GreatGigz Solutions, LLC filed a complaint on Friday in the Western District of Texas against DoorDash for patent infringement, alleging that DoorDash used its patented driver-matching technology to provide and store job-related information, such as information about recruitment and job openings and work schedules. GreatGigz previously sued Lyft and Uber with similar allegations for infringing some of the same patents for their driver-matching technology.
The patents-in-suit are United States Patent Nos. 6,662,194 (the ’194 patent); 7,490,086 (the ’086 patent); 9,760,864 (the ’864 patent); and 10,096,000 (the ’000 patent). These are for job-related methods and apparatuses used for job searching and scheduling.
For example, the ’194 patent relates to “an apparatus and method for providing recruitment information”; the ’086 patent relates to “an apparatus, including a memory device which stores information regarding a job opening, position, assignment, contract, or project, and information regarding a job search request or inquiry”; the ’864 patent relates to “a memory device for storing work schedule information or scheduling information for an individual”; and the ’000 patent relates to “a memory which stores work schedule information or scheduling information for an employer, hiring entity, individual, independent contractor, temporary worker, or freelancer.” [note: Maybe the previous sentence should be broken up into one for each patent? It seems long to be one sentence, or maybe summarized and deleted to lower word count]
DoorDash’s purportedly infringing instrumentalities include its website, ancillary site, and mobile app. These instrumentalities allegedly comprise apparatuses and methods to perform the content described in the patent, such as job searching or recruitment and worker scheduling.
GreatGigz alleged that DoorDash infringed at least claim 25 of the ’194 patent because DoorDash’s accused instrumentalities “comprise an apparatus for providing recruitment information” as described in the patent. It also includes interconnected infrastructures and other devices, receivers, and transmitters. Thus, GreatGigz alleged that DoorDash has utilized this patented information by storing the work schedule of its Dashers, its independent contractors, via its app and website.
Specifically, the accused instrumentalities receive a request for a food order on the DoorDash app or website then a “request is generated to obtain the work schedule information for the known available Dashers …in order to generate an estimated time of arrival (ETA)” the user then accepts and can complete the transaction. Afterward, there is a second request to engage the Dasher who receives a notification and accepts the order. The consumer is then updated based on the Dasher’s position.
Similarly, this action allegedly infringes the the ’864 patent because it stores work schedule information on a memory device and allows for communication between DoorDash, Dashers, and consumers to obtain Dashers’ work schedule when a consumer is placing an order; the plaintiff claimed that this is direct and willful infringement.
DoorDash allegedly infringed the ’086 patent because the accused instrumentalities “comprise a memory device, which stores information regarding … individuals available for applying for a job opportunity or hiring need.”
Lastly, the plaintiff averred that DoorDash infringed the ’000 patent because its accused instrumentalities include recruitment information, databases, and work schedule or scheduling information, which is also stored. The allegations are similar to the other patent; a user places a food order via DoorDash, DoorDash requests Dashers’ schedules for an ETA for the consumer, Dashers in the area are notified via a push communication and once confirmed the consumer is given real-time information about the order. GreatGigz alleged that this process and features infringe the patents-in-suit.
GreatGigz has sought declaratory judgment; an award for damages, costs, fess, royalties; and other relief. The plaintiff is represented by Garteiser Honea, PLLC and The Mort Law Firm, PLLC.
