DCT

2:25-cv-00601

Mimzi LLC v. Nissan Motor Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00601, E.D. Tex., 06/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with Apple CarPlay infringe two patents related to systems for presenting location-based information and crowd-sourced roadway conditions.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mobile, location-aware computing systems that process user input and location to deliver targeted information, such as traffic warnings or advertisements, a central feature of modern automotive infotainment platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint extensively details the prosecution history for both patents-in-suit, emphasizing that the USPTO Examiner considered and allowed the claims over subject-matter eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This suggests an attempt to preemptively counter an anticipated eligibility defense.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-29 Earliest Priority Date for '163 & '361 Patents
2016-03-28 Advisory Action on '361 Patent Application
2017-10-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,792,361 Issues
2021-01-29 Applicant Response to Office Action for '163 Patent
2021-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,100,163 Issues
2025-06-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,100,163 - "Photographic Memory", issued August 24, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for an "easy and unobtrusive way to record and search audio from phone calls and face-to-face conversations," and specifically to allow a mobile user who sees a road hazard to alert a "community searchable database" to warn other drivers (Compl. ¶ 28; ’163 Patent, col. 2:21-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system where a mobile device transmits location data and other information to a central server. The server, which manages a database of location-based information, processes this data to retrieve and present relevant content back to the user, such as travel information or targeted advertisements based on location and spoken words (’163 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:22-42).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a dynamic, searchable repository of real-time, geolocated information, contributed by and accessible to a community of mobile users, thereby enhancing situational awareness and enabling location-based services (’163 Patent, col. 1:31-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 22 (Compl. ¶ 11). Independent claim 1 recites:
    • A system with a "communication network interface port".
    • A "database system" configured to automatically store and retrieve location-based information, which includes travel information and advertisements.
    • At least one "server" configured to:
      • automatically control access to the database.
      • automatically receive a location from a mobile device.
      • automatically receive location-based information from the mobile device.
      • automatically retrieve location-based travel information from the database dependent on the device's location.
      • automatically retrieve a location-based advertisement from the database dependent on the device's location and "at least one spoken keyword."
      • automatically present the retrieved advertisement to the user.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 3-8 and 10 (Compl. ¶ 39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,792,361 - "Photographic Memory", issued October 17, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Stemming from the same specification as the ’163 Patent, the invention addresses the challenge for a mobile user to easily report a road hazard (e.g., a traffic jam or stalled vehicle) via a spoken message with location data to a shared community database for the purpose of warning other users (’361 Patent, col. 1:64-2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for presenting "social network provided outputs" to a mobile device. A user's input and location data are used to form a request that is sent to a "social network database" containing roadway condition records. The system receives location-dependent information back from this database, ranks it using a "social network ranking factor," and presents it to the user. The system also facilitates the creation of new records in the database (’361 Patent, col. 10:3-48).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides a technical framework for a real-time, location-based social network focused on roadway conditions, enabling crowd-sourced traffic and hazard information sharing (’361 Patent, col. 1:64-2:5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 16, and 18 (Compl. ¶ 29). Independent claim 1 recites:
    • A "hardware data input port" to receive user input.
    • An "automated hardware processor" to define a user request based on the input and the mobile device's location.
    • An "automated hardware communication interface port" configured to transmit the request to a "social network database," receive location-dependent information back, and communicate a message to create a new record in the database.
    • An "automated hardware user interface" configured to present the received social network information, which has been ranked according to a "social network ranking factor."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 12 (Compl. ¶ 45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Defendant's Nissan and Infiniti vehicles equipped with CarPlay" (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 46).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the combination of Nissan and Infiniti vehicle infotainment hardware and the Apple CarPlay software platform creates an infringing system (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 46). The relevant functionality is providing users with location-based services, such as navigation, traffic alerts, and other information, through the vehicle's interface. The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused systems, instead incorporating by reference "representative claim chart[s]" attached as exhibits, which were not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 46).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of both patents but relies on incorporating by reference Exhibits G and H, which contain detailed claim charts that were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 46). Accordingly, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible from the complaint alone. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • ’163 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint's narrative theory suggests that Nissan vehicles with CarPlay constitute the claimed "system." The vehicle's telematics unit provides the "communication network interface port" and its GPS provides the "location". The system allegedly communicates with remote servers (the "database system") to retrieve and present "location-based travel information" and "location-based advertisements" that are dependent on the vehicle's location and "spoken keywords" captured by voice assistants like Siri (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 39-40).

  • ’361 Patent Infringement Allegations: The infringement theory posits that applications running on CarPlay, such as Apple Maps or Waze, function as the claimed "social network database". The vehicle's hardware receives "user input" (e.g., voice reports of accidents), combines it with location data to form a "user request", and transmits it to the application's servers. These servers, in turn, provide "location-dependent social network information" (e.g., hazard alerts) that is ranked and presented to the user on the vehicle's display, which serves as the "automated hardware user interface" (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 45-46).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’163 Patent

  • The Term: "spoken keyword" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 1 requires retrieving a location-based advertisement that is "dependent on at least the received location... and relevant to at least one spoken keyword." The interpretation of this term is critical to determining if the accused system’s ad-targeting mechanism meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff must prove a direct link between a word spoken by the user and the selection of a presented advertisement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using speech recognition to create searchable transcripts of entire conversations, which could support an argument that any word spoken by the user and captured by the system, even if not part of a direct query, could qualify as a "spoken keyword" for targeting ads (’163 Patent, col. 2:7-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links the keyword directly to the retrieval of an "advertisement". This may support a narrower construction requiring that the keyword be part of a commercial query or a more explicit expression of interest, rather than an incidental word from a broader conversation. The patent’s ad-supported model discusses using "speech-recognized text, to target the ad to something (a keyword) mentioned one or more times in the conversation" (’163 Patent, col. 5:61-64), but the claim language itself may be read more narrowly.

’361 Patent

  • The Term: "social network database" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff’s infringement theory appears to equate crowd-sourced mapping applications (like Waze or Apple Maps) with the claimed "social network database." The viability of the infringement claim will depend heavily on whether this construction is adopted.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as a "community searchable database" for sharing road hazard information and refers to this concept as "Location Blogging" or a "community or collective photographic memory" (’361 Patent, col. 1:40-49, col. 2:25-26). This functional description aligns with services that rely on user-submitted data.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term implies more than just crowd-sourced data points. The patent repeatedly uses the term "social network" and recites ranking information based on a "social network ranking factor," which could be tied to "social network credibility or social network popularity of the Location Blog poster" (’361 Patent, col. 10:46-48, col. 16:1-6). This may support a narrower construction requiring a system with explicit social features like user profiles, connections, and visible poster credibility metrics.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The factual basis is Defendant's sale of the accused vehicles combined with the distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 46).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on Defendant’s continued infringement after gaining knowledge of the patents, "at least via service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41, 46-47). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

  • A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "social network database", as used in the ’361 patent, be construed to cover modern crowd-sourced navigation and mapping services like Apple Maps or Waze, or does the patent’s language require a system with more explicit social features, such as user profiles and poster credibility ratings?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of causation and functionality: for the ’163 patent, can the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence that the accused systems select and present "advertisements" that are specifically dependent on a "spoken keyword" from the user, as opposed to being targeted based on location, destination, user profile, or other contextual data?
  • A primary legal battle may revolve around patent eligibility: despite the complaint’s extensive arguments regarding the prosecution history, a significant question remains whether the court will find the claims directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or if it will view them as directed to the abstract ideas of collecting, organizing, and presenting information.