DCT

3:24-cv-08704

Never Search Inc v. System1 OpCo LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02198, D. Colo., 08/08/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants maintaining a regular and established place of business in the District of Colorado.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MapQuest web-based mapping products infringe four patents related to methods of displaying, updating, and monetizing points of interest on digital geographical maps.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of qualitative data, user-updatable information, and advertising with digital mapping services, a foundational feature of modern online navigation and local search platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventor, Keith Kreft, began filing for patents related to this technology in 2003 and subsequently founded Never-Search, Inc. to hold the resulting patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’519 Patent
2004-04-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’910, ’330, and ’981 Patents
2008-06-17 ’519 Patent Issued
2015-10-06 ’981 Patent Issued
2015-11-03 ’330 Patent Issued
2021-08-10 ’910 Patent Issued
2024-08-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,086,910 - "Information Mapping Approaches"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the deficiencies of early digital mapping programs, which often contained incomplete, inaccurate, and outdated sets of points of interest (POIs). This made it difficult for users to reliably locate businesses or assess their qualities without consulting other sources. (’910 Patent, col. 4:1-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a mapping system that integrates supplemental information with POIs on a map. This includes methods for collecting and verifying POI data directly from business owners, displaying "qualitative" information beyond basic contact details, and incorporating advertising into the map interface. (’910 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:13-28).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to transform digital maps from static geographical displays into dynamic, information-rich platforms for local discovery and commerce. (Compl. ¶8-¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
    • A method, comprising:
    • displaying two or more points of interest as part of an Internet enabled geographical map rendered on a graphical display device; and
    • concurrently displaying, in association with the displayed two or more points of interest, an advertisement rendered on the graphical display device and the advertisement is displayed on the Internet enabled geographical map.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of maintaining current and accurate POI information across numerous user devices. Traditional methods of bundling all map data into periodic software releases resulted in quickly outdated information. (’330 Patent, col. 4:1-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system for managing and updating POI data. The method involves receiving update data for various POI data sets and then selectively providing those updated sets over the Internet for display on a plurality of different maps and map programs, ensuring greater data consistency. (’330 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:40-50).
  • Technical Importance: Centralizing the data update process was a key step in evolving mapping services from static, offline products to dynamic, network-connected services with more reliable information. (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
    • A method comprising:
    • providing first and second point of interest data sets
    • receiving update data with respect to said first and second point of interest data sets to create first and second updated point of interest data sets;
    • selectively providing, through the Internet, for display on a plurality of maps, to a plurality of map display programs, said first or second updated point of interest data sets:
    • wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the lack of detailed, non-contact information for POIs in digital maps, which limits a user's ability to evaluate a location. (’519 Patent, col. 2:5-18). The patented solution is a method for concurrently displaying a map, POI icons, and for each POI, "particular qualitative information" with controls that allow a user to toggle between higher and lower levels of information in an information box. (’519 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶33).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that MapQuest's products, which display POIs with associated details like ratings, hours, and other qualitative data, infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶18, ¶33).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for monetizing interactive maps by linking advertising directly to user selections. (’981 Patent, col. 4:13-21). The claimed solution is a method where a user's selection of a particular POI on a geographical map triggers the display of a list of advertisements specifically associated with that selected POI. (’981 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 9. (Compl. ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that MapQuest's products, which display advertisements based on a user's selection of a point of interest, infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶18, ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are MapQuest’s “suite of web-based map and navigation products and services” (the “Accused Products”). (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide an Internet-enabled geographical map that displays points of interest. (Compl. ¶23). It further alleges these products associate and display qualitative information with those points of interest and provide for the updating of that information. (Compl. ¶14-¶15). The complaint also asserts that the Accused Products display advertisements in connection with the map and its points of interest. (Compl. ¶23, ¶38). MapQuest is a long-standing commercial provider of digital mapping and navigation services. (Compl. ¶18).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of all four Asserted Patents but does not contain narrative infringement theories or claim charts in its body, instead referencing external exhibits not attached to the pleading. The following summary is based on the asserted claims and general allegations of infringement.

’910 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint’s infringement theory for the ’910 Patent centers on the allegation that MapQuest’s products perform a method of displaying POIs on a map while concurrently displaying an advertisement in association with those POIs. (Compl. ¶23). A potential point of contention may be the required nexus between the advertisement and the POIs under the terms “in association with” and “on the Internet enabled geographical map.” The dispute could turn on whether a general banner or sidebar advertisement on the same webpage as the map meets these limitations, or if a more direct link, such as a sponsored POI icon, is required.

’330 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The infringement theory for the ’330 Patent appears to be based on MapQuest’s back-end systems. (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges MapQuest’s products perform a method of providing POI data sets, receiving updates to that data, and providing the updated data over the Internet to multiple map display programs (e.g., users' web browsers). (Compl. ¶28). The analysis may focus on the technical evidence of how MapQuest’s data architecture operates, specifically how it "receiv[es] update data" and "selectively provid[es]" it for display as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "in association with" (’910 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the scope of claim 1 of the ’910 Patent. Its construction will likely determine whether advertisements that are merely co-located on the same user interface as the map are infringing, or if a more specific functional or contextual link to the POIs is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because it directly addresses the relationship between the two core elements of the claim: the map's POIs and the advertisement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the nature of the association, which could support an argument that concurrent display on the same screen is sufficient. The specification discusses various forms of advertising, including an "Advertising Bar" that appears to be part of the general user interface. (’910 Patent, col. 12:29-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and description provide examples where advertising is directly tied to a user's interaction with a POI, such as a pop-up advertisement that appears after a POI is selected. (’910 Patent, FIG. 3B). This could support an argument that "in association with" requires more than mere simultaneous display.

The Term: "on the Internet enabled geographical map" (’910 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the location of the displayed advertisement. The dispute will likely question whether an advertisement must be rendered within the geographic coordinates of the map itself (e.g., as a sponsored icon) or if it can be in a separate frame or sidebar of the web page that contains the map.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term refers to the entire graphical user interface that includes the map as its central feature.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification shows information balloons and POI icons that are literally rendered "on" the map layer, overlaying the geography. (’910 Patent, FIG. 3A, items 301, 302). This may suggest that the claim requires the advertisement to be similarly superimposed on the map's geography.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms “in association with” and “on the... geographical map” in the ’910 Patent be construed to cover general user interface advertisements displayed concurrently with a map, or do they require a more direct, geographically-contextual link between the ad and the map's points of interest?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern system architecture: what technical evidence will be presented regarding the operation of MapQuest's back-end systems to demonstrate whether they perform the steps of "receiving update data" and "selectively providing" it for display on a "plurality of maps" as required by the claims of the ’330 Patent?