Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
`
`1) MAPLEBEAR, INC., D/B/A INSTACART
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`1) FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 25-cv-00137-MTS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Maplebear, Inc., d/b/a Instacart (“Plaintiff” or “Instacart”), by and through its attorneys of
`
`record, with its Complaint against Defendant Fall Line Patents, LLC (“Defendant” or “Fall
`
`Line”) seeks Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ’748
`
`Patent”) as well as other relief as set forth below. A true and correct copy of the ’748 Patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff hereby alleges, on knowledge of its own actions and on
`
`information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`In this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Instacart does not infringe any
`
`enforceable claim of the ’748 Patent.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is a limited liability company formed under
`
`the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with a principal place of business at 2121 South Yorktown,
`
`#1103, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74114.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Instacart is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`state of Delaware. Instacart has its principal place of business at 50 Beale St., Suite 600, San
`
`Instacart, Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
`
`1) MAPLEBEAR, INC., D/B/A INSTACART
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`1) FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 25-cv-00137-MTS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Maplebear, Inc., d/b/a Instacart (“Plaintiff” or “Instacart”), by and through its attorneys of
`
`record, with its Complaint against Defendant Fall Line Patents, LLC (“Defendant” or “Fall
`
`Line”) seeks Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ’748
`
`Patent”) as well as other relief as set forth below. A true and correct copy of the ’748 Patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff hereby alleges, on knowledge of its own actions and on
`
`information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`In this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Instacart does not infringe any
`
`enforceable claim of the ’748 Patent.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is a limited liability company formed under
`
`the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with a principal place of business at 2121 South Yorktown,
`
`#1103, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74114.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Instacart is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`state of Delaware. Instacart has its principal place of business at 50 Beale St., Suite 600, San
`
`Instacart, Ex. 1014
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`Francisco, California 94105.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202, Fed. R. Civ. P. 57, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., to
`
`resolve an actual and justiciable controversy now existing between the parties within the
`
`jurisdiction of this Court regarding whether Instacart’s online platforms infringe the ’748 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over these claims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202, because this Complaint states a claim
`
`arising under an Act of Congress relating to patents, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is
`
`registered in, and its principal place of business is in, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Defendant regularly and
`
`continuously conducts business in this District.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this district at least pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
`
`Defendant resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Parties
`
`Plaintiff Instacart is the leading grocery technology company in North America.
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`Instacart creates and operates online marketplace technology that increases access to, and eases
`
`electronic shopping for, groceries and other important goods. Instacart’s technology is used by
`
`grocery store chains and other retail partners (“Instacart Retail Partners”) and powers e-
`
`commerce throughout the United States, including Oklahoma. With Instacart’s online
`
`marketplace technology, customers of the Instacart Retail Partners can electronically receive a
`
`list of nearby available retail locations and arrange pickup and/or delivery of online shopping
`
`orders from said nearby available retail locations.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s business consists of bringing lawsuits for
`
`patent infringement.
`
`Defendant’s Patent Infringement Allegations Against Instacart’s Products
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant owns or claims ownership of the ’748
`
`B.
`
`10.
`
`Patent.
`
`11.
`
`From 2018 to the present, Defendant has filed nearly fifty lawsuits alleging
`
`infringement of the ’748 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`On November 25, 2024, Defendant filed multiple lawsuits (“November 2024
`
`Lawsuits”) alleging infringement of the ’748 Patent in the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. Defendants in the November 2024 Lawsuits include Instacart Retail
`
`Partners Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., SFM, LLC (d/b/a SF Markets), Aldi Inc., and Aldi
`
`(Texas) L.L.C. (collectively, “Instacart Defendants”).
`
`13.
`
`Specifically, Defendant has alleged that the mobile applications of the Instacart
`
`Defendants directly or indirectly infringe the ’748 Patent. The accused mobile applications of
`
`the Instacart Defendants use technology created and provided by Instacart, including location-
`
`based store availability lookup, fulfillment, pickup, and delivery functionality, and operate based
`
`on communications with Instacart servers. Instacart’s technology is the source of alleged
`
`infringing functionality of the Instacart Defendants’ mobile apps. Other Instacart Retail Partners,
`
`who have not yet been sued by Defendants, likewise use similar technology created and provided
`
`by Instacart.
`
`14.
`
`As a result of the allegations against the Instacart Defendants, which are based on
`
`mobile application functionality provided by Instacart, there exists an immediate and actual case
`
`or controversy between Instacart and Defendant regarding whether Instacart’s technology and
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`products infringe the ’748 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`Furthermore, Instacart has a direct and substantial interest in defeating any patent
`
`infringement claims against Instacart’s online marketplace technology because Instacart and its
`
`various Instacart Retail Partners are at risk of being sued by Defendant. Based on Defendant’s
`
`history of patent infringement lawsuits and on the November 2024 Lawsuits accusing the
`
`Instacart Defendants, Instacart has reasonable belief that Defendant may sue it or its other
`
`Instacart Retail Partners.
`
`Count I – Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’748 Patent
`
`16.
`
`Instacart repeats and alleges every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`17.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists an actual
`
`and justiciable controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
`
`declaratory judgment that Instacart has not infringed and does not infringe the ’748 Patent
`
`directly or under any theory of indirect infringement, including contributory infringement or
`
`inducement.
`
`18.
`
`Instacart’s online marketplace technology used by Instacart Retail Partners have
`
`not and do not directly or indirectly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the
`
`’748 Patent. For example, with respect to claim 7, which was asserted against the Instacart
`
`Defendants, at least the following claim elements are not met: designing a questionnaire
`
`including at least one question said questionnaire customized for a particular location having
`
`branching logic on a first computer platform wherein at least one of said questions requests
`
`location identifying information; automatically transferring said designed questionnaire to at
`
`least one loosely networked computer having a GPS integral thereto; while said transferred
`
`questionnaire is executing, using said GPS to automatically provide said location identifying
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`information as a response to said executing questionnaire; and automatically transferring via the
`
`loose network any responses so collected in real time to a central computer.
`
`19.
`
`Instacart is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not
`
`infringing, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, any enforceable claim of the
`
`’748 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A declaration that Plaintiff has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly
`
`or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, any enforceable claim of the ’748
`
`Patent, literally or under doctrine of equivalents;
`
`An injunction against Defendant and all persons acting on its behalf or in concert
`
`with it, restraining them from further prosecuting or instituting any action alleging
`
`that any method, product, or technology of Plaintiff’s, or others’ use thereof,
`
`infringes any enforceable claim of the ’748 Patent;
`
`A declaration that this case is exceptional and that Plaintiff is entitled to an award
`
`of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`Any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and fair.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`Dated: March 25, 2025
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE,
`GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.
`
` /s/ Robert Fitz-Patrick__________
`Robert P. Fitz-Patrick, OBA #14713
`320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 200
`Tulsa, OK 74103-3706
`Telephone: (918) 594-0400
`Facsimile: (918) 594-0505
`Email: rfitzpatrick@hallestill.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`-AND-
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`John R. Hutchins *
`1100 13th St., NW Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202.824.3000
`Facsimile: 202.824.3001
`Email: jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`C. Andy Mu *
`1100 13th St., NW Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202.824.3000
`Facsimile: 202.824.3001
`Email: amu@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`*Applications for admission Pro Hac Vice
`forthcoming
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
`
`1) MAPLEBEAR INC. D/B/A
`INSTACART,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`1) FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 25-cv-00137-MTS
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff hereby supplements its Complaint with the attached Exhibit, United States
`
`Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ’748 Patent”), previously referenced as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint [Doc. No. 2] but inadvertently not filed with the Complaint.
`
`Dated: March 25, 2025
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE,
`GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C.
`
`/s/ Robert Fitz-Patrick__________
`Robert P. Fitz-Patrick, OBA #14713
`320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 200
`Tulsa, OK 74103-3706
`Telephone: (918) 594-0400
`Facsimile: (918) 594-0505
`Email: rfitzpatrick@hallestill.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 2 of 17
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`Case 4:25-cv-00137-MTS Document 8 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/25/25 Page 17 of 17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
