UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IKORONGO TEXAS LLC, et al., Case No. 21-cv-07424-VC

Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD, et Re: Dkt. No. 139 al., Defendants.

IKORONGO TEXAS LLC, et al., Case No. 21-cv-07429-VC Plaintiffs, Re: Dkt. No. 147 v.

LG ELECTRONICS INC, et al., Defendants.

The defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, relevant legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. While this is a close question, the ‘450 Patent’s claims at issue in this case fail to comply with the original patent requirement. The ‘139 Patent is directed towards sharing user experience information. While a user experience can encompass sharing that a user visited a certain location, the ‘139 Patent distinguishes between raw location data and user experiences, the latter of which are the primary focus of the Patent’s sharing technology. See ‘139 Patent at 18:58–59 (“In addition to computer user experiences, mobile communication device locations can be tracked . . .”). The ‘139 Patent’s oblique reference to tracking location and disclosure of aspects relating to sharing a visit to a specific location do not provide “clear and unequivocal disclosure” for the ‘450 Patent’s claims related to the sharing of geographic data separate and apart from sharing the user’s experience with a certain location. See Ikorongo Technology LLC vy. Bumble Trading LLC,

, 509 (W.D. Tex. 2022), aff’d sub nom. Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC, No. 2022-2044,

(Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2023). So there is a disconnect between the scope of the ‘139 Patent, which discusses sharing that a user visited a location as part of sharing a user experience, and the claims of the ‘450 Patent, which contemplates sharing continuous geographic data, regardless of whether the user actually interacted with that location in any meaningful way. See

(“Thus, any disclosure of sharing a ‘location’ or ‘visit’ may refer to sharing the name of the location or logo and fails to serve as a clear and unequivocal reference to ‘geographic’ location data.”). Because any amendment would be futile, Ikorongo’s lawsuits are dismissed without leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 25, 2025 = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge