DCT
2:25-cv-00455
Nearby Systems LLC v. Panda Restaurant Group Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda Express, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00455, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have established and maintain regular and established places of business in the district and have committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Panda Express mobile application infringes four patents related to methods for displaying location-based data from disparate sources onto a single, unified digital map.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the integration of mapping functions within mobile applications, a feature central to customer engagement for businesses with physical retail locations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-10-12 | Earliest Priority Date for all 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 |
| 2025-05-01 | Complaint Filed |
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 describes a limitation in prior art mobile devices where new mapping content originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., an address in an email) would be displayed on a new, separate digital map. This approach would cause any previously displayed map content, such as other points of interest, to be lost, requiring the user to toggle between different map views. (’164 Patent, col. 1:32-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system where "mappable content" found in a "first non-browser application" can be activated to invoke a "second non-browser application" which is a mapping application. This allows the new content to be displayed in conjunction with any existing, previously displayed mapping content on a single map, preserving user context. (’164 Patent, col. 1:45-53). For example, as shown in Figures 1A-1C, a location from a secondary application (FIG. 1B) can be added as a new point-of-interest (108) to an existing map (102) that already contains a prior point-of-interest (104) (’164 Patent, col. 2:38-66).
- Technical Importance: This approach improves the usability of mobile mapping by allowing users to build a consolidated, multi-point map view from various applications without losing context.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent claim 1 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 1 of the ’164 Patent recites the following essential elements for a system:
- A memory of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application;
- A processor executing the first non-browser application;
- A user interface of the first non-browser application;
- A mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke a 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 communicates with the second non-browser application.
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent patent, the ’980 Patent addresses the problem of new mapping content from outside a mapping application causing a new map to be generated, which "does not contain any other mappable information previously displayed." (’980 Patent, col. 1:32-41).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system on a mobile device for combining mappable data from disparate sources onto a single map. The abstract explains that in response to a user selecting addressable information (e.g., in an email) and invoking a command, a map-display application is "automatically presented... displaying the addressable information in addition to at least one prior mapping content previously displayed." (’980 Patent, Abstract). The detailed description explains that this allows a new point of interest from an application like Facebook (FIG. 1B) to be displayed on the same map as a pre-existing point of interest (FIG. 1C) (’980 Patent, col. 2:53-col. 3:7).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to streamline the user experience by creating a persistent, unified map view that can be augmented with location data from multiple external software sources.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent claim 1 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶46).
- Claim 1 of the ’980 Patent recites the following essential elements for a system:
- A memory storing a first non-browser application;
- A processor executing the first non-browser application;
- A touch screen displaying a user interface of the first non-browser application;
- A GPS device for determining the mobile device's location;
- 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 memory also stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application;
- The mapping component invokes the mapping application (the second non-browser application) and directs it to transmit a query.
U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family, is also directed at systems and methods for integrating location data found in a non-mapping mobile application with a mapping application. The core concept involves adding a new point of interest from an external source to a map that already contains previously displayed content, thereby creating a unified map view. (Compl. ¶58).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Panda Express App provides a system for displaying map information that infringes the ’145 patent (Compl. ¶64).
U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"
- Technology Synopsis: As the most recent patent in the asserted family, the ’177 patent continues to claim technology for combining mappable data from disparate sources onto a single digital map within a mobile device. The invention allows mappable content found outside a primary mapping application to be transmitted to it for display alongside existing map content. (Compl. ¶75).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Panda Express App’s system for displaying store locations on a map infringes the ’177 patent (Compl. ¶81).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are identified as the Panda Express App and other mobile applications and website (pandaexpress.com) functionality controlled by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶19, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are designed to allow customers to locate Panda Express stores, manage their accounts, and place orders (Compl. ¶21). The complaint focuses on the functionality that provides a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device... to allow a mobile device user to identify and navigate to locations offering Defendants' products" (Compl. ¶30, ¶47). The complaint provides an exhibit described as showing the accused app displaying map information for navigating to Defendant's store locations (Compl. ¶30, Ex. H). The complaint also references exhibits showing the app's availability on smartphone app stores (Compl. ¶20, Ex. E, F).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a memory of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application; | The Panda Express App is a non-browser application made available for download by Defendants and stored on customers' mobile devices. | ¶20 | col. 15:19-20 |
| a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke the second non-browser application... when map-able content... is activated... | The Panda Express App allegedly includes a system that displays map information, allowing a user to identify and navigate to store locations. | ¶30 | col. 3:8-20 |
| wherein the second non-browser application is a mapping application, | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 15:33-35 | |
| wherein the mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application. | The Panda Express App provides a system to "obtain the data to display text and maps that present information" for store locations. | ¶30 | col. 15:36-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused Panda Express App, as the "first non-browser application," actually "invoke[s]" a "second non-browser application" to display its maps. The claim appears to require interaction between two distinct applications. The infringement theory may depend on whether the Panda Express App calls an external, separate application (e.g., Apple Maps, Google Maps) versus using an integrated mapping software development kit (SDK) to display maps within its own user interface.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are high-level. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused app's architecture includes a "mapping component" that operates as claimed, specifically by invoking a separate application and transmitting content to an online service for use by that second application.
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Panda Express App provides a system for displaying map information on a mobile device to identify and navigate to store locations. The complaint includes an exhibit described as showing this functionality. | ¶47, Ex. I | col. 15:12-16 |
| wherein the memory stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application, and | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 15:21-23 | |
| 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... | The Accused Products allegedly provide a method for displaying map information to "allow the mobile device user to identify and navigate to locations offering Defendants' products." | ¶47 | col. 15:24-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the ’980 patent recites a system that both displays a map within the user interface of the first non-browser application and also invokes a second, separate mapping application. This dual requirement raises the question of whether the accused app performs both functions. The analysis may focus on whether the Panda Express App first displays an embedded map and then, upon a further user action, launches a separate, standalone navigation application.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused app contains a "mapping component" that both renders an internal map and invokes an external one? The technical implementation of the accused app's mapping and navigation features will be central to determining whether it meets these distinct claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mapping component"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’164 and ’980 patents and defines the core functional element of the invention. Its construction will be critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether a software module within the Panda Express App performs the specific functions attributed to this component, such as invoking other applications and communicating with online services.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a single form, stating it may be a "standalone application, a web-browser plug-in, an ActiveX control, a DLL, a COM object, a web object, a part of an application displaying and/or generating maps, etc." (’980 Patent, col. 14:10-15). This language may support a broad construction covering various software implementations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as the system diagram in FIG. 10A, depict the "MAPPING COMPONENT" (1002) as a distinct block separate from the "DISPLAY APPLICATION" (1004) and the external "MAPPING APPLICATION" (1010) (’980 Patent, FIG. 10A). This architectural depiction may be used to argue for a more constrained definition requiring a structurally distinct software module.
The Term: "invoke the second non-browser application"
- Context and Importance: This phrase from claim 1 of the ’164 patent (and a similar one in the ’980 patent) is central to the required interaction between software applications. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused app's method for displaying maps—whether by calling a separate, external application or by rendering a map internally via an SDK—is a fundamental technical question. The definition of "invoke" will likely determine whether the accused app's architecture infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a user action in one application leading to the presentation of a map-display application, which could be construed broadly as any action that causes the mapping application to appear and perform a function (’980 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process where a non-mapping application may be "minimized" and "replaced" by a mapping application, which "may overtake the mapping application on the display of the device" (’980 Patent, col. 4:32-38). This description suggests a complete context switch between two separate, running applications, potentially supporting a narrower interpretation than a simple API call to an embedded map view.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against Defendants' customers and end-users. This is based on Defendants allegedly providing, advertising, and distributing instructions for the Accused Products with the specific intent that they be used in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 48, 65, 82). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products have special features designed for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 49, 66, 83).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents, which the complaint asserts began at least upon notice of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 50, 67, 84). The complaint further alleges that Defendants have a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," constituting willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 51, 68, 85).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:
- A core issue will be one of architectural alignment: does the software architecture of the Panda Express App—specifically, whether it displays maps using an integrated SDK versus launching a separate, external mapping application—satisfy the distinct architectural requirements of the asserted claims? The claims of the ’164 and ’980 patents, for instance, appear to recite different interactions between first and second non-browser applications.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: beyond general allegations of displaying maps, what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused app includes a "mapping component" that performs the specific, multi-step processes recited in the claims, such as how it transmits queries to an online service and directs other applications?