Nearby Systems LLC v. Albertsons Companies LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Albertsons Companies, LLC, and Albertsons Companies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00797, E.D. Tex., 08/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business within the district and have committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile applications for its grocery brands infringe four patents related to combining and displaying mapping content from different sources on mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for integrating location-based information from various applications (e.g., social media, email) onto a single, persistent map interface on a mobile device.
• Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents are part of a single family of continuation and continuation-in-part applications, claiming priority back to an application filed in October 2007.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-12	Earliest Patent Priority Date ('164, '980, '145, '177 Patents)
2016-12-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Issued
2019-11-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Issued
2024-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 Issued
2024-12-31	U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 Issued
2025-08-14	Complaint Filing Date

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

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a limitation in prior art mobile mapping systems where new location information originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., from a separate social media app) would be displayed on a new, separate digital map, which would not contain any of the previously displayed mapping content ('164 Patent, col. 1:30-40). This created a disjointed user experience.
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for combining, or "mashing," mappable data from disparate sources onto a single, persistent digital map within a mapping application on a mobile device ('164 Patent, col. 1:41-55). When a user activates "map-able content" in a first non-browser application, a "mapping component" invokes a second non-browser mapping application, which then displays the new location information in conjunction with the map's existing content ('164 Patent, col. 2:50-67; Figs. 1A-1C).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables the aggregation of location data from various contexts onto a single, unified map, creating a more integrated and contextually rich user experience on mobile devices (Compl. ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
• Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
  • A memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser (mapping) application.
  • A processor for executing these applications.
  • A user interface for the first non-browser application.
  • A mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke the second non-browser application when "map-able content" is activated.
  • The mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application.

---

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980, “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed on Mobile Devices,” issued November 5, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent '164 Patent, the '980 Patent addresses the problem of displaying location information from an external source on a new map that lacks pre-existing context ('980 Patent, col. 1:30-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for displaying location-based content where a mapping component in a first application invokes a second (mapping) application to display new location data ('980 Patent, Abstract). The system uses a GPS device to determine the mobile device's location and directs the mapping application to transmit a query that includes the device's location to an online mapping service ('980 Patent, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology focuses on integrating a device's current location with external points of interest, facilitating navigation and route-planning functionalities on a unified map (Compl. ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
• Claim 1 (System Claim) Elements:
  • A memory storing a first non-browser application.
  • A processor executing the application.
  • A touch screen displaying a user interface.
  • A GPS device determining the mobile device's location.
  • A mapping component that communicates with an online mapping service to download map data.
  • The memory stores a second non-browser (mapping) application.
  • The mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs it to transmit a query including the mobile device's location.

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145, “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices,” issued March 19, 2024 (Compl. ¶58).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the theme of the asserted patent family, describing a system for displaying location-based content from a first non-browser application on a map within a second non-browser application. The system responds to a user's text input to generate map data from an online service, including points of interest corresponding to the location (Compl. ¶59; '145 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Albertsons Apps provide a system for displaying map information to allow users to identify and navigate to store locations (Compl. ¶65).

---

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 (Compl. ¶75).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent also describes a system for combining mapping data on a mobile device. A key aspect is the interaction between two non-browser applications, where a user selection in the first application causes a mapping component to query an online service and display the resulting map and points of interest in a second application (Compl. ¶76; '177 Patent, Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶81).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Albertsons Apps provide a system for displaying map information to allow users to identify and navigate to store locations (Compl. ¶82).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Albertsons Apps," which include the Albertsons Deals & Delivery App, the Randalls Deals & Delivery App, and the Tom Thumb Deals & Delivery App (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The Accused Products are mobile device applications designed to allow customers to locate stores and manage their accounts (Compl. ¶22).
  • The complaint alleges these applications provide a system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device, using that data to present text and maps that allow a user to identify and navigate to locations offering Defendants' products (Compl. ¶31, ¶48, ¶65, ¶82).
  • The applications are made available for download by Defendants through smartphone app providers such as the Apple App Store and Google Play Store (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of each of the four asserted patents but does not provide claim charts or detailed feature mapping in the body of the complaint. Instead, it references Exhibits E, F, G, and H as containing "Exemplary Evidence of Use Regarding Infringement" for each patent, respectively (Compl. ¶30, ¶47, ¶64, ¶81). As these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided document.

The narrative infringement theory is that the Accused Products provide a system for displaying map information on a mobile device to allow users to identify and navigate to Defendants' store locations (Compl. ¶31, ¶48). This general functionality is alleged to meet the limitations of the asserted claims. The complaint does not specify which software components of the Accused Products correspond to claim elements like the "mapping component" or how the accused system "invokes" a mapping application as claimed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mapping component" (from '164 Patent, Claim 1; '980 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears to define the core inventive element responsible for linking the first non-browser application to the second mapping application and an online service. The construction of this term will be central to determining whether the software architecture of the Accused Products contains a corresponding structure that performs the claimed functions.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the component functionally, stating it is "configured to invoke the second non-browser application" ('164 Patent, col. 15:8-10) and "transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service" ('164 Patent, col. 15:15-18). This functional language may support an interpretation covering various software implementations that achieve these results.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the component as part of a system where different applications are distinct entities (e.g., Facebook, then a mapping app) ('164 Patent, col. 2:50-67). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific module within a first distinct application that calls a second, separate mapping application, as opposed to an integrated mapping feature using an OS-level API.

• The Term: "invokes" (the second non-browser application) ('164 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The mechanism of "invoking" is critical to the infringement analysis. The dispute may center on whether this term requires launching a separate, standalone application process that takes over the screen, or if it can cover more modern, integrated methods like making an API call to a mapping service that renders a map within the first application's view.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "invoke" is a general term in software and could be argued to cover any method of calling or initiating a function or application.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 3 of the '164 Patent specifies that the operating system is "configured to completely hide the user interface of the first non-browser application when the second non-browser application is invoked." This language suggests that "invoke" contemplates a process where one application is replaced on-screen by another, which may support a narrower definition that excludes seamless, in-app map views.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
  • Inducement: It is alleged that Defendants induce infringement by providing the Accused Products and taking active steps with specific intent, such as "distributing instructions that guide users" and "advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶32, ¶49, ¶66, ¶83).
  • Contributory Infringement: It is alleged that the Accused Products have "special features that are specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶33, ¶50, ¶67, ¶84).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when each was notified of the filing of this action" (post-suit knowledge) (Compl. ¶34, ¶51, ¶68, ¶85). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, stating on information and belief that Defendants have a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶35, ¶52, ¶69, ¶86).

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

• An Evidentiary Question of Specificity: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and rely entirely on unattached exhibits. A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to map the specific architecture and functionality of the Accused Products to the elements of the asserted claims, particularly given the lack of detail in the complaint itself.
• A Core Issue of Technological Scope: The case will likely hinge on whether the method of displaying maps in the modern "Albertsons Apps" aligns with the specific system architecture claimed in a patent family with a 2007 priority date. A central question for claim construction will be whether terms like "mapping component" and "invokes" can be construed to cover modern mobile operating system interactions (e.g., API calls to an OS-level map service) or if they are limited to the distinct application-to-application handoff described in the patents' specifications.
• A Question of Intent: For the indirect infringement and willfulness claims, a key focus will be on Defendants' state of mind. Plaintiff will need to prove not only that users directly infringed, but that Defendants specifically intended to encourage that infringement through their instructions and marketing, and that any post-suit infringement was knowing and deliberate or willfully blind.