Infogation Corp v. Here Global BV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Infogation Corporation (Texas)
  • Defendant: HERE Global B.V. (Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01005, E.D. Tex., 12/05/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is a foreign entity with a regular and established business presence in the United States, invoking the "alien venue rule."
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital mapping and navigation products and services infringe three patents related to displaying information on digital maps and client-server navigation architectures.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the digital navigation and Global Positioning System (GPS) technology market, a core component of modern automotive systems, mobile applications, and logistics platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’743 patent since at least 2015, based on citations to the patent in Defendant’s own patent applications. This allegation may form the basis for a pre-suit willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,107,628 - “Method and Apparatus for Navigating on Artistic Maps,” issued Oct. 23, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of standard GPS maps in leisure settings like zoos or theme parks, where points of interest are often not displayed in a user-friendly or engaging way until a user is very close, making navigation difficult and the experience "boring" (’628 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-map system. A user interacts with a non-linearly scaled, visually stylized "artistic map" where objects (e.g., animal exhibits) are exaggerated for clarity (’628 Patent, col. 2:29-32). When the user selects a point on this artistic map, the system translates that selection to a corresponding, precise physical point (latitude/longitude) on a separate, conventional "geographical map" that is not displayed. The system then calculates and displays navigational directions on the artistic map based on the hidden geographical map data (’628 Patent, col. 2:32-38; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of engaging, user-friendly map interfaces that are decoupled from the underlying, rigid structure of geographic data, improving usability in specific contexts like tourism.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Downloading an "artistic map" to a portable computing device, where the artistic map is non-linearly scaled, has exaggerated objects, is not used directly for navigation, and where a corresponding "geographical map" is not displayed.
  • Receiving a user's selection of an object on the artistic map.
  • Determining coordinates for a point on the selected object.
  • Transforming those coordinates to a "physical point" (latitude/longitude) on the non-displayed geographical map.
  • Detecting the device's current location in the geographical map.
  • Determining a navigational direction from the current location to the selected object's physical point.
  • Showing the navigational direction on the displayed artistic map.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,292,743 - “Mobile Navigation System,” issued Sep. 18, 2001

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Early navigation systems were either stand-alone devices reliant on limited, quickly outdated local map data (e.g., on CDs), or client-server systems that required the client and server to use identical, proprietary mapping databases, creating interoperability problems and high update burdens for consumers (’743 Patent, col. 1:21-34; col. 2:1-9).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a distributed navigation system where the client device is simplified. The client sends start and end points to a remote server, which calculates an optimal route using real-time data (e.g., traffic). The server then transmits this route back to the client, not as proprietary map data, but as a "non-proprietary, natural language description" (’743 Patent, Abstract). The client-side software then interprets this description and uses its own, potentially different, local mapping database to reconstruct and display the route for the user (’743 Patent, col. 3:34-47).
• Technical Importance: This architecture decouples the server's powerful, real-time routing capabilities from the client's local map data, allowing for more flexible, lightweight, and interoperable navigation systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶34).
• Essential elements of claim 15 include:
  • A navigation computer.
  • A wireless transceiver for connecting to a navigation server.
  • The navigation server calculates optimal routes based on real-time information and formats them using a "non-proprietary, natural language description."
  • A mapping database on the client for "reconstructing" the optimal route from the description.
  • A display screen for displaying the reconstructed route.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,406,994 - “Electronically Generated Realistic-Like Map,” issued Mar. 26, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method to make electronically generated maps more realistic and dynamic. It involves superimposing images representing real-world objects (e.g., landmarks, signs) onto a map and changing their appearance (e.g., color effects) based on inputs like the time of day or weather conditions to reflect the real-world ambient environment (’994 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-13).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by HERE's services, pointing to a HERE webpage describing a "Destination Weather" service as an example (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities include a suite of HERE’s products and services, such as the HERE Routing, Geocoding & Search, Map Rendering, and Tour Planning location services, as well as the HERE SDK platform tool, HERE Navigation application, and HERE WeGo application systems (Compl. ¶12-13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these instrumentalities provide a comprehensive apparatus and method for navigation systems (Compl. ¶12). A screenshot from HERE's website describes location services for building maps, enhancing journeys with real-time information ("Dynamic Map Content"), and providing maps for assisted and automated driving (ADAS/HAD) (Compl. p. 7). This visual evidence frames the accused products as a platform providing core data and tools for modern navigation applications (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges these products generate substantial financial revenues for the Defendant (Compl. ¶17, ¶33, ¶49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,107,628 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether HERE’s maps constitute an "artistic map" that is functionally distinct from a "geographical map" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that HERE uses a single, stylizable geographic map, not the two-map system described in the patent. The requirement that the "geographical map is not being displayed" will be a key factual dispute.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system transforms coordinates from one map representation ("artistic") to another ("geographical") to perform navigation calculations, rather than simply calculating routes within a single, unified map data structure?

6,292,743 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The pivotal issue is the nature of the data transmitted from HERE's server to its client. Does the server provide a "non-proprietary, natural language description" of the route (e.g., a text-based list of turns and distances), which the client then "reconstructs" using its own map data? Or does the server transmit a proprietary, pre-rendered or vector-based data stream that the client simply displays? The answer will determine if the accused system architecture matches the patent's core concept.
  • Scope Questions: How should the term "reconstructing" be interpreted? Does it require the client to perform significant processing to build the route geometry from scratch based on the "natural language description," or could it be read more broadly to cover the assembly of map tiles or vectors guided by server instructions?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’628 Patent:

  • The Term: "artistic map"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of claim 1 of the ’628 Patent. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the accused HERE products can be said to use an "artistic map" that is functionally separate from a "geographical map."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the map "may be artisticly made to make the navigation as a pleasant experience" (’628 Patent, col. 2:65-67), which might support an argument that any stylized or aesthetically enhanced map qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts the "artistic map" with a "geographical map" and describes it as "non-linearly scaled" with "exaggeratedly shown" objects, providing examples of zoo and theme park maps (’628 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:3-6). This suggests the term implies a map whose primary purpose is stylized representation, not geographic accuracy, and which is incapable of being used for navigation itself.

• For the ’743 Patent:

  • The Term: "non-proprietary, natural language description"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the format of the route data transmitted from the server to the client and is the cornerstone of the ’743 Patent’s claimed invention, which seeks to decouple client and server map databases. Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical reality of HERE's server-client communication protocol will be decisive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "natural language" does not strictly require human-readable text but could encompass any logical, structured description that uses generic, non-proprietary terms.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract explicitly states the description "includes a plain text description for each link using pre-defined generic terms." An exemplary embodiment shows route links as human-readable text, such as "INTERSTATE 8 90 DEG. 1.4 MILES" (’743 Patent, Fig. 5, 514). This provides strong evidence that the term was intended to mean a text-based, human-intelligible format, rather than a compiled data stream.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant has taken active steps such as "advertising an infringing use, which supports a finding of an intention for the accused product to be used in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶26, ¶42, ¶58).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents.
  • For the ’628 and ’994 Patents, the willfulness allegation is based on knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶22, ¶54).
  • For the ’743 Patent, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge, stating infringement has been willful "since around 2015" because Defendant cited the ’743 Patent in its own patent applications (Compl. ¶37). The complaint includes a screenshot of Google Patent search results showing patents assigned to "Here Global B.V." that cite the ’743 Patent, which is intended to serve as evidence of this knowledge (Compl. p. 14).

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

1. An Architectural Question of Fact: For the ’743 patent, does the HERE platform operate as claimed by transmitting a "non-proprietary, natural language description" of a route that the client device must then independently "reconstruct" using its local map data? Or does it function by streaming proprietary, pre-packaged map and route data that the client simply renders, representing a fundamental architectural mismatch with the patent's teachings?
2. A Definitional Question of Scope: For the ’628 patent, can the term "artistic map" be construed to cover the stylized map layers in HERE's products? This will require the court to determine if the patent's two-map system (a non-navigable artistic map plus a separate, non-displayed geographical map) describes the accused functionality or if HERE simply uses a single, integrated map database with a flexible display layer.
3. A Question of Pre-Suit Knowledge: Does the evidence that Defendant’s own patent applications cited the ’743 patent constitute sufficient proof of pre-suit knowledge to sustain a claim for willful infringement? The court will need to assess whether citation by patent examiners or inventors during prosecution establishes that the corporate entity as a whole knew of and disregarded the risk of infringing the patent.