1:11-cv-00309
Walker Digital LLC v. Google Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Walker Digital, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California), BMW of North America, LLC (Delaware), Google, Inc. (Delaware), MapQuest, Inc. (Delaware), and others.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.; SNR Denton
- Case Identification: 1:11-cv-00309, D. Del., 04/11/2011
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because several defendants are incorporated in Delaware and all defendants are alleged to transact business and have committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ GPS-enabled devices and online mapping services infringe a patent related to providing driving directions that incorporate photographic images of locations along a calculated route.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns computerized navigation systems, a field that has seen significant commercial development in both dedicated hardware devices and software applications for consumer electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges pre-suit notice of infringement to Google in late 2009/early 2010 and to Apple in spring 2010. Notably, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent, U.S. 6,199,014, underwent an inter partes reexamination proceeding which concluded with a certificate issued on March 20, 2015, cancelling all claims (1-6) of the patent. This post-filing event renders the infringement claims in the original complaint moot, as there are no longer any valid claims to assert.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-12-23 | ’014 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-03-06 | ’014 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-12-01 | Alleged notice to Google regarding the ’014 Patent (approximate) |
| 2010-03-20 | Alleged notice to Apple regarding the ’014 Patent (approximate "spring 2010") |
| 2011-04-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2015-03-20 | Reexamination Certificate issues, cancelling all claims of the ’014 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,199,014, "System for Providing Driving Directions With Visual Cues," issued March 6, 2001.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background suggests that conventional text-based or map-based driving directions can be difficult to follow, whereas directions that refer to environmental landmarks are more intuitive and easier to remember (’014 Patent, col. 1:13-24). Existing computerized systems at the time lacked the ability to integrate pictorial cues of actual locations into customized, dynamically generated driving directions (’014 Patent, col. 1:25-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that generates navigational instructions by combining traditional route-calculation with a database of photographic information (’014 Patent, Abstract). The system stores geographical data (like road networks) and a separate database of photographs, where each photograph is associated with specific geographic coordinates (’014 Patent, col. 4:1-12). When a user requests a route, the system calculates the path and then matches geographic locations along that path with corresponding photographs in its database to produce a sequence of instructions that includes visual images of the locations (’014 Patent, col. 4:1-12, Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The invention proposed to enhance the usability of emerging GPS navigation technology by making the guidance more akin to how a person might give directions, using visual landmarks to confirm turns and progress.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a system claim) and 4 (a method claim) (Compl. ¶¶22-33).
- Independent Claim 1 (System) Elements:
- A communication port for receiving location information and transmitting navigational instructions.
- A storage device containing: (i) geographical information, (ii) photographic information (including representations of photos of actual locations, coordinates, and direction of view), and (iii) processing instructions.
- A processor adapted to:
- Process location and geographical information to obtain a route.
- Match geographic locations on the route with coordinates of photographic representations.
- Orient the photographic representations based on the route.
- Output the navigational instructions, including an "oriented sequence of photographic representations."
- Independent Claim 4 (Method) Elements:
- Providing a first database with geographical information.
- Providing a second database with photographic information (including photos of actual locations, coordinates, and orientation/direction of view).
- Receiving location information (start and destination).
- Processing the information to determine a route.
- Generating navigational instructions for the route, including photographic representations "oriented based on the route for travel."
- Outputting the instructions and photos in an "oriented sequence."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations covering "one or more claims" (Compl. p. 10, ¶(a)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names a wide array of products and services from numerous defendants. These include, but are not limited to: Apple's "iPhone with GPS," "BMW Navigation Systems," Google's "Google Maps," "Street View," and "turn-by-turn 3d map navigation service," "MapQuest... including 360 View," "TomTom GO 500-900 Series GPS Devices," Microsoft's "Bing Maps, including Streetside," and Samsung's "Galaxy S with Real Street View GPS technology" (Compl. ¶¶22-33).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentalities are broadly described as systems that provide "navigation instructions providing directions for traveling a route along with photographic representations of locations along a route" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges these functionalities are provided through GPS-enabled hardware (smartphones, in-vehicle systems, dedicated GPS devices) and web-based mapping services that deliver directions and associated street-level imagery to users. The named products represent a significant portion of the consumer and automotive navigation market at the time of filing. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides only high-level, conclusory allegations of infringement, which are repeated for each defendant. It does not contain a claim chart or map specific product features to claim limitations beyond a general statement of function. The following chart summarizes the allegations for Claim 1 based on the generalized description of the accused functionality provided in the complaint. A similar analysis applies to the parallel steps of method claim 4.
’014 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a communication port adapted to: receive signals representing location information including a starting point and a destination point; and transmit the navigational instructions | The accused products and services receive start and end points from a user and transmit navigation instructions and images. | ¶22 | col. 9:40-43 |
| a storage device having stored therein geographical information, photographic information, route processing instructions and photograph matching instructions | The accused products and services allegedly utilize stored geographical map data and a database of photographic representations. | ¶22 | col. 9:44-48 |
| wherein: the photographic information includes representations of photographs of actual geographic locations and photograph orientation information | The accused products and services, such as those with "Street View" or "Streetside," allegedly use photographic representations of actual locations. | ¶24, ¶32 | col. 9:49-51 |
| a processor connected to the storage device and adapted to: process the location information and the geographical information... to obtain a route for travel | The accused products and services process user-provided locations to calculate a travel route. | ¶22 | col. 10:2-5 |
| match geographic locations along the route with the coordinates of representations of photographs | The accused products and services allegedly match points along the calculated route to corresponding photographic representations. | ¶22 | col. 10:6-9 |
| orient the representations of photographs based on the route for travel... | The accused products and services allegedly orient the photographic representations to align with the direction of travel. | ¶22 | col. 10:10-13 |
| wherein said processor outputs the navigational instructions... providing a user with directions for traveling the route and an oriented sequence of photographic representations... | The accused products and services output turn-by-turn directions that include a sequence of photographic representations for locations along the route. | ¶22 | col. 10:15-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the term "representations of photographs of actual geographic locations" reads on the computer-generated, panoramic imagery used in services like Google Street View or Microsoft Streetside. Defendants might argue these are not "photographs" in the manner described by the patent, which references a "scanning/digitizing device for converting photographs to binary data" (’014 Patent, col. 5:22-24).
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused products perform the claimed "match[ing]" based on "coordinates" or how they create an "oriented sequence." The claims require the photographic representations to be "oriented based on the route for travel," which suggests alignment with the driver's perspective. A factual dispute could arise over whether the accused systems perform this specific type of orientation as opposed to simply displaying a pre-existing panoramic view.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "photographic information includ[ing] representations of photographs of actual geographic locations"
- Context and Importance: The scope of this term is fundamental to the dispute. The case may turn on whether computer-stitched panoramic imagery (e.g., Street View) constitutes a "representation of a photograph" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products primarily rely on such imagery, not on a database of discrete, conventional photographs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the broad term "representations of photographs," which a plaintiff could argue is not limited to a specific method of capture or storage and should encompass any digital image data depicting an actual location.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes obtaining information from a "photography source 103, which may include for example a scanning/digitizing device for converting photographs to binary data" (’014 Patent, col. 5:20-24). This could support a narrower construction limited to images derived from conventional, individual photographs rather than algorithmically generated panoramic views.
The Term: "oriented sequence"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the final output step of both asserted claims. Its meaning is critical for determining whether the accused products perform the claimed invention. The dispute will likely center on whether simply displaying an image of a location in the order it appears on a route meets this limitation, or if a more specific technical "orientation" (e.g., adjusting the viewing angle) is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "oriented sequence" simply means presenting the images in the correct order corresponding to the travel route.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require photographic information to include "orientation information" and a "direction of view," and the processor must "orient the representations of photographs based on the route for travel" (’014 Patent, col. 10:10-11, col. 9:49-51). This suggests "oriented" requires more than just correct sequencing, potentially requiring the system to present the image from the perspective of a user traveling that specific route.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts or factual allegations for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations are framed in terms of direct infringement by the defendants for "making, using, ... offering for sale and/or selling" the accused systems (Compl. ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is specifically alleged against Google and Apple (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges that Google was put on notice of its infringement through a third party in approximately December 2009 or January 2010. It alleges Apple was put on notice via discussions with its patent attorneys at an auction in spring 2010 (Compl. ¶35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
While the subsequent cancellation of all patent claims during reexamination has rendered the complaint moot, the central disputes at the time of its filing would have been:
A core issue of definitional scope: Can the term "representations of photographs," which the patent specification links to digitizing conventional photos, be construed to cover the algorithmically stitched, panoramic digital imagery that forms the basis of accused services like Google Street View and Microsoft Streetside?
A key question of technical function: Do the accused services perform the specific step of creating an "oriented sequence" of images as required by the claims? This would involve determining whether merely displaying a sequence of street-level images constitutes "orient[ing] the representations... based on the route for travel," or if the claims require a more active alignment of the image's "direction of view" with the user's path.
An overarching evidentiary challenge: The complaint's lack of specific factual detail would have presented an immediate hurdle for the plaintiff. A primary question for the court would have been whether the generalized allegations that the accused products perform the claimed functions were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, particularly regarding how the systems technically "match" and "orient" the visual data.