Never-Search, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Never Search Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corp Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MZF Law Firm PLLC; Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, PLLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-03950, N.D. Cal., 10/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Northern District of California on the basis that Microsoft maintains a regular and established place of business within the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bing Maps products and services infringe five U.S. patents related to displaying and updating geographical maps with integrated qualitative information for points of interest.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns digital mapping systems that overlay business-specific data, such as operating hours and services, onto geographical maps, enhancing user experience by combining location and qualitative data on a single platform.
• Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that the patented technology was previously commercialized in a product called "Never-Search for Golf," which allegedly garnered national media attention.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-22	U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519 Priority Date
2004-04-20	U.S. Patent Nos. 8,219,318; 9,152,981; 9,177,330; 11,372,903 Priority Date
2008-06-17	U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519 Issued
2008	"Never-Search for Golf" product gains national attention
2012-07-10	U.S. Patent No. 8,219,318 Issued
2015-10-06	U.S. Patent No. 9,152,981 Issued
2015-11-03	U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330 Issued
2022-06-28	U.S. Patent No. 11,372,903 Issued
2024-10-15	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519 - "Displaying Points of Interest With Qualitative Information"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint describes that prior to this technology, consumers needing both geographical directions and qualitative information (e.g., business hours, services, ratings) for a point of interest (POI) had to consult separate platforms, such as a map and an internet search engine. (Compl. ¶¶7, 10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method for simultaneously displaying a graphical map, icons identifying multiple POIs, and qualitative information associated with those POIs. (’519 Patent, Abstract). The method allows a user to digest both geographic and qualitative data concurrently within a single mapping interface, solving the problem of switching between different information sources. (’519 Patent, col. 1:57-67; Compl. ¶8).
• Technical Importance: This integration represented an evolution in mapping technology, allowing consumers to use a single platform for both traditional navigation and accessing detailed, qualitative information about destinations. (Compl. ¶8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶24).
• Claim 1 of the ’519 Patent recites the essential elements of:
  • displaying a graphical map;
  • concurrently displaying, in the map, icons for two or more POIs;
  • concurrently displaying, over the map, particular qualitative information for each POI;
  • wherein all the qualitative information for all POIs is concurrently displayed;
  • displaying an information box for each POI with controls to show higher or lower levels of information;
  • wherein each POI is associated with one or more datasets, and different qualitative information is displayed for different datasets.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,219,318 - "Information Mapping Approaches"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses the shortcomings of digital maps in locating and qualifying POIs, citing issues with address geocoding accuracy and the lack of supplemental information needed to make decisions (e.g., a restaurant's rating or a golf course's fees). (’318 Patent, col. 2:5-15, col. 4:54-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for updating POI data. A "manager" of a POI can receive map data, specify a new, different location for the POI on the map display, and send this new location data back to a central database to update the POI's coordinates. (’318 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶27). This allows for more accurate POI placement by those with direct knowledge. (’318 Patent, col. 8:5-12).
• Technical Importance: This technology facilitates the creation of more accurate and dynamic maps by allowing authorized individuals, such as business owners, to correct or update their own location information, moving beyond static, centrally-managed map data. (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶27).
• Claim 1 of the ’318 Patent recites the essential elements of:
  • storing, in a database, a POI with a first location and information identifying a manager;
  • receiving map location information associated with the POI;
  • displaying a portion of the map including the POI to the manager;
  • receiving, from the manager's computer, location data indicating a second, different location for the POI;
  • updating the coordinate data in the database based on the second location.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330 - "Information Mapping Approaches"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for managing and distributing updated POI data. The method involves receiving update data for POI data sets and then selectively providing the updated sets over the Internet for display on multiple maps by multiple map programs.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶32).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Microsoft's Bing Maps system, which provides updated POI data for display, infringes this patent. (Compl. ¶¶17, 32).

U.S. Patent No. 11,372,903 - "Systems and Methods for Providing Mapping Information"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a mapping system comprising databases and at least one server. The server is configured to create user accounts, store personalized POIs, display website addresses to facilitate transactions without leaving the map's graphical user interface (GUI), filter search results by qualitative information, and allow trusted parties (e.g., a manager) to update POI information. (’903 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 9. (Compl. ¶37).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Bing Maps system architecture, including its user account functionality, POI search and display, and third-party data update features, of infringement. (Compl. ¶¶17, 37).

U.S. Patent No. 9,152,981 - "Information Mapping Approaches"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for displaying advertisements related to POIs. The method involves displaying a map with selectable POIs and, upon a user's selection of one POI, displaying a list of advertisements associated with that selected POI.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 9. (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Bing Maps infringes by displaying advertisements related to user-selected points of interest. (Compl. ¶¶17, 42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Microsoft's "suite of web-based products and services under the brand Bing Maps." (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Bing Maps practices the patented technology by providing digital maps that integrate POI icons with associated qualitative information. (Compl. ¶17). The functionality accused across the five asserted patents includes displaying POIs with qualitative data, providing mechanisms for updating POI information, creating user accounts to manage POIs, serving POI-related advertisements, and facilitating transactions via website links within the mapping GUI. (Compl. ¶¶24, 27, 32, 37, 42). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges direct infringement and states that the accused products meet the elements of the asserted claims "as shown in the claim chart attached as Ex. [X]." (Compl. ¶¶22, 27, 32, 37, 42). These exhibits were not attached to the complaint document itself and are not available for analysis. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

’519 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Microsoft's Bing Maps products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’519 Patent by performing the claimed method of displaying a map with POIs and concurrently displaying qualitative information associated with those POIs. (Compl. ¶¶22, 24). The complaint points to an unprovided exhibit for an element-by-element comparison. (Compl. ¶22).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites "concurrently displaying, over the map, for each of the two or more points of interest... particular qualitative information" and further requires "wherein all the qualitative information for all the points of interest is concurrently displayed in the map." This language raises the question of whether infringement requires all qualitative data for all visible POIs to be displayed on the map at all times, or if it can be satisfied by information available on-demand in pop-up windows or other user-initiated displays.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused Bing Maps products display "all the qualitative information for all the points of interest... concurrently"? Modern mapping interfaces typically reveal detailed information only upon user interaction (e.g., a click or hover), which may create a technical mismatch with the claim's requirement for concurrent display of all information.

’318 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Microsoft's Bing Maps products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’318 Patent by practicing the claimed method of updating POI coordinate data. (Compl. ¶¶27). This theory relies on Bing Maps providing a functionality whereby a "manager" can specify a new location for a POI, which is then used to update a central database. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint again references an unprovided exhibit for the detailed infringement mapping. (Compl. ¶27).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Does the term "manager of the point of interest" as used in claim 1 read on any user who suggests an edit in Bing Maps, or does it require a specifically authorized or verified role, such as a business owner?
• Technical Questions: What facts demonstrate that Bing Maps employs the specific, sequential workflow recited in claim 1, where a "manager" receives map data, specifies a second location, and that second location is used to update the first location's coordinate data in the database? The complaint does not detail the specific mechanism by which Bing Maps updates POI locations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "concurrently displaying... wherein all the qualitative information for all the points of interest is concurrently displayed in the map" (’519 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

The viability of the infringement allegation for the ’519 Patent may depend heavily on this term's construction. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to require all data for all POIs to be permanently visible on the map itself (as opposed to in on-demand pop-up windows), proving infringement could be more challenging.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification includes figures showing information in "balloons" or "information boxes" that appear over the map, which may support an interpretation where "displayed in the map" includes such overlays. (’519 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites the step of "concurrently displaying... particular qualitative information" separately from the step of "displaying... an information box comprising the qualitative information." This distinction may suggest that the "concurrently displayed" information required by the earlier limitation is something different from, and must exist separately from, the information inside the "information box," potentially supporting a narrower construction.

Term: "manager of the point of interest" (’318 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the user who performs the claimed update method. The infringement analysis will turn on whether Bing Maps' editing functionality is performed by a user who meets this definition. If any user can suggest an edit (a crowdsourcing model), there may be a dispute over whether such a user qualifies as a "manager."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "manager," which could support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing anyone managing data for a POI.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract of the related ’903 Patent describes allowing a "trusted party, wherein a trusted party comprises a manager or owner of the point of interest, or authorized individual" to update information. (’903 Patent, Abstract). This language from a related patent could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to authorized or verified individuals.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint contains five counts, each alleging "direct infringement." (Compl. ¶¶22, 27, 32, 37, 42). It does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or intent.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or facts to support it, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief requests attorneys' fees but does not request enhanced damages for willfulness. (Compl. ¶48).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "wherein all the qualitative information for all the points of interest is concurrently displayed in the map" (’519 Patent) be construed to cover a modern mapping interface where detailed information is typically displayed on-demand (e.g., via a mouse click), or does it impose a stricter requirement that may not align with the accused product's functionality?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does Microsoft's Bing Maps service utilize the specific "manager"-centric workflow for updating POI locations as recited in claim 1 of the ’318 Patent, or does its crowdsourced or automated update mechanism operate in a fundamentally different way?
3. A third central question will be one of patent eligibility: given the patents' focus on organizing and presenting information on a map—a practice with historical analogues—the case may raise questions regarding whether the claimed methods and systems recite a patent-eligible inventive concept or merely an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer.