DCT
2:25-cv-00610
Nostromo LLC v. Starbucks Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nostromo LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Starbucks Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00610, E.D. Tex., 06/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains multiple "regular and established places of business" within the district and has not contested venue in prior patent litigation in the same court.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Starbucks Mobile Application, which utilizes geofencing to send promotional notifications, infringes a patent related to providing customized location-based information services to portable devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a mobile device's geographic location to automatically trigger and deliver personalized information or marketing alerts, a widely adopted feature in retail and service mobile applications.
- Key Procedural History: An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the patent-in-suit was issued on February 27, 2025. The certificate confirmed the patentability of asserted independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-3, 8, 10-12, and 17, which may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity against prior art considered during the proceeding.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-12-23 | ’970 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-10-15 | ’970 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-02-27 | ’970 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2025-06-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970 - "Method for Providing Location-Based Information Services, Location-Based Information Services System, and Portable Electronic Device"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art location-based services where users had to actively request information. This approach was described as impractical for receiving timely alerts about local events, and the information provided was often not of interest to the user or covered an overly broad geographical area (’970 Patent, col. 1:21-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method that automates the delivery of customized location-based information to a portable device. A user can pre-define "preference settings," including categories of information (e.g., traffic, weather, local events) and a desired "location range" (e.g., a specific radius) (’970 Patent, col. 4:35-53). The system then monitors the device's location and, upon meeting a trigger condition (like entering a pre-defined area), it automatically selects and transmits information that matches the user's stored preferences (’970 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-20).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for proactive and personalized information delivery to mobile users without requiring their constant active input, forming a basis for targeted, location-aware mobile marketing and alert systems (’970 Patent, col. 1:43-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- (a) providing an information platform and a user preference settings database for respectively receiving and recording preference settings for categories of information and location range from a user of the portable electronic device;
- (b) setting and storing in a condition database at least one condition for triggering information services provision to the portable electronic device;
- (c) receiving positioning information that includes a location of the portable electronic device by having a positioning module; and
- (d) determining through use of a condition module whether the at least one condition has been met, and when it has been met, selecting location information from a location information database in accordance with the positioning information and the preference settings, and transmitting the selected location information to the portable electronic device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief seeks judgment for infringement of "one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. p. 9, ¶a).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "Starbucks' digital fencing and/or geofencing applications, including, but not limited to, Starbucks Mobile Application" as the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Starbucks Mobile Application uses a device's location to provide location-based services (Compl. ¶16). Specifically, it uses geofencing to send push notifications to users regarding "coupons, rewards, deals, sales, discounts, order statuses, and other information" when they are near a Starbucks store (Compl. ¶10, ¶20). The complaint provides a screenshot from a third-party blog post depicting a push notification on a mobile device that reads, "You are near Starbucks Oxford st 50% off an expressor," as an example of this functionality (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’970 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) providing an information platform and a user preference settings database for respectively receiving and recording preference settings for categories of information and location range from a user of the portable electronic device; | The Starbucks Mobile Application and associated servers provide an information platform and a user preference settings database for receiving and recording preference settings for information categories and location range from a user. | ¶16 | col. 7:16-21 |
| (b) setting and storing in a condition database at least one condition for triggering information services provision to the portable electronic device; | The Starbucks Mobile Application sets and stores at least one condition (e.g., custom alerts) in a condition database to trigger the provision of information services. | ¶17 | col. 7:22-25 |
| (c) receiving positioning information that includes a location of the portable electronic device by having a positioning module; | The Starbucks Mobile Application receives positioning information, such as from the mobile device's positioning modules, through its geofencing feature. | ¶18 | col. 7:26-29 |
| (d) determining through use of a condition module whether the at least one condition for triggering information services provision stored in the condition database has been met, and when the condition has been met, selecting location information from a location information database... and transmitting the selected location information to the portable electronic device. | When a condition is met (e.g., a geofence is crossed), the application determines this, selects location information (e.g., a Starbucks store location) based on the device's real-time location and user preferences, and transmits it to the device. | ¶19 | col. 7:30-38 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the claim term "preference settings for categories of information and location range." The question is whether the Starbucks app's functionality for enabling or disabling location-based notifications constitutes the specific, user-defined customization of both information categories and a location range as taught in the patent specification (’970 Patent, col. 4:35-53).
- Technical Questions: The complaint broadly maps the patent's distinct database components ("condition database", "user preference settings database") to "Starbucks Mobile Application related servers/databases" (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). A key technical question for discovery will be whether the accused system's software architecture actually contains functionally or structurally distinct components corresponding to those required by the claims, or if its functions are integrated in a way that does not align with the claimed method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "preference settings for categories of information and location range"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the level of user customization required by the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused app's general notification controls are found to meet this potentially more specific limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's validity and infringement positions hinge on the degree of user control it requires.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself requires only a system "for respectively receiving and recording" these settings, without specifying the mechanism. This could support an argument that any user action to enable location-based alerts for promotions implicitly sets a "promotions" category and a system-defined range.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides more specific examples, describing a user selecting from categories like "weather and traffic conditions and local events" and specifying a "radius distance from the location of the portable electronic device" (’970 Patent, col. 4:35-53). This language may support a narrower construction that requires more granular, user-defined control over both the type of content and the geographic scope of alerts.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Starbucks induces infringement by providing the Starbucks Mobile Application to customers and end-users with instructions, thereby causing them to directly infringe the ’970 Patent by using the app as intended (Compl. ¶21, ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on a theory of willful blindness, asserting that Defendant "adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others" with the subjective belief that there was a high probability it would learn of its infringing activities (’970 Patent, ¶22). It also pleads willfulness based on knowledge of the patent at least as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶22).
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 definitional scope: can the claim limitation "preference settings for categories of information and location range," which the patent specification illustrates with granular user selections like traffic conditions and a specific radius, be construed to read on the accused app's more general functionality for enabling or disabling location-based promotional alerts?
A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the Starbucks server infrastructure implements the distinct "condition database", "user preference settings database", and "location information database" as functionally required by claim 1, or will discovery reveal a monolithic or otherwise different system architecture that presents a mismatch with the patent's claims?