Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. CVS Pharmacy Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Geographic Location Innovations LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (Rhode Island)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00194, E.D. Tex., 05/23/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and because acts of infringement are allegedly occurring there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website-based store locator service infringes a patent related to remotely entering location data into a positional information device.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the field of digital navigation and telematics, specifically the interaction between a user device (like a GPS unit or smartphone) and a remote server to provide location and routing information.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,917,285 - Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device, Issued March 29, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and potential danger of manually programming destination addresses into Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, particularly while driving. It also notes the inconvenience of having to individually program the same addresses into multiple different devices owned by a single user (e.g., in two different cars) (’285 Patent, col. 1:41-col. 2:13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can request an address from a remote server, either through a live operator or an automated system. This server resolves the address into geographic coordinates and transmits them directly to the user's "positional information device," which can then calculate and display a route without requiring manual data entry by the user (’285 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-45). The system architecture is depicted in Figure 3, showing a user device (100) communicating through a network (302) with a server (304).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to simplify and improve the safety of using in-vehicle navigation systems by offloading the task of address entry to a remote service, a concept central to the growth of automotive telematics systems like OnStar (’285 Patent, col. 2:14-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 13 (’285 Patent, col. 14:26-49; Compl. ¶13).
• The essential elements of Claim 13 are:
  • A system comprising a server, a positional information device, and a communications network.
  • The server is configured to receive a request for an address not already on the device, determine the address, and transmit it to the device.
  • The positional information device includes a locational module (e.g., GPS), a communication module to receive the address from the server, a processing module to determine route guidance, and a display module.
  • Critically, the claim requires that "the server receives a time and date associated with the requested at least one location and transmits the associated time and date with the determined address to the positional information device and the positional information device displays the determined address at the associated time and date."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the CVS "store locator service," which includes its mobile website and associated hardware and software (the "System") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The System allows a user to find nearby CVS stores. A user can either allow the website to access their device's current location or manually enter a location like a ZIP code (Compl. ¶¶14, 17). The System's server then provides a list and a map view of nearby stores (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes a screenshot from the CVS website showing a list of stores near a given ZIP code alongside an interactive map (Compl. p. 4). If a user selects a store, the System can provide turn-by-turn route guidance to that location (Compl. ¶19). A screenshot in the complaint shows a set of text-based driving directions and a map illustrating the route (Compl. p. 8). The service is a common feature for national retail chains, designed to direct customers to physical store locations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’285 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Question: A central issue may be whether a general-purpose smartphone or tablet running a web browser (Compl. ¶14) meets the definition of a "positional information device" as described in the patent. The patent's specification repeatedly refers to a "global positioning system (GPS) device" and its own dedicated components, which may suggest a more specialized piece of hardware was contemplated (’285 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
• Technical Question: The complaint's allegation for the "time and date" limitation appears to be inferential. It states that the server "must be sent" this data to determine traffic conditions (Compl. ¶22), but does not provide direct evidence that the accused System actually transmits and uses time and date data for this purpose, or that the user's device "displays the determined address at the associated time and date" as specifically required by the claim. The evidence supporting this element may become a key factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "positional information device"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because it defines the user-side component of the claimed system. The infringement case depends on whether a modern smartphone running a web-based application (the accused instrumentality) falls within the scope of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that its principles "may be applied to any type of navigation or positional information device" and that its components need not be in a single housing but could be "incorporated into another device or structure" (’285 Patent, col. 4:5-15). It also mentions PDAs and applications for "mobile computing" which could support reading the term on a smartphone (’285 Patent, col. 4:28-30, col. 4:57-61).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary example is a "global positioning system (GPS) device 100" shown as a dedicated handheld unit in Figure 1. The detailed description is framed almost entirely around the components and operation of such a device, potentially limiting the term to dedicated navigation hardware (’285 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

• The Term: "displays the determined address at the associated time and date"

• Context and Importance: This is a highly specific functional requirement at the end of Claim 13. Infringement requires not only that time/date information is transmitted, but that the device performs this precise display function. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a specific scheduling or time-stamping feature that may not be present in a standard store locator.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses transmitting the time and date that an "address will be utilized" and that "When the date and time changes, the GPS device will then display the next specified and stored address" (’285 Patent, col. 10:55-62). This could be interpreted broadly to mean simply displaying an address in the context of a time-sensitive route (e.g., with real-time traffic).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language suggests a feature where a user can pre-load multiple destinations for a trip, and the device will automatically bring up the next destination at a specified time or on a specified date (’285 Patent, col. 10:55-62; col. 12:53-65). If construed this narrowly, a simple store locator that provides immediate directions would likely not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement and inducement, stating Defendant infringed "either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement" (Compl. ¶13). It does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how CVS allegedly encourages or provides components for others to infringe.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement or allege any specific facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge of the patent by the Defendant.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "positional information device," which the patent primarily illustrates as a dedicated GPS unit, be construed to cover a general-purpose smartphone accessing a web-based store locator service? The outcome of this claim construction will significantly impact the infringement analysis.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: Does the accused CVS store locator actually perform the specific function recited in Claim 13 of receiving, transmitting, and using "time and date" information to "display[] the determined address at the associated time and date"? The complaint's allegations for this element appear to be based on inference, and Plaintiff will need to produce evidence that the accused system operates in this specific manner.