Nostromo LLC v. Sephora USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nostromo LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Sephora USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
• Case Identification: Nostromo LLC v. Sephora USA, Inc., 2:25-cv-00612, E.D. Tex., 06/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's multiple regular and established places of business (retail stores) within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Sephora Mobile Application, which utilizes geofencing technology to send promotional notifications to users, infringes a patent related to providing customized location-based information services.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that use a mobile device's geographic location to automatically trigger the delivery of user-customized information, a common feature in modern retail and marketing applications.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,559,970, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination proceeding which concluded on February 27, 2025. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirmed the patentability of asserted Claim 1, which may strengthen the patent’s presumption of validity in this litigation.

Case Timeline

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 prior art location-based services as problematic because they required active user participation to request information and often delivered content that was not of interest to the user or covered an unnecessarily large geographic area ('970 Patent, col. 1:28-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system for providing automated, customized location-based services. A user pre-defines preferences, including categories of information (e.g., weather, traffic) and a desired location range ('970 Patent, col. 6:35-44). The system then monitors the user's location and, when a pre-set trigger condition is met (e.g., entering a specific zone), it automatically selects and transmits only the preferred information relevant to that location to the user's portable device ('970 Patent, col. 2:2-20; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to make location-based services more personalized and less intrusive by automating the delivery of user-specified content, a foundational concept for later developments in mobile marketing and contextual notifications ('970 Patent, col. 1:15-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 ('970 Patent, col. 7:13-39; Compl. ¶15).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • (a) providing an information platform and a user preference settings database for receiving and recording preference settings for categories of information and location range from a user;
  • (b) setting and storing in a condition database at least one condition for triggering information services provision;
  • (c) receiving positioning information that includes a location of the portable electronic device; and
  • (d) determining if the condition has been met, and if so, selecting location information from a location information database in accordance with the positioning information and the preference settings, and transmitting the selected information to the device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the '970 Patent (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is "Sephora's digital fencing and/or geofencing applications, including, but not limited to, the Sephora Mobile Application" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Sephora Mobile Application uses geofencing to detect when a user's mobile device is near a physical Sephora store (Compl. ¶19). This event triggers a "store companion" feature, also referred to as "Store Mode," which provides the user with alerts and information such as product recommendations, limited-time offers, gift cards, and product availability (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The complaint includes a marketing screenshot depicting the app screen for "Entering Store Mode," which it states is a "store companion" that activates when a user with the app walks near a store (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'970 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question may be whether users of the Sephora Mobile Application actively provide a "location range" preference as required by claim 1(a). The complaint alleges the system receives this setting (Compl. ¶16), but a court may need to determine if merely enabling location services satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires a more specific, user-defined input, such as setting a notification radius as described in the patent's specification ('970 Patent, col. 6:41-44).
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by a system of an application and "related servers/databases" (Compl. ¶19). A potential dispute may arise over whether this architecture maps to the patent's more delineated system, which claims distinct components such as a "user preference settings database," a "condition database," and a "location information database" ('970 Patent, col. 7:18-39; Fig. 1). The defense could argue its system is more integrated and lacks the specific, separate databases required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "preference settings for... location range from a user" (in claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to the scope of infringement. The dispute will likely focus on the degree of control a user must have in defining the geographic area for notifications. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require active, granular user input (e.g., setting a specific mile radius), it may be more difficult to prove infringement than if it is construed to cover a user simply granting the application permission to use location services.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "location range" broadly as that which "specifies a geographical location surrounding the location of the portable electronic device 3 about which the user wishes to receive information" ('970 Patent, col. 6:37-40). This language could support an interpretation that does not require a highly specific user action.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A specific embodiment in the patent states, "A user can select such location range through specifying a radius distance from the location of the portable electronic device 3" ('970 Patent, col. 6:41-44). This example of a user-defined radius could be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring active and specific user input.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Sephora knowingly encourages its customers and end-users to infringe by providing the Sephora Mobile Application along with "instructions on how to operate the infringing technology" via its website and other publications (Compl. ¶¶21, 23).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on two theories: first, that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement at least from the filing date of the complaint (Compl. ¶22); and second, that Defendant was willfully blind to the patent since its issuance, based on an alleged "policy of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶22).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of user control: does the accused Sephora Mobile Application's functionality meet the "preference settings for... location range from a user" limitation? The case may turn on evidence showing whether a user actively defines a geographic range for receiving alerts, as described in the patent's specification, or whether the user's interaction is limited to enabling a pre-set, non-configurable geofence.
• A central issue will be one of architectural mapping: does Sephora's accused system, which the complaint describes as an application with associated servers, contain the distinct "condition database," "user preference settings database," and "location information database" components as required by the structure of Claim 1, or does its integrated nature present a mismatch with the patent's claimed architecture?
• Finally, while the patent's validity has been strengthened by a reexamination that confirmed Claim 1, a core challenge will be applying the claim language—drafted with reference to 2008-era technology—to the specific implementation of modern, cloud-based mobile marketing platforms.