Weisner v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sholem Weisner (Brooklyn, NY)
  • Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jacob Ginsburg, Esq. PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-02862, S.D.N.Y., 01/22/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Google maintains a large office and a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Google's Maps service, including its "Your Timeline" and "Your Places" features, infringes four patents related to methods for creating, using, and enhancing search results with physical location histories.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that link a user's real-world physical movements and location history with online identifiers (URLs) to generate more personalized and relevant digital search results.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Google with written notice of infringement for the '202' Patent on July 1, 2019, and for the '905', '911', and '910' Patents in February and March 2020, prior to filing suit. It also notes that the plaintiff inventor had licensing conversations with Apple in 2020.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-03-27	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit ('202, '905, '911, '910)
2019-07-01	Plaintiff allegedly sent written notice to Google regarding the '202 Patent
2019-08-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,380,202 Issues
2019-08-27	U.S. Patent No. 10,394,905 Issues
2020-02-23	Plaintiff allegedly sent written notice to Google regarding the '905 and '911 Patents
2020-03-29	Plaintiff allegedly sent written notice to Google regarding the '910 Patent
2020-05-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,642,911 Issues
2020-05-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,642,910 Issues
2021-01-22	Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,380,202 - "Physical Location History With URL and Positioning System"

• Issued: August 13, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that prior to the invention, search engine results were based on a user's "cyber" history (i.e., websites visited), which was of "little use when it came to real life services, businesses, or activities" (Compl. ¶15). This resulted in generic search results for physical locations that did not reflect a user's real-world preferences or interactions ('202 Patent, col. 1:15-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for creating a "digital leg history" by automatically logging "physical encounters" between a mobile user and stationary vendors (e.g., stores) ('202 Patent, col. 2:5-11). Upon an encounter, an application on the user's mobile device transmits identifiers, such as URLs for both the user and the vendor, to a central processing system, which generates a time- and location-stamped entry in the user's history database ('202 Patent, Abstract). This history is then viewable on the user's device, creating a searchable record of their physical activities.
• Technical Importance: The technology proposes a framework for bridging a user's physical world activities with their digital identity to enable more personalized, location-aware services (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 14 (a system) (Compl. ¶32-33).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Maintaining a processing system that provides accounts to an "individual member" and a "stationary vendor member."
  • Providing an application for a handheld mobile device that, upon a "physical encounter," automatically transmits a URL of the stationary vendor and a URL of the individual member to the processing system.
  • Generating a location history entry that includes the URLs, location, time, and date of the encounter.
  • Maintaining a viewable and searchable physical encounter history on the handheld device.
  • Maintaining a database of these physical encounter histories.
  • The history including at least one "visual timeline" of the physical encounters.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶56, ¶114).

U.S. Patent No. 10,394,905 - "Method and Apparatus for a Digital Leg History"

• Issued: August 27, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent states that web searching does not adequately "take cognizance of the unique characteristics and tastes of the searching person," leading to results dominated by large entities rather than those most relevant to an individual ('905 Patent, col. 2:56-63).
• The Patented Solution: This invention uses the "digital leg history" database, as described in the '202 Patent, to enhance search results by identifying "physical location relationships" ('905 Patent, col. 12:10-25). It boosts the ranking of a target business if a "reference individual" (another user) has both visited the target business and also shares a common location history with the person searching (e.g., both users have visited the same separate location). This method employs other users as "physical encounter links" to infer relevance.
• Technical Importance: The patent describes a form of collaborative filtering for search that is based on shared real-world locations rather than online behavior, aiming to surface recommendations from people with similar physical movement patterns (Compl. ¶22-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 11 (a system) (Compl. ¶38-39).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Maintaining a processing system and providing an application to transmit "key data" (e.g., a URL) upon a physical encounter.
  • Maintaining a database of physical location histories.
  • Upon a search query, determining a "physical location relationship" between the searching person, a "reference individual member," and a "first stationary vendor member."
  • Increasing the search ranking of the first stationary vendor based on this relationship, which requires that (a) the reference member has visited the first vendor, and (b) the searching person and the reference member have both visited a common "second stationary vendor member."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶58, ¶117).

U.S. Patent No. 10,642,911 - "Enhancing Digital Search Results for a Business in a Target Geographic Area Using URLs of Location Histories"

• Issued: May 5, 2020.

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method for enhancing digital search results where a business's ranking is prioritized if its URL appears in the location history of the user conducting the search, particularly when the search targets a specific geographic area (Compl. ¶44, ¶46). The system uses a user's past physical presence at a location as a direct signal of relevance for future searches within that area.

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1 and 12 are asserted (Compl. ¶44-45).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Google's search engine of infringement for allegedly utilizing a user's location history data to enhance search results for businesses in a targeted geographic area (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 10,642,910 - "Accumulation of Location History Based on Digital Member Entries from Multiple Devices of a Mobile Web"

• Issued: May 5, 2020.

Technology Synopsis

This patent focuses on the accumulation of a physical location history from "digital member entries" captured by an individual member (Compl. ¶50). It specifies that this history can be accumulated in an account from multiple handheld devices over time and includes at least one "visual timeline," addressing the real-world scenario of a user owning different devices over their lifetime (Compl. ¶52).

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 are asserted (Compl. ¶50-51).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Google Maps' "Your Timeline" and "Your Photos" features of infringing by capturing digital member entries, accumulating them into a physical location history, and presenting at least one visual timeline of those entries (Compl. ¶62).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Google Maps, including the "Your Timeline" and "Your Places" features, as well as Google's search engine (Compl. ¶56, ¶58, ¶60, ¶62).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused functionalities automatically collect and store a user's location data, creating a detailed history of physical places visited (Compl. ¶24). This location history is then allegedly used by Google's search engine to provide personalized and enhanced search results (Compl. ¶58, ¶60). The complaint asserts that Google uses the data obtained through these methods to sell specifically tailored advertisements, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue (Compl. ¶25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits A-1, C-1, D-1, E-1) that were not included in the provided document. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

• '202 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Google's services meet the elements of the '202 Patent's claims for creating a physical location history (Compl. ¶56). The theory suggests that Google's servers act as the "processing system," Google accounts serve as member accounts, and the Google Maps application on a mobile device automatically detects when a user has a "physical encounter" with a location. This allegedly triggers the transmission of location and business identification data (the "URL") to Google's servers, which generates an entry in the user's "Your Timeline." This timeline is presented as the claimed "visual timeline of physical encounters."

• '905 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The infringement theory for the '905 Patent centers on Google's search engine allegedly using the collected location histories to enhance search results through "physical location relationships" (Compl. ¶58). The complaint provides a narrative example where a search for a martial arts dojo is ranked higher because other members of the user's gym—a shared location—have also encountered that dojo, thereby using "humans as physical encounter links" to determine relevance (Compl. ¶22).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether Google's use of a Google Account ID or other user identifier meets the claim limitation of transmitting a "URL of the individual member." Further, the claims of the '202 Patent recite an "automatic proposal from the stationary vendor member," which raises the question of whether Google's passive, GPS-based location logging satisfies this more interactive-sounding limitation.
  • Technical Questions: For the '905 Patent, a central question will be what evidence the complaint provides that Google's search algorithm performs the specific three-part logical function of a "physical location relationship" (linking a searching person, a reference person, and a target business through a separate, shared location) as strictly defined by the claims, rather than using location history as one of many signals in a broader personalization model.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "physical encounter" ('202 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the triggering event for creating a location history entry. Its construction is critical to determining whether infringement occurs. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific, technology-mediated interaction (like receiving a short-range signal) or if it can be read more broadly to cover any instance of a user being physically present at a location as detected by GPS.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the invention as accumulating a "digital record of a person's physical presence across time," which could support a broader definition based on mere presence ('202 Patent, col. 1:7-9).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 links the encounter to an "acceptance... of an automatic proposal from the stationary vendor member," and claim 14 requires "receiving a short range communication from a transmitting device of the stationary member" ('202 Patent, col. 21:30-32; col. 24:1-4). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, localized communication event.

• The Term: "physical location relationship" ('905 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanism of the '905 Patent's inventive search enhancement method. The case may turn on whether Google's algorithms practice the precise, structured logic of this term as defined in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification generally describes an "improved method of searching the world wide web... that makes use of digital histories," which might be argued to encompass various ways of using location data ('905 Patent, col. 4:36-39).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 provides a very specific, two-part definition for the relationship, requiring a link between a searching person and a reference person via a "second stationary vendor member" and a separate link between the reference person and the "first stationary vendor member" ('905 Patent, col. 22:49-59). This detailed structure suggests a narrow, specific meaning that must be proven to be present in the accused system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement. The asserted counts are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶113-124).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents-in-suit. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge based on a series of cease-and-desist letters plaintiff sent to Google between July 2019 and March 2020. The complaint alleges Google acknowledged receipt of these notices but continued its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶81-112).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in a specific proposed architecture, such as "URL of the individual member" and an "automatic proposal from the stationary vendor," be construed to read on the user identifiers and passive location-logging mechanisms implemented in Google's large-scale, pre-existing infrastructure?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic proof: can discovery demonstrate that Google's proprietary search algorithms perform the specific, multi-part "physical location relationship" logic recited in the '905 patent claims, or does its system use location history in a more generalized or fundamentally different way to personalize search results?