DCT
2:25-cv-00682
Nearby Systems LLC v. Little Caesar Enterprises Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00682, E.D. Tex., 07/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile application and website infringe four patents related to combining and displaying mappable content from disparate sources on a mobile device's digital map.
- Technical Context: The technology involves integrating location-based data found in one software application (e.g., a social media app or email) onto a map displayed by a separate mapping application, preserving the context of previously displayed information.
- Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents are part of a single family of continuing applications, all claiming priority to a patent application filed in 2007. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-10-12 | Earliest Priority Date for ’164, ’980, ’145, and ’177 Patents |
| 2016-12-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Issues |
| 2019-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Issues |
| 2024-03-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 Issues |
| 2024-12-31 | U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 Issues |
| 2025-07-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued November 5, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior art mapping services where new mapping content originating outside of a mapping application (e.g., a location mentioned in a separate application) could only be displayed on a new digital map, which would not contain any previously displayed mappable information, thereby losing user context (’980 Patent, col. 1:28-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a mobile device to combine mappable data from "disparate sources onto a single digital map" (’980 Patent, col. 1:40-42). A second set of mappable content, found outside the primary mapping application, is transmitted to the mapping application and displayed "in conjunction with any of the existing (i.e. previously-displayed) mapping content" (’980 Patent, col. 1:48-52). Figures 1A-1C illustrate this by first showing a map with one point of interest, then showing a user selecting a location from a different application, and finally showing a map displaying both the original and the new points of interest simultaneously (’980 Patent, Figs. 1A-1C).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables the aggregation of location data from various applications onto a single, persistent map view, creating a more integrated and context-aware user experience on a mobile device (’980 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A system with a memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
- A processor executing the first non-browser application.
- A touch screen displaying the user interface of the first non-browser application.
- A GPS device determining the mobile device's location.
- A mapping component within the first non-browser application that communicates with an online mapping service to download and display a map based on the device's location.
- The mapping component invokes the second non-browser (mapping) application, directing it to transmit a query to obtain and display driving directions from the device's location to a destination.
- The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶42).
U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued March 19, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with other patents in the family, the technology addresses the problem of displaying location data from an external application on a new map, which causes the user to lose the context of any previously viewed points of interest (’145 Patent, col. 1:35-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system where a user interaction within a first "non-browser application" triggers a "second non-browser application" to display map data. Specifically, upon a user touching text associated with an icon on a map in the first application, the system sends a query to an online mapping service and displays a new map in the second application showing a route between the user's location and the icon's location (’145 Patent, col. 15:18-28).
- Technical Importance: This technology facilitates a direct workflow from identifying a point of interest in one application context to obtaining navigational information in another, streamlining location-based tasks on a mobile device (’145 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A system with a memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application.
- A processor executing the first non-browser application.
- A touch screen displaying a first user interface of the first application, which shows a map, an icon, and associated text.
- A GPS device determining the device's location.
- A mapping component that, upon receiving a touch of the text, transmits a query with the device's location and the icon's location to an online mapping service.
- In response, the touch screen displays a second user interface from the second non-browser application, showing a second map with the device's location, the icon's location, and a route between them.
- The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶59).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 27, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of displaying location data from an external application on a new map, which causes the loss of previously displayed mapping context. The patented solution enables the combination of "mappable data from disparate sources" onto a single, existing digital map, thereby preserving user context.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Little Caesars App and website of providing a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device" that allows users to identify and navigate to store locations (Compl. ¶¶21, 27).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 31, 2024.
- Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family, this invention addresses the challenge of integrating location data from different applications onto a single map. It provides a system where location information from one application can be added to an existing map in a separate mapping application, allowing for the aggregation of points of interest.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Little Caesars App and website of providing a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device" to help customers find and navigate to stores (Compl. ¶¶72, 78).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Products" are identified as the "Little Caesars App" and the website https://littlecaesars.com/en-us/ (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused Products are designed to allow customers to locate Little Caesars stores (Compl. ¶18). They are described as providing a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device... to obtain the data to display text and maps that present information to allow a mobile device user to identify and navigate to locations offering Defendant's products" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation or architecture of the accused mapping features. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 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 Little Caesars App is a non-browser application made available for download and stored in the memory of a user's mobile device (e.g., smartphone). | ¶17 | col. 15:3-5 |
| a processor of the mobile device executing the first non-browser application; | A user's mobile device processor executes the Little Caesars App to allow customers to locate stores. | ¶18 | col. 15:6-7 |
| a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to communicate with an online mapping service to... display a map within the user interface of the first non-browser application... | The Little Caesars App provides a system for displaying map information on a mobile device. | ¶27 | col. 15:12-16 |
| wherein the memory stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application, and | The complaint's theory requires that the Little Caesars App works in concert with or invokes a separate mapping application or functionality on the user's device. | ¶44 | col. 15:21-23 |
| wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query... to obtain driving directions... | The Accused Products provide functionality to allow a user to navigate to locations offering Defendant's products. | ¶44 | col. 15:24-28 |
U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a touch screen of the mobile device displaying a first user interface of the first non-browser application, wherein the first user interface displays a first map, an icon... and a text associated with the icon; | The Little Caesars App displays store locations on a map, which would constitute the map, icon, and associated text (e.g., store name/address). | ¶61 | col. 15:10-14 |
| wherein upon receiving a touch of the touch screen corresponding to the text, the mapping component transmits a query including the location of the mobile device and the location of the icon to the online mapping service... | The Little Caesars App allegedly allows a user to select a store location on the map to obtain navigational information. | ¶61 | col. 15:18-23 |
| wherein, in response to the query, the touch screen displays in a second user interface of the second non-browser application a second map of... and a route between the location of the mobile device and the location of the icon. | The Little Caesars App allegedly displays a map with a route to the selected store after a user interacts with the store's icon or text. | ¶61 | col. 15:23-28 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the claim limitations requiring a "first non-browser application" and a "second non-browser application" are met by a single, monolithic application that includes an embedded mapping feature (e.g., using a software development kit like Google Maps SDK). The court may need to determine if such an embedded feature constitutes a distinct "application" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Little Caesars App "invokes" a "second non-browser application" as required by claim 1 of the ’980 Patent? The complaint's allegations are general and do not specify whether the accused functionality is internal to the Little Caesars App or calls an external, separately installed mapping application. Similarly, for the ’145 Patent, it is an open question whether a change in view within the same app (e.g., from a general map to a route display) constitutes a "second user interface of the second non-browser application."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "first non-browser application" and "second non-browser application"
Context and Importance: The construction of this pair of terms appears central to the dispute. Infringement may turn on whether the accused Little Caesars App, which may be a single piece of software, can be considered to embody two distinct "applications" as required by the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant may argue its product is a single, integrated application, while the plaintiff may argue that a functionally distinct mapping module or invoked service meets the definition of a "second... application."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to combining data from "disparate applications" and a "secondary application" (’980 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-27), suggesting a focus on functional separation rather than strict structural separation. The patent also describes a mapping component as an element that can receive data from "other applications," which could be interpreted broadly to include distinct software modules or services (’980 Patent, col. 5:31-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description provides examples of distinct, separately identifiable applications, such as "Facebook 150" and a "mapping application" that is launched separately (’980 Patent, col. 2:55-61; Figs. 1B-1C). This could support a narrower definition requiring two separately installed and executed programs, not an integrated component within a single program.
The Term: "invokes"
Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the required interaction between the two alleged applications. The infringement analysis will depend on whether "invokes" requires launching a separate application process or can be read to cover an internal function call to an embedded software library or SDK.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a process where a mapping application may be "minimized" and then "re-opened," or "restored into full view" (’980 Patent, col. 3:17-21; col. 3:48-50). This language could support a broad interpretation covering various methods of bringing mapping functionality to the foreground, including activating an embedded component.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’980 Patent states "the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query." This two-part action may suggest a level of control and command hand-off more consistent with inter-process communication between two separate applications rather than an internal function call.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant providing the Accused Products and "distributing instructions that guide users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner" (e.g., Compl. ¶28, ¶45). The contributory infringement allegations state the Accused Products have "special features that are specially designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than" the infringing ones (e.g., Compl. ¶29, ¶46).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when each was notified of the filing of this action" (e.g., Compl. ¶30, ¶47) and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," constituting willful blindness (e.g., Compl. ¶31, ¶48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "first non-browser application" and "second non-browser application" be construed to cover a single software application that contains an integrated mapping component or SDK, or do the claims require two distinct, separately executable programs on a mobile device?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural equivalence: does the software architecture of the Little Caesars App in fact perform the claimed steps of one "application" or "component" invoking another and passing specific query data between them, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that the complaint's high-level allegations do not address?
- A central dispute will likely concern claim construction: the outcome of the case may heavily depend on how the court defines the structural relationship between the software elements recited in the claims, particularly whether a functional module within a single app can satisfy the requirement for a "second... application."