Location Services IP LLC v. Shell Oil Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Location Services IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Shell Oil Company (Delaware); Shell Information Technology International B.V. (The Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Collins, Edmonds, Schlather & Tower, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00221, E.D. Tex., 03/22/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants conduct regular business in the district and the cause of action arises from Defendants’ interactive websites and mobile applications, which are accessible and used within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s station locator websites and mobile applications infringe three patents related to location-based services, geographic referencing systems, and unified geographic databases.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for providing mobile device users with geographically relevant information over a network, a foundational technology for modern mobile search and navigation applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patents-in-suit originated from Go2, a company described as a pioneer in location-based services and mobile web technology in the early 2000s. The complaint provides an extensive list of press releases from 2000 to 2006 to assert a history of commercial success for the underlying technology. The patents-in-suit claim priority through a long chain of continuation and continuation-in-part applications.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,202,023 - “Internet Based Geographic Location Referencing System and Method”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that, as of the priority date, Internet services were not tailored for mobile users and often required cumbersome data entry, creating safety concerns for users in vehicles (’023 Patent, col. 1:31-35; Compl. ¶20). Existing GPS systems provided raw latitude and longitude data that was difficult for unskilled users to utilize and was not readily adaptable for use with computer networks, while commercial fleet tracking systems were overly complex and expensive for general use (’023 Patent, col. 2:21-48; Compl. ¶21-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server system to automatically provide mobile users with location-customized services. A client device, equipped with an automatic location identifying (ALI) device, executes an application that collects location and user data, constructs a data packet, and transmits it to a server (’023 Patent, Abstract). The server then uses this information to query a database and returns relevant, location-specific results to the user’s device, which are displayed without requiring additional user input (’023 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶19). A key technical feature is the server-side conversion of location information into a grid coordinate system to facilitate efficient database searching (’023 Patent, col. 35:28-44; Compl. ¶35).
• Technical Importance: The claimed system sought to bridge the gap between early internet architecture and the needs of mobile users by automating the process of retrieving location-relevant information, thereby improving usability and safety (Compl. ¶24, ¶29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶177).
• The essential elements of independent claim 2 are:
  • Executing an application program on a client computer for collecting user and location data, where the program includes a user interface module, a web browser module, a data packet module, and an ALI polling module.
  • The user interface module prompts for location parameters (e.g., current or projected location) and user preferences.
  • Constructing a data packet with the collected user and location data.
  • Connecting to a server and transmitting the data packet.
  • Parsing the data packet on the server to extract the user and location information.
  • Formulating and issuing a database query based on that information.
  • Downloading a result from the query to the client (’023 Patent, col. 35:4-36:3; Compl. ¶40).
• The complaint notes that dependent claims are also covered and appears to reserve the right to assert them (Compl. ¶41, ¶45-47).

U.S. Patent No. 8,935,220 - “Unified Geographic Database and Method of Creating, Maintaining and Using the”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market where location-based business information was fragmented across millions of disparate, often inaccurate, and outdated sources like regional Yellow Pages directories (’220 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶61-62). This inefficiency wasted resources for businesses trying to maintain their information and for users trying to find reliable, up-to-date location data (’220 Patent, col. 2:19-27; Compl. ¶62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Unified Geographic Database" (UGD) to serve as a centralized, universal registry for real-world locations, analogous to the Domain Name System (DNS) for websites (’220 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶63). Each location record in the UGD is keyed by a unique, user-friendly "proprietary location address" (PLA). A portable navigation device sends a query containing a PLA and the device's own current location to a server, which then searches the UGD to return geographically relevant results (’220 Patent, col. 3:4-6; Compl. ¶63, ¶84).
• Technical Importance: The patented solution aimed to create a single, reliable "clearinghouse" for location information to improve the speed and accuracy of location-based services for users of mobile and internet-connected devices (Compl. ¶64, ¶68).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 2, 3, 28, and 34 (Compl. ¶184-185). Claim 2 is an independent method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 2 are:
  • Inputting a proprietary search term for an entity into a portable navigational apparatus.
  • Sending a search query with the proprietary term to a server to access a Unified Geographic Database (UGD).
  • Using locational information from the navigational apparatus to complete a search of the UGD, limited in geographic scope by that locational information.
  • Adding the locational information to the proprietary search term to limit the search scope before sending the query.
  • Receiving a search result from the server.
  • Outputting the location(s) from the search result (’220 Patent, col. 50:4-36; Compl. ¶84).
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3 and 28, and independent claim 34 (Compl. ¶184).

U.S. Patent No. 6,356,834 - “Geographic Location Referencing System and Method”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses shortcomings of traditional GPS systems that provide cumbersome latitude/longitude coordinates (’834 Patent, col. 1:45-64; Compl. ¶127). The invention provides a method for creating user-friendly "proprietary addresses" for specific geographic locations by converting positional data into a hierarchical address and associating it with a unique name, which is then stored in a central repository for dissemination over the internet to assist users with navigation (’834 Patent, col. 2:4-9; Compl. ¶129, ¶190).
• Asserted Claims: Claims 37, 55, 56, and 57 (Compl. ¶191).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by disseminating location information (including geodetic latitude and longitude coordinates) associated with proprietary names (e.g., Shell stations) from a central repository (Shell's servers) to a user's device via the internet to assist in navigation (Compl. ¶190-192).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendants’ interactive websites, including "https://www.shell.com" and "https://www.shell.us" (and specific station-locator and route-planner pages), as well as the “Shell Mobile Application” and “Shell Motorist Mobile Application” for iOS and Android operating systems (Compl. ¶178, ¶185, ¶192).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as providing station locator and route planning functionalities (Compl. ¶178, ¶185, ¶192). The complaint alleges that these products operate by executing an application that collects user data and location information, communicates with a server, and downloads location-based results (Compl. ¶177). It is further alleged that these services access a "unified geographic database" to retrieve information based on proprietary search terms and a user's location (Compl. ¶184) and disseminate location information from a central repository (Compl. ¶191). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’023 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe claim 2 of the ’023 Patent but does not map specific functionalities to the claim elements recited below (Compl. ¶177-178).

Identified Points of Contention:

• Structural Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused mobile applications contain the specific four-part software architecture recited in the claim (“a user interface module, a web browser module, a data packet module and an ALI polling module”). The defense may argue that the accused apps are integrated software programs that do not possess these structurally distinct modules as claimed.
• Functional Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the user interaction with the accused products meets the “prompting” limitations. For example, does a user typing a city into a search bar constitute the application performing “location prompting for accepting parameters” as required by the claim?

’220 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe claim 2 of the ’220 Patent but does not map specific functionalities to the claim elements recited below (Compl. ¶184-185).

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "proprietary search term." The question will be whether a common trademark like "Shell" qualifies, or if the term is limited to the specific, hierarchical, domain-name-like addressing system (PLA) described in the patent’s specification.
• Technical Questions: The claim requires "adding locational information... to the proprietary search term... before sending the search query." This suggests a client-side operation where the search term itself is modified. A key technical question is whether the accused apps perform this specific client-side modification, or if they transmit the search term and location information as separate parameters for server-side processing, which may not meet the claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’023 Patent:

• The Term: "application program including a user interface module, a web browser module, a data packet module and an ALI polling module" (claim 2)
• Context and Importance: This term defines a specific software architecture. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this language requires four structurally separate software components or can be construed more broadly to cover any application that performs the functions associated with these modules, even in an integrated design. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern app development often blurs the lines between such functional blocks.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the functions of these components, which could support an argument that any software architecture performing these functions infringes, regardless of its specific modular implementation (’023 Patent, col. 25:52-26:41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Figure 15 depicts these four components as distinct boxes in a block diagram (U/I 1506, Web Browser 1502, Data Packet Builder 1504, ALI Poll 1508), which could be cited to argue that the claim requires a specific, structurally modular architecture.

For the ’220 Patent:

• The Term: "proprietary search term" (claim 2)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention. The dispute will likely focus on whether this term is broad enough to cover a general business name (e.g., "Shell") used as a keyword, or if it is limited to a specific type of location identifier that is part of the "Unified Geographic Database" system described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent family suggests that a proprietary address is a name that "uniquely within the district distinctly identifies a location" and can be associated with a "tradename" (’834 Patent, col. 4:39-44), which may support reading the term on a company name.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’220 Patent’s specification repeatedly describes the invention as a "unique, user-friendly, domain-name like hierarchical geographical referencing address" (’220 Patent, col. 1:45-48). This language suggests the term requires a specific, structured format akin to a URL, not a generic keyword.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶177, ¶184, ¶191). The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin acts of contributing to or inducing infringement, but the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent required for such claims (Compl. ¶199.C).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged in the prayer for relief (Compl. ¶199.D). The factual basis asserted in the complaint is that Defendants had at least constructive notice of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶179, ¶186, ¶193).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the context of a novel, structured geographic information system (e.g., "proprietary search term," the four-part "application program") be construed broadly enough to read on the features of a conventional, modern station-finder application?
2. A second key issue will be one of operational sequence: does the accused technology perform the specific client-side step of "adding locational information... to the proprietary search term... before sending the search query" as required by claim 2 of the ’220 patent, or does it follow a different operational method, such as sending location and search term as separate parameters for server-side filtering?
3. A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: do the complaint's infringement allegations, which largely recite claim language without mapping specific product features to those elements, contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal?