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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No.

Plaintiff X One, Inc. (“X One” or “Plaintiff’) filed a patent infringement suit against Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber” or “Defendant”) and alleged that Defendant infringed the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,798,647 and 8,798,593. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 24 (“Mot.”). Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. The Parties

Plaintiff X One is a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in Union City, California. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, Plaintiff is the original patent applicant and assignee of the X One Patents. Id. Ex. A. The patented technology was developed by Plaintiffs principal, Richard Haney. Id. ¶ 7. Defendant Uber is a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in San Francisco, California. Id. ¶ 2.

2. The X One Patents

At issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,798,647 (the “’647 patent”) and 8,798,593 (the “’593 patent”) (collectively, the “X One…