Judge Albright Grants Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss for Improper Venue Under FRCP 12(b)(3)

Judge Albright dismissed Plaintiff Fare Technologies LLC’s complaint against Lyft, Inc. for failure to plead that Defendant has a server in W.D. Tex. that could comprise the “computer” of the asserted patent’s system claims or perform the requisite steps of the method claims. Judge Albright provided Plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint.

On June 30, 2022, Defendant Lyft, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) in a patent lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Fare Technologies LLC. Fare Techs. LLC v. Lyft Inc., 6:22-cv-00315-ADA, Dkt. No. 22 (W.D. Tex. June 30, 2022). Defendant Lyft’s motion argued under FRCP 12(b)(3) that the district is an improper venue for Plaintiff Fare’s infringement claims, as “Fare has not pleaded, and cannot plead, that Lyft has committed acts of infringement in this District under the infringement theories set forth in its [First Amended Complaint].” Id. at 11. Defendant Lyft stated that “[a]ccording to Fare’s allegations, Lyft infringes each of the Asserted Claims by providing a server configured to perform certain functions recited in each claim. . . . But Fare never pleads that Lyft had a server in this District—a fatal deficiency in the [First Amended Complaint].” Id. at 11–12. Defendant Lyft’s Motion also argued under FRCP 12(b)(6) that Plaintiff Fare’s first amended complaint does not support a reasonable inference that Defendant Lyft infringed any claim of the asserted patent.

On January 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Gilliland submitted a report and recommendation recommending that Judge Albright dismiss Plaintiff Fare’s complaint with an opportunity to amend its complaint within 14 days of an order from Judge Albright adopting the report and recommendation. Fare Techs. LLC v. Lyft Inc., 6:22-cv-00315-ADA, Dkt. No. 52 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2023). Judge Gilliland’s report and recommendation found that “Plaintiff has failed to plead specific facts to support venue in this district.” Judge Gilliland explained:

Plaintiff failed to plead that Defendant has such a server in this district or performs the method steps in this district. Plaintiff has also failed to submit any evidence to rebut Defendant’s assertion that it does not have a server in this district capable of performing the accused functionality. Defendant submitted a sworn declaration to this fact, and Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Judge Gilliland further found that “in the interest of justice, Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend its complaint” and recommended that “Plaintiff be given leave to amend its complaint within 14 days of an order from the District Court adopting this Report and Recommendation.” Upon finding that the complaint should be dismissed under 12(b)(3), Judge Gilliland did not reach Defendant Lyft’s allegations that Plaintiff Fare failed to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6).

On February 27, 2023, Judge Albright adopted Judge Gilliland’s report and recommendation. Fare Techs. LLC v. Lyft Inc., 6:22-cv-00315-ADA, Dkt. No. 56 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2023). As a result, Judge Albright ordered that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) be granted and Plaintiff Fare be given leave to amend its complaint within 14 days of the February 27, 2023 order.