DCT
2:25-cv-00256
Local Interest LLC v. PetSmart LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Local Interest, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: PetSmart LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00256, E.D. Tex., 06/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s PetSmart mobile application and associated backend systems infringe two patents related to location-based services for finding points of interest.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using a mobile device's location to search for and display nearby points of interest, such as retail stores, based on either user-customized categories or partial name searches.
- Key Procedural History: The two asserted patents are part of the same family; U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834 is a continuation of the application chain that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-04-15 | Priority Date for ’899 and ’834 Patents |
| 2009-05-12 | ’899 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-11-30 | ’834 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2014-07-08 | ’834 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-06-05 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899 - "System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations," Issued May 12, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent specification describes a need for "improved location-based services and systems" for wireless, Internet-enabled devices beyond simply accessing maps and directions. (Compl. ¶35; ’899 Patent, col. 1:45-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method where a user can create predefined, customizable "sets" of point of interest (POI) categories (e.g., a "My Everyday Set" containing ATMs, coffee shops, and supermarkets). (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-35, Fig. 4). Upon a single command, the system uses the mobile device's location to find the geographically closest POI within each of the categories in the set and "substantially simultaneously" displays them in a single list for the user. (’899 Patent, col. 2:38-49). The user can then select a POI for more information or request a list of the "next closest" POIs.
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve user efficiency by consolidating multiple, distinct location searches (e.g., one for gas, one for food) into a single, automated action based on the user's pre-selected preferences. (Compl. ¶32, ¶54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s lead asserted independent claim is Claim 4, a method claim. (Compl. ¶49).
- Essential elements of Claim 4 include:
- receiving a command from a user's mobile device to locate points of interest...wherein each of the points of interest are associated with one of two or more different and user-identified point of interest categories;
- automatically determining the location of the user's mobile device;
- based at least in part on the determined location, automatically providing to the user's mobile device a list of points of interest, wherein the list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories, and wherein the list of points of interest represent points of interest that are geographically closest to the location of the user's mobile device;
- receiving input from the user's mobile device; and
- providing a next-closer list of points of interest...that are geographically next closest to the location of the user's mobile device.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including independent claims 1, 5, 14, 21, 27, and 31. (Compl. ¶49-50).
U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834 - "System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations," Issued July 8, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with its parent patent, the ’834 Patent addresses the need for "improved location-based services and systems" on wireless devices. (Compl. ¶91; ’834 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
- The Patented Solution: This invention describes a method for finding a POI when a user knows part of its name. The system receives a "plurality of letters" from a mobile device, determines the device's location, and identifies a nearby POI whose name contains those letters. (’834 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:52-54). The system then transmits the name of the POI to the device, and upon user selection, provides additional data such as a phone number or directions. The patent also discloses a process for expanding the geographical search radius if no POIs are initially found. (’834 Patent, col. 12:1-18).
- Technical Importance: This provides a direct-query alternative to category-based searching, streamlining the process for users who are looking for a specific, named location rather than a generic type of business. (Compl. ¶109).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s lead asserted independent claim is Claim 1, a method claim. (Compl. ¶105).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- receiving, from a mobile device, a request to identify points of interest...wherein the request comprises a plurality of letters;
- determining the location of the mobile device;
- determining a point of interest having a name comprising a first portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters;
- transmitting the name of the point of interest to the mobile device;
- receiving, from the mobile device, an indication of a selection of the name of the point of interest;
- determining point of interest data associated with the point of interest; and
- transmitting the point of interest data associated with the point of interest to the mobile device.
- The complaint notes that other independent claims (8 and 15) and various dependent claims are also directed to the technology. (Compl. ¶106).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "PetSmart Mobile App" for iOS and Android devices and the associated backend servers and systems that support its functionality. (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the PetSmart app as a tool for customers to "shop essentials, book services & more." (Compl. ¶67). A screenshot from the Google Play store shows the app has over one million downloads and includes features such as "Find your pet's new faves by category" and "Get personalized offers just for you." (Compl. ¶23). A similar screenshot from the Apple App Store highlights features like "Earn points with Treats Rewards." (Compl. ¶24). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is the "largest omni-channel pet retailer in North America," and that revenue is derived from these mobile applications, which are available for download in Texas. (Compl. ¶17, ¶21-22). The complaint includes a screenshot from PetSmart's website landing page for the mobile app, which encourages users to download it to "Track points, access rewards, shop essentials, book services & more." (Compl. ¶25, Image 3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’899 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a command from a user's mobile device to locate points of interest near to a location of the user's mobile device, wherein each of the points of interest are associated with one of two or more different and user-identified point of interest categories | A user initiating a search in the PetSmart app by selecting from various product or service categories, which the complaint alleges function as the claimed "user-identified point of interest categories." | ¶65 | col. 12:29-37 |
| automatically determining the location of the user's mobile device | The PetSmart app and its backend systems using the mobile device's location data (e.g., from GPS or network-based services) to perform the search. | ¶65 | col. 12:38-40 |
| based at least in part on the determined location, automatically providing to the user's mobile device a list of points of interest, wherein the list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories...geographically closest... | The app displaying a list of nearby PetSmart stores, services, or offers based on the user’s location, which allegedly represents the closest POIs for the selected categories. | ¶65 | col. 12:41-53 |
| receiving input from the user's mobile device | The user selecting a specific store, service, or offer from the list presented in the app. | ¶65 | col. 12:54-55 |
| providing a next-closer list of points of interest...geographically next closest... | The app allegedly having the capability to provide a subsequent list of stores or offers that are the next closest to the user, beyond the initial list. | ¶65 | col. 12:56-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "different and user-identified point of interest categories." The infringement theory appears to equate PetSmart's internal service and product categories (e.g., "Dog," "Cat," "Services") with the patent's examples of distinct commercial establishments (e.g., restaurants, banks, supermarkets). The question for the court will be whether categories within a single retailer's ecosystem qualify as "different" categories under the claim's meaning.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused app "substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different" categories? The patent's embodiment (e.g., Fig. 6) shows a single list with the nearest result from multiple categories (e.g., McDonalds, Starbucks, Wells Fargo). It is an open question whether the PetSmart app performs this specific function or if it displays a list of results from only one selected category at a time.
’834 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, from a mobile device, a request to identify points of interest near a location of the mobile device, wherein the request comprises a plurality of letters | A user typing a search query (a "plurality of letters") into the search bar of the PetSmart app, which the complaint alleges constitutes a request to identify points of interest (i.e., PetSmart stores). | ¶120 | col. 11:48-52 |
| determining the location of the mobile device | The app and associated systems using the mobile device’s location to scope the search for nearby results. | ¶120 | col. 11:53-54 |
| determining a point of interest having a name comprising a first portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters | The backend system matching the user's typed query to the name of a PetSmart store or a product/service offered at a store. | ¶120 | col. 11:55-58 |
| transmitting the name of the point of interest to the mobile device | The app displaying the name of the resulting PetSmart store or service location to the user. | ¶120 | col. 11:59-61 |
| receiving, from the mobile device, an indication of a selection of the name of the point of interest | The user tapping on or otherwise selecting one of the displayed search results. | ¶120 | col. 11:62-64 |
| determining point of interest data associated with the point of interest; and transmitting the point of interest data...to the mobile device | Upon user selection, the app retrieving and displaying detailed information about the selected store, such as its address, hours, and available services. | ¶120 | col. 11:65-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does a user's search for a product (e.g., "dog food") in a retail app's search bar constitute a "request to identify points of interest" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples of searching for a place by its name (e.g., "Kinkos" in Fig. 7)?
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations for the ’834 patent are framed in general terms by reciting the claim language. The strength of the infringement case may depend on evidence showing a close correspondence between the specific operational flow of the PetSmart app's search function and the detailed process flows disclosed in the patent's specification and figures, such as the radius-expansion feature described in connection with dependent claim 3. (Compl. ¶105).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’899 Patent:
The Term: "different and user-identified point of interest categories" (Claim 4)
Context and Importance: The infringement reading for the ’899 Patent hinges on whether the PetSmart app’s product and service groupings (e.g., "Shop by pet: Dog," "Shop by pet: Cat," "Grooming") meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "different categories" is construed to mean distinct types of third-party businesses (like restaurants and banks), the claim may not read on an app that primarily categorizes the products and services of a single retailer.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that categories can include a wide range of consumer services, and the system allows a user to create and name their own sets, suggesting flexibility. (e.g., ’899 Patent, col. 7:35-41, Fig. 11). This may support an argument that any logical grouping selected by the user qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specific examples consistently refer to distinct types of commercial entities, such as "restaurants, coffee shops, convenience stores" or "restaurants, automatic teller machines (ATMs), supermarkets, parks, and coffee shops." (’899 Patent, col. 2:27-28, col. 2:32-35). This language may support a narrower construction limited to different kinds of businesses, not different departments within one business.
The Term: "substantially simultaneously presents" (Claim 4)
Context and Importance: This term dictates how the search results must be displayed. Its construction will determine whether displaying a list of store locations for a single chosen category infringes, or if the claim requires a mixed list showing the single nearest result from several different categories at once.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The word "substantially" provides some flexibility, and a party could argue it does not strictly require a single, integrated list on one screen, but rather a presentation of results for all categories in a single user session.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patent, which is described as displaying the nearest POI "in each category" (Compl. ¶43), explicitly shows a single list containing different types of businesses: "McDonalds .5 mi," "Starbucks 2 mi," "Wells Fargo 3 mi." This strongly supports a construction requiring a single, heterogeneous list showing the top result from each of the user's selected categories.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by advertising the Accused Products and providing instructions and technical support that "guide users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner." (Compl. ¶70-71). The basis for contributory infringement is that the Accused Products allegedly have "special features that are specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶76-77).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’899 patent, based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patent from at least the filing of the action. (Compl. ¶79). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting on information and belief that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others." (Compl. ¶80).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "different...point of interest categories," rooted in the ’899 Patent’s disclosure of grouping distinct businesses like restaurants and banks, be construed to cover the PetSmart app’s system of organizing its own products and services (e.g., "Dog," "Cat," "Grooming") within a single retail brand?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: Does the accused app’s user interface perform the specific function required by the ’899 Patent's claim to "substantially simultaneously present" a list containing the single geographically closest result from each of several different categories, as depicted in the patent's embodiments, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation?
- For the ’834 Patent, the case may turn on claim construction and equivalence: Is a product search within a retail app equivalent to the claimed "request to identify points of interest," a term the patent illustrates with searches for specific business names? The answer will likely depend on how closely the court ties the claim language to the specific examples disclosed in the patent's specification.