DCT

1:24-cv-02198

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 within the District of Colorado.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MapQuest web-based mapping products infringe four patents related to displaying points of interest on a digital map along with associated qualitative information and advertisements.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of qualitative data (e.g., business hours, ratings) and advertising content with geographical points of interest within a single digital mapping interface.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of innovation by inventor Keith Kreft beginning in the early 2000s, leading to the Asserted Patents and a commercial product named "Never-Search for Golf." It further alleges that Defendants have never been licensed to use the patented technology.

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
2008 Plaintiff's "Never-Search for Golf" product gains national attention
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," Issued August 10, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the time-consuming and often frustrating process of locating places ("POIs") in unfamiliar areas, which requires searching multiple information sources to assess both the location ("where") and the qualitative attributes ("what") of a potential destination (U.S. Patent No. 11,086,910, col. 1:41-64). It also notes that existing digital maps often have incomplete or outdated POI data (U.S. Patent No. 11,086,910, col. 4:5-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides methods and systems for enhancing digital maps by integrating supplemental information directly onto the map display (U.S. Patent No. 11,086,910, Abstract). A central feature is the ability to concurrently display POIs on a map with associated advertisements, creating a new way to monetize and provide context within a mapping application (U.S. Patent No. 11,086,910, col. 11:15-22).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for transforming static digital maps into dynamic, information-rich platforms that could be monetized through integrated advertising (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1:
    • 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," Issued November 3, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the shortcomings of existing digital maps, which often rely on a "piecemeal, slap-it-together, cherry picking" approach for including POI data, resulting in incomplete and unreliable information for the user (U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330, col. 5:10-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for managing and distributing POI data over the internet. The solution involves providing initial data sets, receiving updates to create new versions of those data sets, and then selectively providing the updated sets for display on multiple user maps, allowing for more dynamic and accurate mapping information (U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330, Abstract). This is facilitated through a user profile system that manages data set preferences and distribution (U.S. Patent No. 9,177,330, col. 9:31-40).
  • Technical Importance: This technology established a method for creating and maintaining personalized, up-to-date digital maps by managing data sets and updates through a centralized, internet-based system (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1:
    • 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," Issued June 17, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that digital maps often lack the qualitative information (e.g., ratings, amenities, hours) necessary for a user to properly evaluate a point of interest (POI) without consulting other resources (U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519, col. 2:3-17). The patented solution is a computer-implemented method for concurrently displaying a geographical map, icons for POIs, and particular qualitative information associated with each POI, including controls that allow a user to adjust the level of information displayed (U.S. Patent No. 7,388,519, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶33).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that MapQuest's products infringe by displaying a graphical map, icons identifying POIs, and concurrently displaying qualitative information for those POIs, including information beyond basic contact details (Compl. ¶33).

U.S. Patent No. 9,152,981 - "Information Mapping Approaches," Issued October 6, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses a method for monetizing digital maps by linking advertising to user interaction with points of interest (POIs). The solution is a method where a user is first shown a map with multiple selectable POIs; upon the user's selection of one of those POIs, the system then displays a list of advertisements that are associated with the selected POI (U.S. Patent No. 9,152,981, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses MapQuest's products of infringing by displaying a map with selectable POIs and, based on a user's selection of a POI, displaying a list of associated advertisements (Compl. ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are MapQuest's "suite of web-based map and navigation products and services" (Compl. ¶18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products provide digital mapping and navigation functionalities that display geographical maps, points of interest (POIs), qualitative information associated with those POIs, and advertisements (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 14, 18). The complaint alleges these products practice the technology invented by Mr. Kreft and patented by Never-Search (Compl. ¶18). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 to support its infringement allegations for the ’910, ’330, ’519, and ’981 patents, respectively (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 28, 33, 38). These exhibits were not provided with the complaint document, precluding a detailed, element-by-element analysis. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • '910 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’910 Patent. The theory is that MapQuest's services perform a method of displaying an "Internet enabled geographical map" with "two or more points of interest" and "concurrently displaying, in association with" those POIs, an advertisement on the map (Compl. ¶23).
  • '330 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges direct infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’330 Patent. The infringement theory is that MapQuest's services perform a method that includes providing POI data sets, receiving update data for those sets to create updated versions, and then selectively providing those updated data sets over the Internet for display on its maps (Compl. ¶28).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’910 Patent, a central question may be the scope of the term "in association with the displayed two or more points of interest." The litigation could explore whether this requires an advertisement to be directly related to the specific POIs being displayed, or if a more general, contextually relevant ad shown on the same map page meets the limitation.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’330 Patent, the infringement analysis raises an evidentiary question regarding MapQuest’s data architecture. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system performs the specific, sequential method steps of "receiving update data" to "create...updated point of interest data sets" before "selectively providing" them, as opposed to, for example, dynamically querying a live database in real time?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to defining the required relationship between the displayed POIs and the displayed advertisement. A broad construction might cover any advertisement on a map page that also shows POIs, whereas a narrow construction could require a direct technical or contextual link between the ad and the specific POIs shown.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an "Advertising Bar" that displays selections "in association with the last active (selected) POI, or POI set," suggesting an association with a category rather than a specific POI entity, which may support a broader reading (’910 Patent, col. 11:15-22).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires association with "the displayed two or more points of interest," not a category. An argument may be made that this requires a more direct link than simply being on the same webpage, potentially pointing to embodiments where the ad content is algorithmically tied to the specific POIs on screen.

  • The Term: "receiving update data... to create... updated point of interest data sets" (’330 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This sequence of limitations defines an active data management process. Its construction will be central to determining whether MapQuest's architecture, which may rely on real-time database queries, performs the claimed method of creating discrete "updated... data sets" from "update data."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '330 patent specification discusses a system where a map program synchronizes to a centralized database and where "POI and other more frequently changing and time-dependent map information is downloaded to individual users," which could be argued to describe a process of creating updated local data sets from a master source (’330 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific sequence: receiving data, then using that data to "create" an updated set, which is then provided. An argument could be made that this implies a structured, non-real-time process of versioning or batch updating, potentially distinguishing it from a system that simply provides live data from a constantly changing master database without creating discrete, versioned "data sets" for distribution.

VI. Other Allegations

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

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

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and rely on external exhibits that are not available. A primary issue for the case will be whether discovery can produce the specific technical evidence needed to substantiate the factual premises of infringement, particularly concerning the data-management and updating architecture required by the ’330 Patent.
  • Definitional Scope: The case will likely involve a significant claim construction dispute. For the ’910 Patent, a core question will be whether displaying a general advertisement on a map page meets the claim requirement of being "in association with the displayed two or more points of interest," or if the patent requires a more direct technical or contextual link between the advertisement and the specific POIs.