Nearby Systems LLC v. Panera Bread Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Panera Bread Company and Panera, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00454, E.D. Tex., 04/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business within the district and have committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Panera Bread App infringes four patents related to methods for combining and displaying mapping content from disparate sources on mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the integration of location-based information from different software applications onto a single, unified map view on a mobile device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint indicates the four asserted patents belong to a single family descending from a continuation-in-part application filed in 2007, suggesting a long-term prosecution effort covering this technology area. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-12	Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents
2016-12-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Issued
2019-11-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Issued
2024-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 Issued
2024-12-31	U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 Issued
2025-04-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a limitation in prior art mobile mapping services where new mapping content originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., an address selected in a separate application) would be displayed on a new, separate digital map, thereby losing the context of any information displayed on a previously-viewed map (’980 Patent, col. 1:32-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for combining mappable data from disparate sources onto a single, existing digital map. It enables a user to select location information in one application and have it transmitted to and displayed by a mapping application in conjunction with pre-existing map content, rather than on a new, blank map (’980 Patent, Abstract; ’980 Patent, Fig. 1C). This maintains user context by adding new points of interest to an active map view.
• Technical Importance: This approach facilitates the aggregation of location-based data from various sources (e.g., social media, email, websites) onto a single map, an operational paradigm that has become central to modern mobile application interoperability (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
• The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claim for analysis.

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’164 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: the inability of prior art systems to add location information from an external source to an already active map display without losing the original map's context (’980 Patent, col. 1:32-40).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims a system on a mobile device where a "first non-browser application" includes a "mapping component." This component can invoke a separate "second non-browser application that is a mapping application" to display location-based information, such as driving directions, on a map (’980 Patent, col. 15:1-25; col. 16:1-8). This architecture allows one application to direct the functionality of a separate mapping application.
• Technical Importance: The claimed system architecture provides a specific technical pathway for interoperability between different applications on a mobile device, allowing a general-purpose app to leverage the specialized functions of a dedicated mapping app (Compl. ¶41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (’980 Patent, col. 15:2-col. 16:8; Compl. ¶46).
• Claim 1 requires, in brief:
  • A mobile device with memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser mapping application.
  • A processor executing the first non-browser application.
  • A touch screen displaying the user interface of the first non-browser application.
  • A GPS device for determining the mobile device's location.
  • A mapping component within the first non-browser application that communicates with an online mapping service to download and display a map.
  • The mapping component invokes the second non-browser mapping application and directs it to transmit a query (including the device location and a destination) to obtain and display driving directions.

U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

• Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same patent family, this patent claims a system where a user touches text associated with an icon on a map in a first non-browser application. This action prompts a mapping component to query an online service and causes a second non-browser application to display a map showing a route to the selected location (’145 Patent, col. 15:1-26; Compl. ¶58).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Panera Bread App of infringing by providing customers a system to display map information and navigate to store locations (Compl. ¶64).

U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system where a user's selection of a point-of-interest in a first non-browser application causes a mapping component to query an online service. In response, a second non-browser application displays a map of the selected point-of-interest (’177 Patent, col. 15:5-col. 16:9; Compl. ¶75).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Panera Bread App's functionality for displaying map information that allows users to identify and navigate to Panera locations (Compl. ¶81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are identified as the Panera Bread App and the website https://www.panerabread.com/ (Compl. ¶19, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Panera Bread App is designed to allow customers to "locate stores" and provides a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device" (Compl. ¶21, 30). This system allegedly obtains data to display text and maps that allow a user to "identify and navigate to locations offering Defendants' products" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific market share or commercial positioning beyond its use by Panera Bread customers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references evidentiary exhibits (Exhibits G, H, I, and J) purporting to detail the infringement of each patent (Compl. ¶29, 46, 63, 80). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. Therefore, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• ’164 Patent and ’980 Patent Infringement Allegations
  • The complaint alleges that the Panera Bread App provides a system for displaying map information on a mobile device that allows users to identify and navigate to Panera locations, which is alleged to meet the limitations of at least claim 1 of each patent (Compl. ¶30, 47).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the ’980 Patent recites a "first non-browser application" that "invokes" a "second non-browser application that is a mapping application." A central question for the court may be whether the Panera Bread App, which appears to have an integrated map view, meets this two-application architectural requirement, or whether it functions as a single, self-contained application.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the accused app technically operates. For example, claim 1 of the ’980 Patent requires the "mapping component" of the first application to direct the second application to obtain "driving directions." The infringement analysis may turn on evidence showing whether the Panera Bread App contains such a component that performs this specific function, or if it simply links out to a separate, non-accused mapping service.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "first non-browser application" and "second non-browser application that is a mapping application" (’980 Patent, col. 15:5, 21-23).

• Context and Importance: The resolution of this case may depend on whether the Panera Bread App's architecture is found to embody two distinct applications as recited in the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the app's integrated map is not considered a "second non-browser application," infringement of claims requiring this structure may be difficult to establish.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract discusses relaying information from "disparate applications," which a party might argue could encompass distinct software modules within a single user-facing product (’980 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent depict two clearly separate applications with distinct user interfaces, such as an email application and a mapping application, between which the user navigates. This may support an interpretation requiring two separately executable programs (’980 Patent, Fig. 7A-7C).

• The Term: "mapping component of the first non-browser application" (’980 Patent, col. 15:11).

• Context and Importance: This term's construction will define what technical functionality must reside within the accused Panera Bread App itself, versus in an external online service or a separate mapping app. The claim language appears to place this component inside the first application, making its specific functions and location critical to the infringement analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the component could be a modular element like an "ActiveX control; a widget," which could support a view that it is a functionally distinct but integrated part of the host application (’980 Patent, col. 4:20-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1, "a mapping component of the first non-browser application," may be argued to require that the component is an integral and inseparable part of the first application's codebase that performs the claimed invocation and direction steps.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendants provide the Accused Products with instructions and advertising that encourage infringing use by customers (Compl. ¶31, 48). It further alleges contributory infringement, claiming the Accused Products have "special features" that are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶32, 49).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the lawsuit (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶33, 50). The complaint also alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶34, 51).

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

• A central issue will be one of architectural scope: does the Panera Bread App's integrated mapping feature function as a "first non-browser application" that "invokes" a distinct "second non-browser application that is a mapping application" as required by the asserted claims, or does it operate as a single, monolithic application that falls outside the claimed architecture?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused application contains a "mapping component" that performs the specific claimed actions of invoking a separate application and directing it to query for driving directions, as distinct from merely displaying map data received from an online service?
• A fundamental question for patent validity will concern the state of the art relative to the 2007 priority date: was the claimed method of passing location data from one mobile application to another for display on an existing map a non-obvious and non-conventional technical solution at a time when early smartphone platforms and APIs were rapidly developing?