DCT
2:23-cv-00385
Nearby Systems LLC v. Cinemark USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Cinemark USA, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00385, E.D. Tex., 08/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application and website infringe two patents related to methods for combining and displaying location-based data from disparate applications onto a single map interface on a mobile device.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the integration of location data between different mobile applications, a process often called "mashing," which is fundamental to modern location-based services and provides users with a unified mapping experience.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a specification and a familial relationship. U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 is a continuation of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164. The '164 patent is a continuation-in-part of an earlier, now-abandoned application. This shared prosecution history may be relevant to future claim construction arguments.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-10-12 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 and 10,469,980 |
| 2016-12-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Issued |
| 2019-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Issued |
| 2023-08-28 | 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’s background section describes a limitation of prior art mapping systems where new mappable content originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., from an email or social media app) could only be displayed on a new, separate digital map, which would not contain any previously displayed points of interest or contextual data (’164 Patent, col. 1:28-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where "mappable data from disparate sources" can be combined onto a single, existing map within a mapping application on a mobile device (’164 Patent, Summary, col. 1:39-49). This allows a user to, for example, identify a location in a non-mapping application and have it appear as a new point of interest on a map that already contains other, previously displayed information, thereby preserving the user's mapping context (’164 Patent, Fig. 1C; col. 3:1-13).
- Technical Importance: This technology facilitates seamless data integration between different applications on a mobile device, which is a critical feature for creating a fluid and context-rich user experience in location-based services (’164 Patent, col. 1:12-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system with a storage device on a mobile device storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application.
- A processor executing both applications.
- A user interface for the first non-browser application.
- A "mapping component" of the first non-browser application that is configured to invoke the second non-browser application (which is a mapping application) when "map-able content" is activated.
- The mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service that is configured to communicate with the second non-browser application.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶25).
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices,” Issued November 5, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as its parent '164 patent: new mapping content originating outside of a dedicated mapping application would cause a new, blank map to be displayed, losing any prior context (’980 Patent, col. 1:24-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where "addressable information" selected in one application (e.g., an address in an email) can be used to automatically launch a map-display application that shows the new location "in addition to at least one prior mapping content previously displayed by the map-display application" (’980 Patent, Abstract). The detailed description illustrates this by showing mappable information from a separate application (152) being added as a new point of interest (108) to an existing map (102) that already displays prior content (104) (’980 Patent, Figs. 1A-1C; col. 2:63-col. 3:6).
- Technical Importance: This functionality allows for the aggregation of location data from various communication and content applications into a unified, persistent map view, enhancing the utility of mobile devices.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system with a memory storing a first non-browser application, a processor, a touch screen, and a GPS device.
- A "mapping component" of the first non-browser application that communicates with an online mapping service to download and "display a map within the user interface of the first non-browser application."
- The mapping component transmits a query with the mobile device's location to the online service, and the resulting map data is based on that location.
- The memory also stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
- The mapping component invokes the mapping application to transmit a query for driving directions to a destination location.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Cinemark Theatres App" and the website www.cinemark.com as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are designed to allow customers to locate Cinemark's theater locations and manage their accounts (Compl. ¶18). The core accused functionality is the provision of a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device... to allow a mobile device user to identify and navigate to locations" (Compl. ¶26, ¶42). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'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 Products, including the Cinemark app, provide a system involving a first non-browser application (the Cinemark app) and a second non-browser application (a mapping app). | ¶26 | col. 3:28-41 |
| 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 displayed on the user interface is activated to display a map of the map-able content, wherein the second non-browser application is a mapping application, | The complaint alleges the Cinemark app provides a system for displaying map information, which suggests it contains a component that can invoke a mapping application when a user seeks to navigate to a theater location. | ¶26 | col. 15:8-12 |
| wherein the mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application. | The infringement theory alleges the system presents information to allow a user to identify and navigate to locations, implying communication with an online mapping service to retrieve map and location data. | ¶26 | col. 14:19-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the definition of "mapping component of the first non-browser application." A court will have to determine if this requires a specific, integrated module within the Cinemark app, or if a standard Application Programming Interface (API) call to the mobile device's operating system to launch a default mapping app meets the claim's requirements.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the first application's mapping component to "transmit... to an online mapping service." It raises the question of whether the Cinemark app itself communicates with a mapping service, or if it merely passes location data to a separate mapping application, which then handles all communication with the service. The latter architecture is more common and may not align with the claim language.
'980 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a GPS device of the mobile device determining a location of the mobile device... | The system is alleged to use the mobile device's location to identify nearby theaters. | ¶42 | col. 16:9-11 |
| 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 within the user interface of the first non-browser application... | The complaint alleges the Cinemark app displays map information, which suggests the presence of an embedded map view within the app's own interface. | ¶42 | col. 16:12-16 |
| wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query including the location of the mobile device and a destination location to the online mapping service to obtain driving directions... | The system is alleged to allow a user to navigate to a selected theater, which implies the invocation of a mapping application to generate driving directions. | ¶42 | col. 16:23-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the ’980 patent appears to require a two-part process: first, displaying an embedded map within the first application's UI, and second, invoking a separate mapping application for directions. The analysis may turn on whether the accused app performs both of these distinct steps.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the accused app's mapping features are implemented. A key evidentiary issue will be whether the Cinemark app utilizes an integrated mapping library (e.g., an SDK from a map provider) that both displays an in-app map and handles the invocation of an external mapping application for turn-by-turn navigation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mapping component of the first non-browser application" (’164 and ’980 Patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for both patents. Its construction will determine whether the accused system's architecture falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its location ("of the first non-browser application") and its specific, recited functions (e.g., transmitting content to an online service, displaying a map within the first app's UI) are highly specific.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component in general terms as enabling the relaying of information between applications, which a party could argue covers any software mechanism that accomplishes this, including a standard OS-level API call (’164 Patent, col. 4:46-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 10A of the patents depicts the "MAPPING COMPONENT" (1002) as a distinct architectural block within the computing device, separate from but in communication with the "DISPLAY APPLICATION" (1004) and an external "MAPPING APPLICATION" (1010). This could support a narrower definition requiring a discrete, integrated software module rather than just a simple function call.
The Term: "display a map within the user interface of the first non-browser application" (’980 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term in claim 1 of the ’980 patent is critical because it requires an embedded map view, not merely the launching of an external, full-screen mapping application. Infringement will depend on whether the Cinemark app actually contains this feature.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any map presented to the user as part of the first application's workflow, even a pop-up or modal view rendered by a system service, is "within the user interface."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 7C, show a map (750) clearly integrated into the screen layout of the primary application (740), alongside other application-specific elements (744a, 744b). This suggests a truly embedded component rather than an external view, supporting a more limited construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions and advertising that guide users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶27, ¶43). The contributory infringement allegations are based on the assertion that the Accused Products have special features designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶28, ¶44).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents acquired upon the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶29, ¶45). It further alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶30, ¶46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely depend on the resolution of several key technical and legal questions for the court:
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Do the asserted claims, particularly in the '164 patent, require the first application's own "mapping component" to directly communicate with an "online mapping service"? Or can the claims read on a more common architecture where the first application uses a standard OS-level API to pass location data to a separate mapping app, which then handles all online communication?
- A key evidentiary question for the '980 patent will be one of functional implementation: Does the accused Cinemark app practice the two-step process recited in claim 1, which requires first displaying a map within its own user interface and then separately invoking a distinct mapping application to obtain driving directions?
- The outcome may ultimately hinge on a question of claim construction: Can the term "mapping component of the first non-browser application" be construed to cover a simple software instruction that calls a mobile device's default mapping service, or does the patents' intrinsic evidence demand a more substantial, integrated software module with specific, recited communication and display capabilities?