DCT
2:22-cv-00206
Nearby Systems LLC v. CVS Pharmacy Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00206, E.D. Tex., 06/15/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have established and maintained a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s CVS Pharmacy mobile application and associated websites infringe patents related to displaying mappable content from disparate sources onto a single digital map.
- Technical Context: The technology involves methods for a mobile device to take location-based information from one application (e.g., a social media post or email) and plot it on a map displayed by a separate mapping application without losing the map's pre-existing content.
- Key Procedural History: The U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 is a continuation of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164, indicating a shared specification and a direct familial relationship between the asserted patents. No other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-10-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '164 and '980 Patents |
| 2013-08-03 | Application for '164 Patent filed |
| 2016-11-08 | Application for '980 Patent filed |
| 2016-12-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 issued |
| 2019-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 issued |
| 2022-06-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 27, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior art mobile mapping systems where new mapping content originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., an address in an email) could only be displayed on a new, separate digital map, which would not contain any of the previously displayed mappable information ('164 Patent, col. 1:26-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a "first non-browser application" can identify "map-able content" and invoke a "second non-browser application" (a mapping application) to display the new content on the same map that was already displaying other content. This allows a user to "mash-up" location data from disparate applications onto a single, persistent map view ('164 Patent, col. 1:39-48; FIG. 1A-1C).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a more integrated user experience on mobile devices, preventing the need to switch between separate, non-communicating map instances to visualize location information from different sources ('164 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 1 is a system claim comprising:
- a storage device of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application;
- a processor executing both applications;
- a user interface of the first non-browser application;
- a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke the second non-browser application (which is a mapping application) when map-able content is activated;
- wherein the mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued November 5, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent, the '980 patent addresses the problem of siloed mapping information, where content from one source could not be easily added to an existing map view generated by a mapping application ('980 Patent, col. 1:31-38).
- The Patented Solution: The '980 patent claims a system on a mobile device that includes a "first non-browser application" with a "mapping component." This component communicates with an "online mapping service" to download map data based on the device's GPS location. The system can then invoke a separate "mapping application" to display information, such as driving directions to a destination ('980 Patent, col. 15:1-col. 16:8). The detailed description shows this allows for adding new points of interest from one application (e.g., Facebook) onto an existing map display from another ('980 Patent, FIG. 1A-1C).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to streamline the process of using location data found in general-purpose applications for navigation and visualization within dedicated mapping applications on a mobile device ('980 Patent, col. 2:1-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
- Claim 1 is a system claim comprising:
- a memory of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application (a mapping application);
- a processor executing the applications;
- a touch screen displaying the user interface of the first non-browser application;
- a GPS device determining the mobile device's location;
- a mapping component of the first non-browser application that communicates with an online mapping service to download and display a map based on the device's location;
- wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application to transmit a query and display driving directions.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "CVS Pharmacy App" and the websites www.cvshealth.com and www.cvs.com (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶¶19, 20).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities are designed to provide an "integrated experience" for consumers, which includes prescription information, refill/pickup options, and Curbside Pickup services (Compl. ¶20). A core accused feature is a system for displaying map information on a mobile device, allowing users to obtain data for maps that identify and provide navigation to CVS locations (Compl. ¶29, ¶45). The complaint points to exhibits allegedly showing the accused app provides a system for displaying map information on a mobile device to identify and navigate to store locations (Compl. ¶29, citing Ex. C, Ex. D).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint's infringement allegations are substantively identical for both patents, asserting that the Accused Instrumentalities provide a system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device.
- '164 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a storage device of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application; | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities provide a system for displaying map information on a mobile device. | ¶29 | col. 15:5-8 |
| a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke the second non-browser application on the mobile device when map-able content...is activated... | The complaint makes a general allegation that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe, but does not specify how a "first" application invokes a "second." | ¶29 | col. 15:9-14 |
| wherein the second non-browser application is a mapping application, | The complaint alleges the system displays maps to allow users to identify and navigate to locations. | ¶29 | col. 15:15-16 |
| wherein the mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application. | The complaint does not specify the architecture of the accused system, including the transmission of content to an online service that communicates with a second application. | ¶29 | col. 15:17-20 |
- '980 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a memory of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application; | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities provide a system for displaying map information on a mobile device. | ¶45 | col. 15:3-5 |
| a GPS device of the mobile device determining a location of the mobile device, and | The complaint alleges the system presents information to allow a user to navigate to locations, which suggests the use of location data. | ¶45 | col. 15:10-11 |
| a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to communicate with an online mapping service to download map data and display a map... | The complaint does not detail a specific "mapping component" or its communication with an "online mapping service." | ¶45 | col. 15:12-17 |
| wherein the memory stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application, and | The complaint does not detail the storage or execution of a "second" non-browser application separate from the CVS Pharmacy app. | ¶45 | col. 15:21-23 |
| wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query... | The complaint alleges the system allows a user to "navigate to locations," but does not detail how a mapping application is invoked or directed. | ¶45 | col. 15:24-26 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Scope: A primary question for both patents is whether the accused CVS Pharmacy App, which is presented as a single, integrated application, meets the claims' requirements for a system comprising a "first non-browser application" and a "second non-browser application." The complaint does not allege facts to suggest the accused system uses two distinct applications as described in the patents' embodiments (e.g., Facebook and a separate maps app).
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint offers conclusory allegations of infringement without providing specific factual support for how the accused app's internal components operate. A key question for the court will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that the CVS app contains a "mapping component" that "invokes" a separate "mapping application" ('164 and '980 Patents) or "communicates with an online mapping service" ('980 Patent) in the specific manner claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term ('164 Patent): "second non-browser application"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining if the accused single-app system can infringe a claim that requires two separate applications. The dispute will likely center on whether this term requires two independently installed applications on the mobile device or if it can be read to cover distinct software modules within a single application.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly define the term or require the applications to be from different vendors or installed separately. A party might argue that functionally distinct code modules within a single application package could be considered separate "applications" for the purpose of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes scenarios where a user interacts with one application (e.g., Facebook, an email client) and then relays information to a different, pre-existing mapping application (e.g., Google Maps®, Waze®) ('164 Patent, col. 1:19-22, FIG. 1A-1C). This context suggests the inventor contemplated two distinct, user-facing applications.
Term ('980 Patent): "mapping component of the first non-browser application"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends on identifying a specific software component within the CVS app that performs the claimed functions of communicating with an online service and invoking another application. Its construction will determine what structural evidence Plaintiff must produce.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the "mapping component" in functional terms—as code that provides the application with the ability to receive location information from other sources ('980 Patent, col. 8:12-24). This could support a broad definition covering any part of the app's code that handles map-related functionality.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The block diagrams in FIG. 10A and 10B depict the "MAPPING COMPONENT" (1002, 1022) as a discrete block, distinct from the "DISPLAY APPLICATION" (1004, 1024). This may support an argument that the term requires a structurally separable software module, not just diffuse mapping-related code.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by providing the Accused Instrumentalities and distributing instructions that guide end-users to infringe (Compl. ¶¶30, 46). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Instrumentalities have special features designed for infringement that are not substantial non-infringing articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶31, 47).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when each was notified of the filing of this action," indicating a theory of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶32, 48). The complaint also pleads willful blindness, alleging on information and belief that Defendants have a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶33, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present foundational questions of claim scope and evidentiary sufficiency. The primary issues for the court will likely be:
A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the claims of the '164 and '980 patents, which describe a system of two distinct non-browser applications interacting, be construed to read on the accused CVS Pharmacy App, which is presented to the user as a single, integrated piece of software?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Given the complaint’s high-level and conclusory allegations, what factual evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused app internally operates as claimed—specifically, that a "mapping component" within the CVS app "invokes" a separate mapping application or communicates with an "online mapping service" in the precise manner recited by the independent claims?