DCT
2:25-cv-00643
Local Interest LLC v. Petco Animal Supplies Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Local Interest, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00643, E.D. Tex., 09/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains established and regular places of business within the district, including multiple retail locations, and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications for iOS and Android devices infringe two patents related to providing location-based services on a wireless network.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to methods for searching for points of interest on mobile devices, with priority dates tracing back to an era of slow (2.5G) wireless networks and nascent location-based service technology.
- Key Procedural History: No significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-04-15 | Earliest Priority Date ('899 and '834 Patents) |
| 2009-05-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899 Issued |
| 2014-07-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834 Issued |
| 2025-09-12 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899 - “System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations,” Issued May 12, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while services like Maps.com existed, there was a "need for improved location-based services and systems," particularly for wireless, Internet-enabled devices ('899 Patent, col. 1:43-49). The complaint elaborates that in 2004, low-speed GPRS networks with high latency made real-time, iterative queries from a handset to a server technically challenging (Compl. ¶¶38-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user can define a set of different Point of Interest (POI) categories (e.g., restaurants, coffee shops, ATMs) and, with a single command, receive a list displaying the geographically closest POI for each category "substantially simultaneously" ('899 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-44). This method is designed to reduce the number of user interactions and round-trip data requests required to find multiple types of nearby locations, an improvement for the slow networks of the time ('899 Patent, col. 8:12-21).
- Technical Importance: The approach aimed to improve user experience by minimizing data latency and user input when searching for multiple, disparate types of nearby businesses on early mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶62-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶57).
- Claim 4 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- Receiving a command from a user's mobile device to locate POIs near the device's location, where the POIs are associated with two or more "different and user-identified" categories.
- Automatically determining the mobile device's location.
- Based on the location, automatically providing a list of POIs that "substantially simultaneously presents" at least one POI for at least some of the different categories, representing the "geographically closest" POIs.
- Receiving input from the user's mobile device.
- Providing a "next-closer list" of POIs that are geographically "next closest" to the user's location.
- The complaint notes that other independent claims (1, 5, 14, 21, 27, and 31) are also asserted, covering systems and computer-readable media (Compl. ¶58).
U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834 - “System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations,” Issued July 8, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '899 Patent, the '834 Patent’s background identifies a "need for improved location-based services and systems" for wireless devices ('834 Patent, col. 1:50-54). The complaint again contextualizes this need by referencing the technical limitations of mobile networks and devices in 2004 (Compl. ¶¶99-101).
- The Patented Solution: This invention describes a method for locating a POI based on a text-based search. A user sends a request from a mobile device that "comprises a plurality of letters" ('834 Patent, Claim 1). The system determines the device's location, identifies a POI whose name includes those letters, and transmits the name back to the device. Upon user selection, the system sends additional data about the POI ('834 Patent, Abstract). Dependent claim 3 adds a process for handling no-result queries, where the system searches within a first radius, and if no POIs are found, it can request and receive a second, larger radius to expand the search ('834 Patent, Claim 3).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a specific workflow for integrating text-based searching with automatic location detection and a radius-expansion error-handling process, tailored for early mobile devices (Compl. ¶120).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶115).
- Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- Receiving from a mobile device a request to identify POIs, where the request "comprises a plurality of letters."
- Determining the mobile device's location.
- Determining a POI with a name that comprises the plurality of letters.
- Transmitting the name of the POI to the mobile device.
- Receiving an indication of a selection of the name from the mobile device.
- Determining POI data associated with the selected POI.
- Transmitting the POI data to the mobile device.
- The complaint also asserts other independent claims (8 and 15) covering systems and computer-readable media (Compl. ¶116).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Petco mobile applications offered for use on iOS and Android devices," referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are part of Petco’s "fully-integrated, omnichannel" strategy and are available on the Apple AppStore and Google Play (Compl. ¶¶19, 23). A screenshot from the Google Play store indicates the app has over one million downloads (Compl. ¶25, Fig. 1). The app is described as "The Pet Parents Partner," and screenshots show functionality for personalizing a pet's care, booking appointments, and finding pickup and delivery options (Compl. ¶26, Fig. 2). These features are alleged to involve location-based searches for Petco stores and services, thereby implementing the infringing methods (Compl. ¶¶74, 131).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’899 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a command from a user's mobile device to locate points of interest near to a location of the user's mobile device, wherein each of the points of interest are associated with one of two or more different and user-identified point of interest categories | A user selects a pre-defined set of POI categories (e.g., "My Everyday Set") and initiates a search (e.g., "Find all"). | ¶66 | col. 8:12-16 |
| automatically determining the location of the user's mobile device | The system acquires the user's current location to perform the POI lookup. | ¶66 | col. 8:12-16 |
| based at least in part on the determined location, automatically providing to the user's mobile device a list of points of interest, wherein the list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories... | The system displays a single list of results containing the nearest POI from each of the different categories in the user-selected set (e.g., McDonalds, Starbucks, Chevron). | ¶66 | col. 8:18-21 |
| receiving input from the user's mobile device | A user selects an item from the initial results list or a "More [POI]" option to see additional listings. | ¶66 | col. 8:23-30 |
| providing a next-closer list of points of interest, wherein the next closer list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest... that are geographically next closest... | The system determines if additional listings exist and, if so, displays the next closest POI or set of POIs. | ¶66 | col. 8:26-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on a figure from the '899 patent showing a single results list containing items from different categories (e.g., a restaurant, a coffee shop, a gas station) presented together (Compl. p. 24; '899 Patent, Fig. 6). A central question may be whether the term "substantially simultaneously presents" requires this specific multi-category, single-list format. The dispute may focus on whether the Accused Products present results in this manner or if they require users to search for one category at a time, which may not meet the claim limitation.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Petco app allows a user to define a "set" of different POI categories (e.g., Grooming, Vet Services, Store Location) and then search for all of them with a single command to generate a mixed-category results list as required by the claim?
’834 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, from a mobile device, a request to identify points of interest near a location of the mobile device, wherein the request comprises a plurality of letters | A user enters text (a plurality of letters) into a search field within the mobile application. | ¶123 | col. 6:3-6 |
| determining the location of the mobile device | The system acquires the user's location to perform the location-based search. | ¶123 | col. 5:25-27 |
| determining a point of interest having a name comprising a first portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters | The system's backend logic identifies a POI (e.g., a "Kinkos" store) whose name matches the user's text input. | ¶123 | col. 5:17-21 |
| transmitting the name of the point of interest to the mobile device | The system displays a list of search results to the user containing the name of the identified POI. | ¶123 | col. 5:44-50 |
| receiving, from the mobile device, an indication of a selection of the name of the point of interest | The user taps on or otherwise selects one of the search results from the list. | ¶123 | col. 5:50-54 |
| determining point of interest data associated with the point of interest; and transmitting the point of interest data... | Upon user selection, the system retrieves and displays detailed information about the selected POI, such as its address, phone number, and directions. | ¶123 | col. 5:50-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The claim recites a specific sequence of steps for a text-based location search. The dispute may raise the question of whether this claimed method is technically distinct from conventional, well-understood search functionalities that existed at the time of the invention or in modern applications.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory is mapped to patent flowcharts (Compl. p. 45). An evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products' software architecture actually performs the steps in the sequence recited by the claim. For example, does the app receive the text query before determining the device's location, as the claim structure suggests?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’899 Patent:
- The Term: "substantially simultaneously presents" (Claim 4)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the alleged technical improvement over the prior art. Its construction will determine whether an accused product must display results from multiple, distinct POI categories in a single, mixed list at one time. If construed narrowly, infringement would require a user interface that mirrors the patent's figures; if construed broadly, it might cover any results screen that appears quickly after a single search command.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses general language, stating the system "provides a list of points of interest for at least some of the point of interest categories" ('899 Patent, col. 2:58-60), which could be argued to not strictly require a single, mixed list.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6, block 602, which the specification describes as displaying "the nearest POI in each category," explicitly shows a single list containing "McDonalds," "Starbucks," "Wells Fargo," and "Chevron" ('899 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 8:18-21). This specific embodiment may support a narrower construction requiring a mixed-category result list.
For the ’834 Patent:
- The Term: "a request to identify points of interest... wherein the request comprises a plurality of letters" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term, particularly its position as the first step in the method claim, is critical. It defines the user's initiating action. A key issue may be whether this "request" is a discrete data packet sent to a server that contains the text, or if it can be interpreted as the user's act of typing before a location is determined or a search is executed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is simple and does not specify the technical format of the "request," which could support an interpretation that it covers any user action involving typing letters to initiate a search.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowcharts, such as Figure 4, show a distinct user interface (block 404) for entering letters after a broader search category has been selected (block 402), suggesting the "request" is a specific step in a multi-stage process rather than a generic search bar entry ('834 Patent, Fig. 4).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of end-users to infringe by "advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Products," distributing instructions, and providing technical support (Compl. ¶¶77-79). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products have special features designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶85-86).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶75). The complaint further alleges Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" and has been "willfully blind" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶89).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: For the '899 patent, can the phrase "substantially simultaneously presents" be construed to cover a modern app interface that may require separate searches for different service categories, or is it limited to the patent’s specific embodiment of a single, mixed-category results list designed to overcome the latency of early mobile networks?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: For the '834 patent, which claims a specific sequence of receiving a text-based request before determining location and transmitting results, does the accused Petco app's software architecture follow this precise, ordered method, or does it represent a generic search functionality that operates differently?
- A third question will relate to non-obviousness: Given that both patents claim methods for location-based searching, a central issue may be whether the specific combinations of features—such as the multi-category simultaneous display ('899 patent) or the text-input-then-radius-expansion workflow ('834 patent)—would have been obvious improvements over the prior art in the context of 2004-era mobile technology.