DCT

4:24-cv-03945

Never Search Inc v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Never-Search, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MZF Law Firm, PLLC; AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS & MENSING, PLLC
Case Identification: 4:24-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. has its corporate headquarters in the District and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Apple Maps products and services infringe six patents related to methods for displaying, organizing, and updating points of interest with associated qualitative information on digital maps.
Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the integration of geographical map data with supplemental, qualitative information about points of interest, a foundational feature of modern digital mapping and navigation services.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant beginning around 2015 regarding a potential license or purchase of the patents-in-suit, which may be used to assert pre-suit knowledge for the purpose of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-22	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519
2004-04-20	Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,219,318; 9,177,330; 9,599,479; 10,509,810; 11,372,903
2008-06-17	U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519 Issued
2012-07-10	U.S. Patent No. 8,219,318 Issued
2015-11-03	U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330 Issued
2017-03-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,599,479 Issued
2019-12-17	U.S. Patent No. 10,509,810 Issued
2022-06-28	U.S. Patent No. 11,372,903 Issued
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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519, titled “Displaying points of interest with qualitative information,” issued June 17, 2008 (’519 Patent).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Prior to the invention, users of digital maps had to consult separate sources to obtain qualitative information (e.g., operating hours, services, ratings) about a point of interest (POI), requiring them to "constantly switch between querying the internet" and the map (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10). The patent describes this as a time-consuming process of searching for places in unfamiliar areas by reviewing both "what" (qualifications) and "where" (location) from multiple sources (’519 Patent, col. 1:35-56).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for displaying a graphical map that includes icons for POIs while concurrently displaying qualitative information associated with those POIs on the same map interface (Compl. ¶13). This integration allows a user to digest both geographic and qualitative information simultaneously within a single platform (’519 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3A).
Technical Importance: The invention provided a foundational architecture for modern interactive maps, which rely on the integration of rich, qualitative data with geographic locations to provide value to users (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 10).

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 icons on the map identifying two or more points of interest at their corresponding geographical locations;
- concurrently displaying, over the map, particular qualitative information for each of the two or more points of interest;
- a requirement that all the qualitative information for all the points of interest is concurrently displayed in the map;
- displaying an information box over the map for each point of interest, which includes a first control to display a higher level of information and a second control to display a lower level of information;
- a requirement that each point of interest is associated with one or more datasets and that different qualitative information is displayed for different datasets.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,219,318, titled “Information mapping approaches,” issued July 10, 2012 (’318 Patent).

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The complaint notes that the asserted patents disclose methods for updating and organizing map information, including through participation by business owners or users (Compl. ¶14). The patent specification describes the process of "address geocoding" as an enormous, expensive, and often inaccurate task, resulting in errors in the location of POIs on digital maps (’318 Patent, col. 2:52-61; col. 3:6-10).
The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a "manager" of a POI to update the POI's location data in a central database over a network (Compl. ¶29). The manager is shown a map, specifies a new, more representative location for the POI, and this new location data is used to update the database, thereby improving map accuracy (’318 Patent, col. 7:6-17; Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: This approach enables a system for crowdsourced or owner-verified updates to map data, a departure from traditional top-down mapping that can lead to more accurate and current POI information (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
Claim 1 of the ’318 Patent recites the essential elements of:
- storing in a database a point of interest associated with a first location and information identifying a "manager" of the POI;
- receiving map location information for 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 received second location.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330, titled “Information mapping approaches,” issued November 3, 2015.
Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method for managing and distributing updated POI data sets. The method involves receiving update data for multiple POI data sets and then selectively providing the updated data sets through the Internet for display on multiple map programs (Compl. ¶35).
Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple Maps' backend system, which provides updated POI information to users' devices over the internet, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,599,479 - Method for updating map displays

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,599,479, titled “Method for updating map displays,” issued March 21, 2017.
Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method for updating a POI's location based on user input. The method involves displaying a POI icon, receiving new geo-coordinate data after a user moves the icon to a more representative location, storing the new data in a database, and providing it through the internet to map display programs (Compl. ¶41).
Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple Maps' functionality that allows a user or business owner to suggest a location correction by moving a pin on the map (Compl. ¶42).

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,509,810, titled “Method for updating map displays,” issued December 17, 2019.
Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method similar to that of the ’479 Patent, adding the step of "storing a date stamp value" in association with the received geo-coordinate data. This step records when the location update occurred (Compl. ¶47).
Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶47).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple Maps' system for updating POI locations, which allegedly infringes by also storing a timestamp associated with the location edit (Compl. ¶48).

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,372,903, titled “Systems and methods for providing mapping information,” issued June 28, 2022.
Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a server-based mapping system configured to create user accounts, store personalized POIs for users, and import addresses from external applications like a CRM or contact application. These imported addresses are then displayed on the user's map (Compl. ¶53).
Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
Accused Features: The complaint targets Apple Maps' features that are integrated with a user's Apple ID, allowing users to save personalized "favorite" locations and display addresses from their device's contact list on the map (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Apple Maps provides a digital mapping platform that displays geographical maps integrated with icons identifying POIs such as restaurants, gas stations, and other businesses (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 13). When a user interacts with a POI icon, the platform allegedly displays qualitative information such as operating hours, services, and ratings (Compl. ¶8). The complaint further alleges that Apple Maps includes systems for updating POI information, including methods that allow business owners or users to manually update the location of a POI on the map (Compl. ¶14). The complaint characterizes these features as practicing the technology invented by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include them in the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53). The infringement theories are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’519 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Apple Maps infringes Claim 1 by performing a method that includes displaying a graphical map with icons for POIs. When a user selects a POI, Apple Maps is alleged to concurrently display qualitative information about it in an information box, which contains controls for viewing more or less information. This functionality is alleged to satisfy the elements of the claim (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "wherein all the qualitative information for all the points of interest is concurrently displayed in the map." It is a question for the court whether this requires all information for all POIs to be visible simultaneously, or if it can be read to cover a system where information for any given POI is available for concurrent display with the map upon user selection. The claim's recitation of "an information box" (singular) may support a narrower reading that the accused product's one-at-a-time display meets.
Technical Questions: What specific functionalities in Apple Maps correspond to the claimed "first control" and "second control" for displaying "a higher level" and "a lower level" of information? The infringement analysis may depend on whether the user interface elements for expanding or collapsing information sections in Apple Maps meet these claimed functional limitations.

’318 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Apple's systems for updating POI data infringe Claim 1. The theory suggests that Apple operates a database of POIs, provides a map interface to a "manager" of a POI (such as a business owner), and receives updated location coordinates from that manager, which are then used to update the database (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A key dispute may center on the term "manager of the point of interest." Does this term, in the context of the patent, read on any Apple Maps user who suggests a location edit, or is it limited to a verified business owner operating through a dedicated business portal? The scope of direct infringement could vary significantly based on this construction.
Technical Questions: What is the specific data flow within Apple's infrastructure when a business location is updated? The analysis will require evidence of a system that performs the claimed sequence of storing manager information, receiving map data from that manager's computer, and updating the database based on that specific input.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"concurrently displaying" (’519 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is critical for determining whether a modern, interactive map that displays information for one selected POI at a time infringes a claim that requires concurrent display of qualitative information for "two or more points of interest." Practitioners may focus on whether "concurrently" modifies the display of information relative to the map itself or requires the simultaneous display of multiple, distinct sets of POI information.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family describes the problem as toggling between the internet and a map, suggesting the invention's concurrency is about viewing the map and qualitative data together on one platform, which could support a broader reading (’519 Patent, col. 1:35-56).
Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim includes the limitation "wherein all the qualitative information for all the points of interest is concurrently displayed in the map," which, if read literally, suggests a requirement that an infringing system must display all data for all POIs at the same time, a potentially narrow scope that may not be met by the accused product.

"manager of the point of interest" (’318 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term's definition will determine the actor whose actions can satisfy the method steps. If construed broadly to include any user, the potential scope of infringement is wide. If construed narrowly to require a verified business owner with special credentials, the scope is more limited.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family's specification refers to both "POI owners and managers" and general "User Profiles" as sources of map data, which may suggest the term is not strictly limited to individuals with a formal business relationship to the POI (’810 Patent, Fig. 1, elements 104, 105).
Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires "storing... information identifying a manager," which suggests a specific, identifiable entity rather than an anonymous user. The term "manager" itself implies a degree of authority or control over the POI, potentially limiting its scope to business owners or their designated agents (’318 Patent, col. 7:6-9).

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all six asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stemming from communications that Plaintiff initiated "around 2015" concerning a potential license or purchase of the patent portfolio (Compl. ¶18). The complaint also asserts that infringement continues to be willful after the filing of the complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55).

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "concurrently displaying... qualitative information for... two or more points of interest" from the ’519 patent be construed to cover a modern mapping application that displays detailed information for one user-selected point of interest at a time?
A second central question will concern the identity of the actor: does the term "manager," as used in the data-updating patents (e.g., the ’318 patent), encompass any user who suggests a location edit in Apple Maps, or is its meaning restricted to a formally verified business owner, thereby narrowing the scope of accused activity?
A key evidentiary challenge will be one of technical mapping: for the server-side claims (’318, ’330, ’479, ’810, ’903 patents), the case will likely turn on Plaintiff's ability to demonstrate, through technical evidence, that the specific architecture and data processing steps of Apple's complex backend systems perform the precise functions in the sequence required by each asserted claim.