Location Based Services LLC v. Deere & Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Location Based Services, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Deere & Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-21496, S.D. Fla., 04/08/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website-based dealer locator infringes a patent related to systems and methods for generating and displaying map-based guides.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit involves the field of digital mapping and location-based services, specifically technologies that generate customized routes or display points of interest in response to user queries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,702,713 - "MAP-BASED GUIDE SYSTEM AND METHOD"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,702,713, “MAP-BASED GUIDE SYSTEM AND METHOD,” issued July 11, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly frame a singular problem in its background section, but instead describes the technical field generally as relating to maps (’713 Patent, col. 5:36). The detailed description implies a need for more dynamic and commercially-oriented mapping systems beyond simple point-to-point navigation (’713 Patent, col. 11:58-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user device transmits a request for a map-based guide, which includes an "identifier" and a "search term." A server receives this request and, using the identifier, determines a route through a predefined area. This determination is made via a "server-based decision-making process" that can incorporate factors such as a "profit-motive" (e.g., including advertiser locations) or "goodwill" (e.g., directing users past a new attraction) (’713 Patent, col. 6:8-15; Fig. 4). The system then transmits the resulting map guide back to the user for display (’713 Patent, col. 12:40-54).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for monetizing or otherwise commercially influencing digital map-based guides by dynamically altering routes based on server-side business logic rather than solely on geographic efficiency (’713 Patent, col. 12:3-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 2 (’713 Patent, col. 16:37-52; Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of Claim 2 are:
  • transmitting a map-based guide request, the map-based guide request including at least an identifier and a search term;
  • determining at least one location associated with the map-based guide request;
  • identifying if a source of the map-based guide request is entitled to a supported map-based guide;
  • receiving a response to the map-based guide request, the response including location data associated with one or more locations; and
  • displaying one or more indications of the one or more locations at least partially based on the response,
  • wherein at least one of the transmitting, receiving, or displaying is at least partially implemented using one or more processing devices.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the “John Deere web page,” referred to as the “Accused System,” which enables users to find nearby store locations (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused System provides a map-based tool for finding directions to the nearest John Deere stores. A user transmits a request by inputting a search term, such as an address, city, or zip code. The system then determines the location of nearby stores, receives a response containing that location data, and displays the locations on a map for the user (Compl. ¶¶24-28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the body of the complaint.

'713 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises a question about the scope of the term "identifier." The complaint alleges the identifier is the implicit goal of "identifying nearby dealers of John Deere" (Compl. ¶24). The litigation may explore whether this inherent function of a branded store locator constitutes an "identifier" that is "includ[ed]" in the transmitted request, as the claim requires.
• Technical Questions: A central question will be what technical operation in the Accused System corresponds to "identifying if a source...is entitled to a supported map-based guide." The complaint's allegation that this is met simply by the system displaying its own dealers (Compl. ¶26) may be contested, as it appears to be a conclusory statement rather than a description of a specific step performed by the system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "supported map-based guide"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's infringement theory relies on a very broad interpretation. The complaint equates a "supported" guide with any guide that displays the defendant's own dealer locations (Compl. ¶26). Whether this interpretation holds will be a central point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether a standard store locator falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition. A party could argue that in the context of a company's own website, any guide it provides is implicitly "supported" by that company.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the concept of a "supported" guide to some form of commercial arrangement or remuneration. For example, it states, "the supported map-based guide can include any guide for which compensation is from an advertiser, at least in part" (’713 Patent, col. 11:18-21). This suggests a "supported" guide is one for which a specific commercial condition, such as payment from an advertiser, has been met.

• The Term: "identifier"

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires the transmitted request to include an "identifier." The complaint alleges this is fulfilled by the system's function of "identifying nearby dealers of John Deere" (Compl. ¶24). The definition of this term is crucial to determining whether a standard location query on a branded website infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit the form of the identifier. A party might argue that using a dedicated John Deere dealer locator implicitly includes an "identifier" that signals to the server what type of locations to return.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more concrete examples of what an "identifier" might be, such as "an identification of location of the system," "an identification of an account usable by the system to log into a website," a phone number, or a network address (’713 Patent, col. 17:34-58). These examples suggest the "identifier" is a specific data element transmitted with the request, rather than the implicit context of the request itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that since receiving notice of the patent via the complaint, Defendant has actively induced infringement by "advertising, marketing, promoting," and "providing instructions for infringing uses by Defendant's customers and/or end users" (Compl. ¶35).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful, at least from the date of service of the complaint, because Defendant has actual notice of the '713 Patent and its alleged infringement (Compl. ¶37).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "supported map-based guide," which the patent specification links to commercial remuneration, be construed to cover a standard, non-monetized dealer locator on a company's own website? The outcome of this construction will likely be dispositive.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what specific, identifiable step does the Accused System perform that meets the "identifying if a source...is entitled" limitation? The plaintiff will need to provide evidence beyond the conclusory allegation that the system's inherent function of showing its own dealers satisfies this claim element.
• A third central question will relate to the term "identifier": does the implicit context of using a branded dealer-locator tool constitute an "identifier" that is "includ[ed]" in a transmitted request, or does the claim require a discrete piece of data, such as an account number or device ID, as exemplified in the patent's specification?