DCT

1:24-cv-06811

Never Search Inc v. Here North America LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-06811, N.D. Ill., 08/02/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant HERE North America, LLC maintaining its corporate North American headquarters, a regular and established place of business, within the Northern District of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HERE WeGo suite of digital mapping and navigation products infringes four U.S. patents related to methods for displaying, organizing, and updating point of interest (POI) information on geographical maps.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for improving digital map accuracy and utility by integrating qualitative data with POIs and allowing users to correct POI locations, with those updates being stored and distributed to other users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventor, Keith Kreft, developed a commercial mapping product, "Never-Search for Golf," which allegedly embodied the patented technology and gained national attention in 2008. No prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative patent challenges are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’519 Patent
2004-04-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’330, ’479, and ’810 Patents
2008-06-17 ’519 Patent Issued
2008 "Never-Search for Golf" product gains national attention
2015-11-03 ’330 Patent Issued
2017-03-21 ’479 Patent Issued
2019-12-17 ’810 Patent Issued
2024-08-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,599,479 - "Broadcast Map Program Method Employing Point-of-Interest, Geo-Coordinate Validation by a Trusted Person"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that prior to the invention, digital maps were disconnected from the qualitative information about points of interest (POIs), forcing users to consult multiple sources to find and evaluate a location (Compl. ¶¶7-10). A related patent in the same family notes that POI locations on digital maps were often inaccurate due to limitations in address geocoding systems (U.S. Patent No. 10,509,810, col. 3:9-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for updating map data by allowing a user to move a POI icon on a digital map to a more accurate location. The system then captures the new geo-coordinates for that location, stores the updated information in a database, and provides the corrected data via the internet to other map display programs, effectively enabling crowdsourced map corrections (Compl. ¶¶14, 22; ’479 Patent, Abstract). The system architecture described in a related patent envisions a central database collecting POI data from multiple sources, including business owners, and distributing it to various user devices (’810 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for dynamic, user-driven updates that can enhance map accuracy beyond what was achievable with static, centrally managed databases (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Claim 1 of the ’479 Patent recites the essential elements of a method comprising:
    • Causing a point of interest icon to be displayed at a first location on a geographical map.
    • After a user moves the icon to a "second more representative location," receiving the geo-coordinate data for that second location.
    • Storing the received geo-coordinate data as a database entry associated with the point of interest.
    • Providing the updated geo-coordinate data through the internet to a plurality of map display programs for display on other computers.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,509,810 - "Method For Updating Map Displays"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section details the shortcomings of traditional address geocoding, which resulted in inaccurate POI placement on digital maps, and notes the lack of convenient mechanisms for users or business owners to correct these errors and have those corrections persist (’810 Patent, col. 3:9-4:17).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented method, similar to that of the ’479 Patent, allows a user to update a POI's location by moving its icon on a map. A key distinction is the explicit requirement of "storing a date stamp value in association with the received geo-coordinate data indicating when the storing occurred." This timestamped, updated location data is then provided through a communication channel for use by other map programs (’810 Patent, col. 32:30-44). This process is part of a larger system for managing and distributing layers of map data, as illustrated in the patent's figures (’810 Patent, Fig. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: Adding a timestamp to user-submitted corrections enhances the reliability of a crowdsourced mapping system by creating a record of when information was updated, which can be critical for version control and resolving conflicting data submissions (’810 Patent, Claim 11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Claim 11 of the ’810 Patent recites the essential elements of a method comprising:
    • Causing a point of interest icon to be displayed at a first location.
    • After a user moves the icon to a second location, receiving the geo-coordinate data for that location.
    • Storing the geo-coordinate data as a database entry and also storing a date stamp value associated with the data indicating when the storing occurred.
    • Thereafter, providing the updated geo-coordinate data through a communication channel to a plurality of map display programs.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of digital maps lacking integrated qualitative information for POIs. The claimed solution is a method for concurrently displaying on a map both the POI icons at their geographical locations and, for each POI, qualitative information beyond just the name and address, such as ratings, hours, or services offered (’519 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products infringe by providing POI data sets, receiving update data for those sets, and selectively providing the updated data for display on maps via the Internet (Compl. ¶32).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’479 and ’810 patents, describes a method for updating map information. The method involves a user moving a POI icon to a more accurate location, with the system then receiving and storing the new geo-coordinates along with a date stamp value indicating when the update occurred (’330 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 11 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves the user-driven map correction features of the Accused Products, specifically the storing of a timestamp alongside the updated location data before that data is distributed to other users (Compl. ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "a suite of web-based and digital map and navigational products and services under the brand HERE or HERE WeGo" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products "practice the technology invented and patented by Mr. Kreft and Never-Search" (Compl. ¶17). While the complaint does not provide screenshots or detailed descriptions of the Accused Products' user interface, the infringement allegations assert that the products provide functionality for users to correct the location of points of interest on a map, and that this updated information, including a timestamp of the correction, is stored and distributed to update the maps for a plurality of users (Compl. ¶¶22, 27). The complaint alleges that HERE has "commercialized" these products and services (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that detailed claim charts are attached as exhibits (Compl. ¶¶22, 27); however, these exhibits were not provided for this analysis. The infringement theory is therefore summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

  • ’479 Patent InfringEMENT Allegations Summary: The complaint asserts that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’479 Patent. The alleged infringing method involves HERE causing POI icons to be displayed on its maps, allowing users to move an icon to a new, more representative location, and upon that user action, receiving and storing the new geo-coordinate data for that POI in a database. Subsequently, HERE allegedly provides this updated geo-coordinate data over the internet to other instances of its map programs, thereby updating the map for other users (Compl. ¶22).
  • ’810 Patent InfringEMENT Allegations Summary: The complaint asserts that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 11 of the ’810 Patent. The infringement theory is substantially similar to that for the ’479 Patent, with the additional allegation that HERE's method includes the step of storing a "date stamp value in association with the received geo-coordinate data indicating when the storing occurred." This timestamped update is then allegedly provided through a communication channel to other map programs (Compl. ¶27).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: What is the specific architecture and data flow within the HERE WeGo system when a user submits a correction for a POI location? What evidence does the complaint provide that HERE's system stores a discrete "date stamp value" that is specifically "in association with the received geo-coordinate data," as required by Claim 11 of the ’810 Patent, rather than as part of a general database transaction log?
    • Scope Questions: How does the term "providing the... data... to a plurality of map display programs" apply to HERE's client-server architecture? Does updating a central database that is then accessed by multiple clients meet this limitation? Does the user action of suggesting an edit in the Accused Products constitute the "movement of the icon" and "indication by the user" as recited in the claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "second more representative location for the point of interest" (’479 Patent, Claim 1; ’810 Patent, Claim 11).

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the act of infringement. A dispute may arise over whether this requires an objective improvement in locational accuracy or if the user's subjective indication is sufficient. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that a user might erroneously move an icon to a less representative location, and such an act would fall outside the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language focuses on an "indication by the user that indicates that the moved icon is now located at a second more representative location" (’479 Patent, col. 6:3-5). This language suggests the user's input itself satisfies the condition, regardless of objective verification.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background of the patent family consistently frames the invention as a solution to inaccurate geocoding (’810 Patent, col. 3:9-13). This context may support an interpretation that "more representative" implies a degree of objective accuracy improvement.

  • The Term: "storing a date stamp value in association with the received geo-coordinate data" (’810 Patent, Claim 11).

    • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the method of the ’810 Patent from that of the earlier ’479 Patent. The core of the dispute will likely be the required degree of "association" between the timestamp and the coordinate data.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires storing the date stamp "in association with" the data, which may not mandate a specific data structure (’810 Patent, col. 32:35-39). Plaintiff may argue that any database log that reliably links a timestamp to the transaction that updated the coordinates would satisfy this element.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that this language requires a specific data structure, such as storing the timestamp in the same field, record, or table as the geo-coordinates, rather than in a separate, general-purpose transaction log. The claim specifies the date stamp indicates "when the storing occurred," which could be argued to require a direct and explicit link.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The causes of action are limited to allegations of direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶22, 27, 32, 37).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or facts that would support a finding of pre- or post-suit knowledge beyond the filing of the suit itself. The prayer for relief includes a request for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for an "exceptional case" but does not plead facts to support such a finding (Compl. ¶43).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the technical implementation of the HERE WeGo user-correction feature map directly onto the sequential steps of the asserted claims? Specifically, how does the system store and associate a "date stamp value" with updated geo-coordinates, and is this mechanism functionally equivalent to the process described in Claim 11 of the ’810 and ’330 patents?
  • A key question of claim scope will be the definition of a "more representative location." The case may turn on whether this term imports an objective standard of improved accuracy that must be met for infringement to occur, or if the user’s subjective act of moving and saving an icon is sufficient to satisfy the limitation as claimed.