Court Dismisses Yillio's Route-Based Advertising Patent Suit Against Uber, and a Federal Circuit Appeal Is Noticed.

The appeal notice

A notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed on October 22, 2026, as Dkt. No. 96 in Yillio, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00533 (E.D. Tex.), a Marshall Division case assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handling referred matters. The docket shows that the notice, the order and the docket sheet were transmitted to the Federal Circuit on October 23, 2026. The notice came 27 days after the court dismissed the case.

The parties and the patents

Yillio, Inc. filed the complaint on May 16, 2025. The complaint says Yillio is a North Carolina corporation based in Raleigh that develops "social GPS software that helps people discover, save and share favorite places and deals along their travel routes," offered through its Yillio App. It alleges, on information and belief, that Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in San Francisco. For venue, the complaint alleges that Uber has a regular and established place of business in the district in Frisco, Texas, through a subsidiary.

The complaint asserts three patents, each titled Apparatus and methods for providing route-based advertising and vendor-reported business information over a network: U.S. Patent 8,285,696, issued October 9, 2012; U.S. Patent 8,650,176, issued February 11, 2014; and U.S. Patent 8,943,037, issued January 27, 2015. The complaint says the '176 patent is a continuation of the '696 patent, and the '037 patent is a continuation of the '176 patent. It says the '696 and '176 patents claim the benefit of a provisional application filed June 9, 2006. Claim 1 of the '696 patent, as the complaint quotes it, recites receiving from a user a query identifying a contemplated route, accessing a database of business information self-reported by vendors through a vendor interface that lets each vendor specify an advertising budget, providing the user information about vendors selected by geographic proximity to the route, and providing advertising from those vendors based at least in part on data from the database and on the advertising budgets the vendors supplied.

The complaint accuses Uber's ride-hailing service, Uber Eats, the Multi-Store Ordering feature, and the Powerloop and Fuel Finder functions of Uber's freight business. As one example, it alleges that after a user places a food delivery order, a "Bundle another store" feature suggests additional food or products from vendors based on geographic proximity and on vendors who have provided advertising budgets. It pleads six counts, direct and induced infringement of each patent, alleges that Uber has known of the patents at least since the complaint was filed, and asks for damages of no less than a reasonable royalty, a permanent injunction, and a finding that the case is exceptional.

The motion and the dismissal

Uber moved to dismiss Yillio's amended complaint for improper venue and failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 40). The docket shows a claim construction hearing on August 17, 2026 (Dkt. No. 73). On August 25, 2026, Magistrate Judge Payne entered a report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 84) recommending that the motion be granted and the case dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and the docket shows an order staying the case entered the same day (Dkt. No. 85). On September 8, 2026, Yillio filed objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 91), and objections to claim construction were filed the same day (Dkt. No. 90). Uber filed a response to Yillio's objections (Dkt. No. 92).

On September 25, 2026 (Dkt. No. 94), Judge Gilstrap said that after a de novo review of the briefing on the motion, the report and recommendation, and the briefing on the objections, he agreed with the reasoning in the report and recommendation and concluded that the objections failed to show it was erroneous. He overruled Yillio's objections, adopted the report and recommendation, granted the motion, dismissed the case, and ordered the clerk to close it.

What to watch next

Watch for the Federal Circuit to docket the appeal, which will show the appeal number, the appellant, and the order under review. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.