X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-06050 (Koh, J.) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2017) 


  • 8,798,647 | Entitled, “Tracking proximity of services provider to services consumer.”
  • 8,798,593 | Entitled, “Location sharing and tracking using mobile phones or other wireless devices.”


Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss that the patent was invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. 

Abstract Idea:


Something More:



Two-way location tracking.


The court found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “gathering, transmission, and display of location information of a certain subset of individuals from a list or of individuals requested to perform a service.” 

In step two of the Alice inquiry, however, the court determined that the combination of the dynamic “buddy list” and “use specific group” system to GPS tracking was a “non-conventional” and “non-generic” arrangement of two conventional pieces. The court distinguished the child tracking prior art by noting that this invention allows users to add or remove persons being tracked through modifications of the buddy list or the creation of a use specific group.