DCT
2:24-cv-00952
Nearby Systems LLC v. Truist Financial Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Truist Financial Corporation (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00952, E.D. Tex., 11/20/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining multiple regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Truist Mobile App infringes three patents related to methods for combining and displaying location-based information from disparate sources onto a single map on a mobile device.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the "mashing" of geographic data, where location information found in one application (e.g., an email or social media app) is integrated and displayed on a map in another application, a foundational feature of modern mobile ecosystems.
- Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are members of the same family, with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,469,980 and 11,937,145 being continuations of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164. This shared prosecution history may be relevant for claim construction and validity analyses.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-10-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '164, '980, and '145 Patents |
| 2016-12-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Issues |
| 2019-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Issues |
| 2024-03-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 Issues |
| 2024-11-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"
- Patent Identification: 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 devices where new mapping content originating outside of a dedicated mapping application (e.g., a location mentioned in a separate application) could only be displayed on a new digital map, which would not contain any of the previously displayed mappable information (’164 Patent, col. 1:32-39). This created a siloed user experience, losing valuable context.
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where mappable content from a "first non-browser application" can be used to invoke a "second non-browser application" that is a mapping application. This allows the new content to be displayed on a map in conjunction with existing mapping content, creating a unified view from disparate sources (’164 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This approach improves the functionality of mobile mapping systems by enabling the aggregation of location data from various applications onto a single, persistent map, making the device more useful and integrated (’164 Patent, col. 1:13-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A mobile device with a processor executing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application.
- A mapping component of the first non-browser application.
- The mapping component is configured to invoke the second non-browser application (which is a mapping application) when map-able content on the user interface is activated.
- 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"
- Patent Identification: 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 challenge of seamlessly integrating "addressable information" found in various mobile applications (such as a website or email) onto a single, existing map display without losing the context of prior points of interest already shown on that map (’980 Patent, col. 1:22-39).
- The Patented Solution: The patented system allows a user to select mappable information in one application (e.g., a social media post) and, by invoking a mapping command, have it automatically appear as a new point of interest on a map within a separate map-display application. The key is that this new point is displayed "in addition to at least one prior mapping content previously displayed," as illustrated in the transition from Figure 1A to Figure 1C (’980 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:64-col. 3:4).
- Technical Importance: The invention enhances the utility of mobile devices by allowing users to create dynamic, personalized maps that consolidate geographic information gathered from different digital interactions into one coherent view (’980 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system on a mobile device comprising a memory, processor, touch screen, and GPS device.
- The memory stores a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
- A mapping component of the first non-browser application communicates with an online mapping service to download and display a map.
- The mapping component invokes the second non-browser application (the mapping application) and directs it to transmit a query that includes the location of the mobile device and a destination location.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued March 19, 2024.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system for displaying location-based content on a mobile device where a user's touch of text on the screen of a first non-browser application causes a mapping component to query an online service. In response, a second map is displayed in a second non-browser application, showing the location from the text, the mobile device's current location, and a route between the two (’145 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Truist Mobile App provides customers with a system for displaying map information to identify and navigate to bank locations, which infringes the patent (Compl. ¶¶60-61).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Truist Mobile App" and the associated systems, methods, and services it provides (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Truist Mobile App is a mobile device application that allows Defendant’s customers to, among other things, locate stores (Compl. ¶18). It is described as providing a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device" which uses text and maps to allow a user to "identify and navigate to locations offering Defendant's products" (Compl. ¶27). The app is allegedly advertised and offered to customers and potential customers in Texas and is available for download from smartphone app providers (Compl. ¶¶11, 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint references infringement evidence in Exhibits G, H, and I, but these exhibits are not included in the filing. The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
'164 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for displaying location-based content on a digital map displayed on a mobile device, comprising: a processor of the mobile device executing the first non-browser application and the second non-browser application; | The Accused Products include the Truist Mobile App (the "first non-browser application") which runs on customers' mobile devices and interacts with an underlying mapping application (the "second non-browser application") (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27 | col. 7:1-9 |
| a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke the second non-browser application...when map-able content displayed on the user interface is activated... | The Truist Mobile App allegedly includes a component that, upon user interaction with location information, invokes a mapping application to display a map of that location (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27 | col. 7:10-16 |
| wherein the mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application. | The Truist Mobile App allegedly obtains data to display text and maps, which presents information to allow a user to identify and navigate to locations, suggesting communication with an online service (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27 | col. 7:17-21 |
'980 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for displaying location-based content on a digital map displayed on a mobile device, comprising: a memory...storing a first non-browser application; a processor...executing the first non-browser application; a touch screen...displaying a user interface...; a GPS device... | The Accused Products run on mobile devices (e.g., smartphones) which have memory, processors, touch screens, and GPS capabilities. The Truist Mobile App is the alleged "first non-browser application" (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 15:2-12 |
| 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 Truist Mobile App allegedly provides a system for displaying map information and maps to allow users to identify and navigate to locations, which requires communicating with a mapping service to display a map within the app's interface (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 15:12-18 |
| wherein the memory stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application, and wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query... | The system allegedly invokes a mapping application to handle the display of location data. This interaction involves transmitting a query to find and show Defendant's locations on a map (Compl. ¶44). | ¶44 | col. 15:21-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patents repeatedly describe combining content from "disparate applications" or "disparate sources" (e.g., social media, email, web browsers). A central question may be whether the Truist App, which primarily calls a mapping service to plot its own proprietary data (i.e., Truist branch locations), falls within the scope of "mashing" data from "disparate" sources as contemplated by the patent specifications.
- Technical Questions: The claims of the '164 and '980 patents require both a "first non-browser application" and a "second non-browser application" that is a mapping application. A key technical question will be how this claimed architecture maps to the accused system. Does the Truist App (the first application) "invoke" a separate, standalone mapping application (the second application), or does it use an integrated mapping API that renders a map within the Truist App's own user interface? The complaint lacks the technical detail to resolve this, which will likely be a focus of discovery and claim construction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mapping component of the first non-browser application" (’980 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical as it identifies the core infringing instrumentality. The dispute will likely center on whether this term covers any software that simply calls a mapping API, or if it requires a more specific structure or functionality as described in the patent's embodiments. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could determine whether common app-development practices fall within the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component functionally, for example as a module that can "receive data representing location information from a source external to the component" and then relay it for mapping (’980 Patent, col. 4:22-29). This could support a broad definition covering any code that performs this function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of the component, such as an "ActiveX control; a widget, an application on a PDA" (’980 Patent, col. 4:18-22) and depicts it as a discrete block in system diagrams (e.g., ’980 Patent, Fig. 10A, element 1002). This could support a narrower construction limited to such specific implementations.
The Term: "invokes the mapping application" (’980 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the infringing action. The central question is whether making an API call to a mapping service that renders a map within the first application's UI constitutes "invoking" a separate "mapping application." The answer will determine if the patent covers integrated map views or is limited to scenarios where one application launches another.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the mapping component may communicate with other applications via methods like an "API, COM, DCOM, etc." (’980 Patent, col. 5:30-34), which may support construing an API call as an "invocation."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently describes a process where one application is minimized or closed and a separate mapping application is "re-opened" or brought to the forefront of the display, suggesting a hand-off between two distinct, user-facing applications (’980 Patent, col. 4:48-51; col. 3:16-24).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both inducement and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is premised on Defendant allegedly advertising, promoting, and distributing instructions that guide customers to use the Truist Mobile App in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶28, 45, 62). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Products have special features specifically designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶29, 46, 63).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The allegations are based on post-suit knowledge from the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶30, 47, 64) and, on "information and belief," a pre-suit theory of willful blindness, alleging Defendant maintains a policy of not reviewing the patents of others (Compl. ¶¶31, 48, 65).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the claims, which recite a system with a "first non-browser application" that "invokes" a "second non-browser application," be construed to cover the common mobile architecture where a single application uses an embedded API to render a third-party map within its own user interface?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: Does the accused Truist Mobile App, which plots proprietary business locations using a mapping service, perform the function of "mashing mappable data from disparate sources" as contemplated by the patents, which describe combining location information from distinct contexts such as social media, emails, and web pages?
- A central question for claim construction will be the definitional boundary of a "mapping component." The case may turn on whether this term is defined broadly by its function (to relay location data for mapping) or narrowly by the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification (e.g., a widget or ActiveX control).