DCT

3:24-cv-03945

Never Search Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-03945, N.D. Cal., 07/01/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Apple, Inc. maintains its corporate headquarters and a regular and established place of business in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Apple Maps products and services infringe six patents related to displaying, organizing, and updating points of interest on digital maps with associated qualitative information.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to digital mapping technology that integrates geographic locations with qualitative data (e.g., business hours, ratings) and provides methods for updating this information, a foundational feature of modern online mapping services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that representatives of Never-Search began contacting Apple "around 2015" regarding a potential license or purchase of the patents-in-suit. These alleged pre-suit communications form the basis of the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-22 Priority Date for ’519 Patent
2004-04-20 Priority Date for ’318, ’330, ’479, ’810, and ’903 Patents
2008-06-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519 issues
2012-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,219,318 issues
~2015 Plaintiff alleges it began contacting Defendant regarding the patents
2015-11-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330 issues
2017-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,599,479 issues
2019-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,509,810 issues
2022-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,372,903 issues
2024-07-01 Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519 - Displaying points of interest with qualitative information

Issued June 17, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that while mapping programs could display points of interest (POIs), they lacked useful supplemental information, requiring users to consult other sources to make decisions (e.g., checking a separate guide for a restaurant’s rating or a winery’s tasting hours) (’519 Patent, col. 4:37-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for displaying a map that concurrently shows POI icons and, overlaid on the map, associated "qualitative information" beyond just name and address, such as ratings, fees, or amenities (’519 Patent, col. 11:1-14). It further claims an "information box" with controls to display higher or lower levels of detail for a given POI (’519 Patent, col. 5:26-36).
  • Technical Importance: This approach claimed to consolidate geographic and qualitative data onto a single interface, streamlining the user's process of discovering and evaluating points of interest (’519 Patent, col. 4:57-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
    • displaying a graphical map;
    • concurrently displaying icons for two or more points of interest (POIs) on the map;
    • concurrently displaying, over the map, "particular qualitative information" for each POI;
    • displaying an "information box" over the map for each POI containing the qualitative information;
    • the information box includes a first control to display a "higher level of information" and a second control to display a "lower level of information."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’519 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,219,318 - Information mapping approaches

Issued July 10, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and labor-intensive nature of collecting and verifying the accuracy of POI data for digital maps, especially geocode (latitude/longitude) information, which can lead to misplaced icons (’318 Patent, col. 3:9-13, col. 7:46-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a back-end method for updating POI location data. It claims a system where information for a POI, including its location and the identity of its "manager," is stored in a database (’318 Patent, col. 7:6-8). The system receives updated location data from the manager (e.g., the manager moves an icon on a map) and then updates the database with the new coordinates (’318 Patent, col. 7:12-17). Figure 13 of the patent illustrates a workflow where a POI owner or manager can directly input and verify business data, including map locations (’318 Patent, Fig. 13).
  • Technical Importance: This method suggests a decentralized or crowdsourced approach to map data correction, allowing business owners or other authorized users to directly correct inaccuracies, potentially improving map data quality more efficiently than centralized survey methods (’318 Patent, col. 8:55-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
    • storing in a database a POI associated with a first location and information identifying a "manager" of the POI;
    • receiving map location information for the POI;
    • causing a map portion including the POI to be displayed on a computer associated with the manager;
    • receiving, from the manager's computer, location data indicating a second, different location for the POI;
    • updating the database with the coordinate data for the second location.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’318 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330 - Information mapping approaches

Issued November 3, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses methods for distributing updated POI data over the Internet to multiple mapping programs. It claims a method of receiving update data for different POI data sets and then selectively providing the updated data sets for display on various maps (’330 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Apple Maps infringes by providing updated point of interest data over the internet to its mapping application on user devices (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 35).

U.S. Patent No. 9,599,479 - Broadcast map program method employing point-of-interest, geo-coordinate validation by a trusted person

Issued March 21, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is similar to the ’318 Patent but focuses on a method where a user manually moves a POI icon on a map to a "more representative location." The system then receives the new geo-coordinate data, stores it in a database, and provides it over the internet to other map programs (’479 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple Maps of allowing users or managers to suggest edits or move business locations on the map, which then updates Apple's central database and propagates to other users (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 41).

U.S. Patent No. 10,509,810 - Method for updating map displays

Issued December 17, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent expands on the ’479 Patent by adding the step of storing a "date stamp value" in association with the received geo-coordinate data. This timestamp indicates when the location update occurred, allowing for versioning or tracking of data freshness (’810 Patent, col. 31:35-44).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶47).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that when Apple Maps updates POI location data based on user or manager input, it necessarily stores information about when that update occurred (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 47).

U.S. Patent No. 11,372,903 - Systems and methods for providing mapping information

Issued June 28, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a mapping system with server-side components. The system allows users to create accounts, store personalized POIs, and notably, import an address from a customer relationship management (CRM) or contact application for display on the map (’903 Patent, col. 30:50-65).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegation centers on the integration between Apple Maps and the Apple Contacts application, which allows a user to import an address from a contact card and display it on the map (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 53).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the suite of web-based mapping products and services commercialized by Apple under the brand "Apple Maps" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Apple Maps provides a platform that integrates geographical map data with qualitative information about points of interest (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8, 17). It is alleged to display POIs with associated details, allow for user- and business-initiated updates to POI information, and integrate with other applications like Apple's contact manager (Compl. ¶¶ 12-14, 53). The complaint positions this technology as a fundamental evolution from traditional geographic maps to integrated, data-rich platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Apple Maps infringes the asserted patents but references claim chart exhibits (e.g., Ex. 1, Ex. 2) that were not filed with the public version of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose based on the asserted claim language.

’519 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Apple Maps practices the method of claim 1 by displaying a map with icons for POIs while concurrently displaying qualitative information (such as ratings, hours, or photos) in an information box or card for those POIs. The theory suggests that the user interface in Apple Maps, which allows a user to tap a POI to see a summary card and then expand it for more details, meets the "first control" and "second control" limitations for displaying higher and lower levels of information (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 23-24).

’318 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Apple's back-end systems for Apple Maps practice the method of claim 1. The infringement theory appears to be that Apple stores POI data in a central database and provides tools for business owners or other "managers" (e.g., through the "Apple Business Connect" portal) to claim a location and update its information, including by moving its pin on the map. This updated location data is then allegedly received by Apple's servers and used to update the central database, which in turn provides the corrected location to end-users of Apple Maps (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 29).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’519 Patent may raise the question of whether the user interface elements in Apple Maps constitute an "information box" with distinct "controls" for higher and lower levels of information, as recited by the claim, or if they represent a single, integrated display mechanism. For the ’318 Patent and its relatives, a key question may be whether Apple's mechanisms for crowdsourced or business-owner corrections meet the claim limitation of receiving location data from a "manager" of the POI, and how that term is defined.
  • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be what proof exists that Apple's systems perform the specific updating steps recited in claim 1 of the ’318 Patent. The complaint does not provide detail on how Apple's back-end database is architected or how it technically processes a location update specified by a third party.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "qualitative information"

(from ’519 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the alleged invention of the ’519 Patent. Its construction will determine the type of content, beyond basic directory data, that must be displayed concurrently on the map to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could either be limited to specific examples in the patent (like course ratings) or be broad enough to cover modern map features like user photos or reviews.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that qualitative information "goes beyond the typically provided name, address, phone number data" and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, suggesting the term is not limited to those examples (’519 Patent, col. 8:55-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's examples and figures focus heavily on specific, structured data fields relevant to golf courses and wineries, such as "Slope," "Rating," "Fees," and "Designer" (’519 Patent, Fig. 3A; col. 11:1-14). A defendant may argue these examples limit the term to similarly structured, factual data rather than unstructured, user-generated content.

The Term: "manager of the point of interest"

(from ’318 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The identity of the party providing the location update is a critical limitation in the ’318 Patent's method. The definition of "manager" will determine whether the claim reads on systems updated by business owners only, or more broadly on systems that accept corrections from the general public.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a system where POI data is collected from "business contacts (owner or manager)," suggesting the term is not strictly limited to a person with the title "manager" but can include the owner (’318 Patent, col. 9:11-13). It also refers to a "trusted party" providing updates, which could be interpreted more broadly than a direct employee (’318 Patent, col. 11:46-51).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires storing "information identifying a manager," which may suggest a specific, designated individual whose identity is known to the system. The patent's detailed description of a POI data collection website (Fig. 13) repeatedly refers to "Business Contact Verification" and gathering "Business Contact Information," which could support an interpretation requiring a formal, verified relationship between the individual and the business location (’318 Patent, Fig. 13, steps 1304, 1315).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple’s infringement has been willful based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It states that "Beginning around 2015, representatives of Never-Search began contacting Apple regarding potential license or purchase of the Never-Search patents" (Compl. ¶18). For each patent, the complaint also includes a contingent allegation that infringement became willful at least from the date of service of the complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶25).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will key terms like "qualitative information" and "manager of the point of interest" be construed? The former will define the scope of the user-facing display patents, while the latter will define the scope of the back-end data updating patents.
  • A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: given the complaint's lack of specific technical details or claim charts, a primary challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the internal architecture and methods of the Apple Maps service practice the specific, multi-step processes recited in the asserted method claims, particularly for the patents related to database updates.
  • A third question will relate to damages and inventorship: the asserted patents claim priority back to 2003-2004 and describe features that are now foundational to digital mapping. The case may therefore involve complex arguments regarding the state of the art at the time of invention, the proper scope of any potential damages, and whether the patented methods cover the specific implementations developed independently by the defendant.