DCT

2:17-cv-00133

Location Based Services LLC v. Garmin Intl Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00133, E.D. Tex., 04/28/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has transacted business in the district and committed acts of patent infringement there. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction due to substantial business activities in Texas, including the sale of the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of Garmin GPS Units and Garmin GPS Apps for mobile devices infringe five U.S. patents related to dynamic map displays, traffic-based navigation, and the integration of real-world imagery into visual paths.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns digital mapping and navigation systems that provide users with real-time, context-aware information, such as traffic conditions or visual turn-by-turn directions, to enhance the user experience.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided documents indicate that following the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent No. 7,860,648 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2017-01965). The IPR resulted in the cancellation of asserted claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14, which may substantially impact the allegations related to that patent. The complaint alleges Defendant had notice of all patents-in-suit as of the filing of the original complaint on February 16, 2017.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-02-25 Earliest Priority Date for ’073 and ’027 Patents
2005-04-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’033, ’648, and ’114 Patents
2010-06-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,734,073 Issues
2010-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,860,648 Issues
2013-03-05 U.S. Patent No. 8,392,114 Issues
2014-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,805,027 Issues
2015-12-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,214,033 Issues
2017-02-16 Date of Alleged Notice (Original Complaint Filing)
2017-04-28 Amended Complaint Filing Date
2020-05-29 IPR Certificate issues for ’648 Patent, cancelling asserted claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,214,033 - *“Map Display System and Method”* (Issued Dec. 15, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the general field of maps without detailing a specific problem, but the summary of the invention focuses on enhancing map displays with dynamic, verifiable information (Compl. ¶6; ’033 Patent, col. 1:12-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that responds to a user's request for a map by determining a "status" for locations on that map, such as traffic conditions. This status is based on "traffic-related location interaction rules" and is verifiable by external "monitoring devices." The system then generates a signal to display the status, for instance by indicating a route that accounts for the verified traffic conditions (’033 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from static digital maps to dynamic interfaces that integrate real-time, crowd-sourced or sensor-verified data to provide more accurate and useful navigation guidance (’033 Patent, col. 10:35-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 3, among others (Compl. ¶¶37, 39).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • receiving a request for the map, the map illustrating one or more locations;
    • determining a status associated with at least one of the one or more locations on the map, the status at least partially based on one or more traffic-related location interaction rules;
    • the status including at least an indication of at least one traffic condition verifiable via one or more monitoring devices; and
    • generating a signal related to indicating at least one route associated with the at least one of the one or more locations on the map, the signal generated at least partially based on the status.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶10).

U.S. Patent No. 7,734,073 - *“Image Mapping to Provide Visual Geographic Path”* (Issued June 8, 2010)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for more intuitive, visual navigation aids beyond abstract map representations by integrating real-world imagery into a geographic path (’073 Patent, col. 1:52-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a display device transmits a request for a "mapped visual path" containing input parameters like location and time. In response, it receives a path that integrates at least two images of a predefined area, which are then displayed to the user after a "stitching operation" is performed to create a cohesive visual route (’073 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide users with a more realistic, "ground-level" view of a navigation route, making it easier to recognize landmarks and turns compared to traditional top-down map views (’073 Patent, col. 8:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent computer program product claim 11, among others (Compl. ¶¶76, 80).

  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:

    • transmitting a request for the mapped visual path, including at least a location parameter and a time parameter;
    • receiving from a processing device the mapped visual image path, which includes at least two images of a predefined area and is an integration of those images and the input path parameters; and
    • displaying the mapped visual path, which includes the at least two images after a stitching operation is performed on them.

  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶16).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,860,648 (“Map Display System and Method,” issued Dec. 28, 2010)

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for a display device to receive and alter a map. The method involves transmitting a request that includes a user identifier, receiving a map with locations governed by "location interaction rules" (e.g., traffic speed) verifiable by monitoring devices, and interacting with those devices to alter the map display (’648 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are asserted (Compl. ¶22).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Garmin GPS Apps infringe by transmitting map requests with user account identifiers and altering the map display with colored lines to show traffic conditions based on data from other Garmin devices (Compl. ¶95).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,805,027 (“Image Mapping to Provide Visual Geographic Path,” issued Aug. 12, 2014)

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’073 Patent, describes a method for creating a visual path by integrating images. It includes transmitting a request with path parameters, receiving a mapped path that integrates at least two images, and displaying the path, which is characterized as being "scrollable" with respect to the predefined area (’027 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶28).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Garmin GPS Apps infringe by using "streetview images" for starting and destination locations to create a scrollable map for the user (Compl. ¶116).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,392,114 (“Map Display System and Method,” issued Mar. 5, 2013)

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’648 Patent, describes a method for altering a map display. The method includes transmitting a request with a user identifier, receiving a map where locations are associated with "location interaction rules" verifiable by monitoring devices, and interacting with those devices to alter the map based on those rules as modified by "user interaction rules" associated with the user identifier (’114 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶34).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Garmin GPS Apps infringe by taking traffic information from other Garmin devices and using it to modify the map display to reflect traffic speed relative to the maximum speed for a location (Compl. ¶130).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a broad range of "Garmin GPS Units" (including various nüvi® and Drive™ series models) and "Garmin GPS Apps" software for iOS and Android mobile devices (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as navigation devices and software that provide map displays and routing. The functionality central to the allegations includes the ability to receive and display real-time traffic information, which is used to calculate and revise routes. This is allegedly accomplished by receiving data from "other Garmin devices" and displaying traffic conditions as colored lines on the map (Compl. ¶¶37, 40). The complaint also alleges the apps can display "google street view images" that are "stitched" together to form a visual path (Compl. ¶¶76, 77). The products are positioned as consumer navigation aids for vehicles and mobile users.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,214,033 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a request for the map, the map illustrating one or more locations Users of the Accused Instrumentalities request a map. ¶37 col. 19:6-8
determining a status associated with at least one of the one or more locations on the map, the status at least partially based on one or more traffic-related location interaction rules... The devices determine traffic conditions based on rules such as comparing the current traffic speed to the normal speed of traffic. ¶37 col. 19:9-15
the status including at least an indication of at least one traffic condition verifiable via one or more monitoring devices The status includes traffic information received from other Garmin devices, which act as monitoring devices. ¶37 col. 19:16-19
generating a signal related to indicating at least one route...the signal generated at least partially based on the status... The devices generate a signal that displays a colored line on the map indicating the route and associated traffic conditions. ¶37 col. 19:20-25
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether receiving a processed traffic data feed from a central server meets the limitation of determining a status that is "verifiable via one or more monitoring devices." The defense may argue that the accused device itself does not perform the verification, but rather receives a pre-verified result.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the "traffic-related location interaction rules" are met by comparing current traffic speed to normal speed (Compl. ¶37). A question for the court may be whether this simple comparison constitutes the application of a "rule" as contemplated by the patent, or if it is merely the display of a data point.

7,734,073 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
transmitting a request for the mapped visual path, the request including at least two input path parameters associated with the mapped visual image path The user requests directions, which includes a start location and destination (location parameters) and a route preference such as "fastest route" (a time parameter). ¶76 col. 11:10-15
receiving from a processing device the mapped visual image path, wherein the mapped visual path including at least two images...the mapped visual path being an integration of the at least two images and the at least two input path parameters The app receives a path that includes Google Street View images, which are integrated with the input path parameters (e.g., start and destination). ¶76 col. 11:20-28
displaying the mapped visual path, the mapped visual path including the at least two images after a stitching operation is performed on the at least two images The app displays the Street View images "stitched" together along the mapped path to create a visual route. ¶76 col. 11:29-33
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether displaying a sequence of images from a third-party service like Google Street View constitutes the claimed "integration" of images and parameters to form a "mapped visual path." The defense may argue the patent requires the creation of a novel map object, not just the presentation of pre-existing, third-party imagery.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused apps perform a "stitching operation" on the images, as opposed to simply displaying a series of discrete images provided by the Google Maps API? The term "stitching" may imply a specific technical process of blending image edges that the accused products may not perform.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’033 Patent:

    • The Term: "verifiable via one or more monitoring devices"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining infringement, as it defines how the "status" (e.g., traffic condition) is sourced. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products likely receive processed data from a central server, raising the question of whether the end-user device itself interacts with or verifies data from "monitoring devices."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that monitoring devices can be part of a network and provide data to a server, which then interacts with the user's device (’033 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:1-13). This could support an interpretation where receiving data that originated from such devices satisfies the claim.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the status itself to be verifiable, which could be interpreted to mean the end-user device must be capable of the verification step, or at least receive data directly from a monitoring device, rather than a fully processed data feed where the underlying verification source is abstracted away.

  • For the ’073 Patent:

    • The Term: "an integration of the at least two images and the at least two input path parameters"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to defining what the "mapped visual path" is. The dispute may turn on whether displaying third-party images along a calculated route constitutes an "integration" as claimed, or if it is merely a data overlay.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the method includes "integrating the images and parameters into a map of the predefined area," which could be read broadly to cover placing images onto a map display along a route defined by the parameters (’073 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes creating a "stitched together display of images" and a "scrollable image path" (’073 Patent, col. 8:30-52). This language may support a narrower construction requiring the creation of a new, seamless visual object from the source images, rather than simply displaying a sequence of discrete, third-party photos.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. The factual basis is Defendant’s alleged act of providing instruction manuals, advertisements, and support for the Garmin GPS Apps, which allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to operate the apps in a directly infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶67-74, 86-93, 107-114, 121-128, 136-143). The complaint cites a URL to the Apple App Store as an example of Defendant providing such manuals and support (e.g., Compl. ¶73).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful," it alleges for each patent that Defendant had actual notice of the patent as of the filing of the original complaint on February 16, 2017, and continued to infringe despite such notice (e.g., Compl. ¶11). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent claim terms drafted in the mid-2000s, such as "verifiable via one or more monitoring devices" and a "mapped visual path" created via "integration," be construed to cover modern navigation apps that rely on highly processed, aggregated data feeds from central servers and display imagery from third-party APIs?
  • A second key issue relates to patent validity, highlighted by the subsequent IPR proceeding that invalidated all asserted claims of the ’648 Patent. This raises the question of whether the remaining asserted patents, which share inventors and priority dates and cover similar technological concepts, can withstand similar validity challenges based on prior art.
  • A third issue will be one of evidentiary proof: the complaint’s theory hinges on specific technical operations, such as receiving traffic data from "other Garmin devices" and performing a "stitching operation" on images. A key question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient technical evidence to prove that the accused products actually function in this precise manner, as opposed to functionally similar but technically distinct methods.