DCT

2:25-cv-01056

Nearby Systems LLC v. Nordstrom Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01056, E.D. Tex., 10/21/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website and "Nordstrom App" for mobile devices infringe four patents related to combining and displaying mapping content from disparate sources.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for taking location-based data found in one software application and displaying it on a map within a separate mapping application, in conjunction with pre-existing map content.
  • Key Procedural History: The four patents-in-suit are part of a single family, all claiming priority to a 2007 patent application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant validity challenges concerning these patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-10-12 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents (’164, ’980, ’145, ’177)
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
2025-10-21 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices" (Issued Dec. 27, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior art mobile mapping services where new mapping content originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., from a separate website or email) could only be displayed on a new, separate digital map, thereby losing the context of any information the user was previously viewing (’164 Patent, col. 1:29-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a mobile device to combine "mappable data from disparate sources onto a single digital map." A second set of content found outside the primary mapping application is transmitted to it and displayed "in conjunction with any of the existing (i.e. previously-displayed) mapping content" (’164 Patent, col. 2:40-52). This process is illustrated in Figures 1A-1C, which show a point of interest from one application being added to an existing map from another application, with both points remaining visible (’164 Patent, Figs. 1A-1C).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of a richer, integrated map by consolidating location information from various sources without forcing the user to switch between different, non-persistent map views (’164 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System Claim):
    • A memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser (mapping) application.
    • A processor executing the applications.
    • A user interface of the first application displaying "map-able content."
    • A mapping component that, when the map-able content is activated, invokes the second (mapping) application.
    • The mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service that communicates with the second non-browser application.

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices" (Issued Nov. 5, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’164 Patent: mapping content from an external source is typically displayed on a new map, losing the context of previously displayed points of interest (’980 Patent, col. 1:29-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for mapping "addressable information" from "disparate applications" onto an "existing map" on a mobile device. This allows new information to be displayed "in addition to at least one prior mapping content previously displayed by the map-display application" (’980 Patent, Abstract). The specification describes a user selecting mappable information in one application (e.g., Facebook) and invoking a command to display it on a digital map in a separate map-display application that already contains other information (’980 Patent, col. 2:53-65; Figs. 1A-1C).
  • Technical Importance: The technology facilitates a unified mapping experience by allowing users to aggregate geographic data from different software environments onto a single, persistent map view (’980 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System Claim):
    • A memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser (mapping) application.
    • A processor, touch screen, and GPS device.
    • A mapping component in the first non-browser application that communicates with an online mapping service to download and display a map.
    • The mapping component invokes the second mapping application and directs it to transmit a query (including the mobile device's location and a destination) to the online service to obtain and display driving directions.

U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices" (Issued Mar. 19, 2024)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued March 19, 2024 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of displaying location data from an external software application on an existing map without losing previously displayed content (’145 Patent, col. 1:33-43). The solution involves transmitting content from a disparate source to a mapping application for display in conjunction with existing map content (’145 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Nordstrom App" infringes by providing a system for displaying map information to help users identify and navigate to store locations (Compl. ¶61).

U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices" (Issued Dec. 31, 2024)

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 31, 2024 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses displaying location-based information from disparate applications on a single, persistent map on a mobile device (’177 Patent, col. 1:33-43). The patented method allows a mapping application to receive and display new addressable information alongside previously displayed mapping content (’177 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Nordstrom App" infringes by providing customers with a method for displaying map information to find and navigate to retail locations (Compl. ¶78).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the website "https://www.nordstrom.com" and the "Nordstrom App" made available for download on smartphones (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶16, 17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are designed to allow customers to "locate stores and/or manage their accounts after locating and ordering from the closest Nordstrom location" (Compl. ¶18). The functionality is described as a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device... to allow the mobile device user to identify and navigate to locations offering Defendant's products" (Compl. ¶¶27, 44). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the architecture or operation of the mapping features within the Accused Products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of each of the four asserted patents but does not include the evidentiary exhibits (Exhibits H, I, J, K) referenced as detailing the infringement analysis (Compl. ¶¶26, 43, 60, 77). The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is high-level, stating for each patent that the Accused Products provide a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device" that allows users to "identify and navigate to locations" (Compl. ¶¶27, 44, 61, 78). The complaint does not contain specific, element-by-element allegations mapping features of the Accused Products to the limitations of the asserted claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products actually perform the core "mashing" function described in the patents. For instance, what evidence does the complaint provide that the Nordstrom App receives mappable content from a "disparate application" (as required by the patents' teachings) and displays it on an existing map that already contains "previously-displayed" content? The complaint's description of a general store locator does not, on its face, establish this specific functionality.
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether a single, integrated retail application with an embedded mapping feature (like a store locator) meets the architectural elements of claims that recite a "first non-browser application" invoking a "second non-browser application that is a mapping application" (e.g., ’980 Patent, Claim 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a second non-browser application that is a mapping application" (from Claim 1 of the ’980 Patent).

    • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the architecture of the claimed system. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the mapping functionality within the Nordstrom App can be considered a distinct "second... application" that is "invoked" by the primary app, or if it is merely an integrated feature.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses relaying information to various mapping services like "Google Maps®, Yahoo! Maps®,...iPhone® maps," which are distinct applications (’980 Patent, Abstract). This may support a construction where invoking any separate mapping service or module, even one tightly integrated, meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description often depict two clearly separate applications running on a mobile device, such as Facebook and a map-display application, where a user takes an action in the first to send information to the second (’980 Patent, Figs. 1A-1C, col. 2:53-62). This could support a narrower construction requiring two truly independent, separately executable applications.

  • The Term: "transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service" (from Claim 1 of the ’164 Patent).

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the data flow for generating the map. Proving infringement requires showing that the Accused Products not only display a map but do so by sending specific "map-able content" (originating from the first application) to an external service.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly describes a "mapping component" communicating with an "online mapping service" over a network (’164 Patent, Figs. 10A, col. 14:10-23). This could be interpreted to cover any architecture where a front-end application sends location data to a back-end server for map generation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context of the invention involves taking content that is "found outside the mapping application" and sending it to the service (’164 Patent, col. 2:48-52). This may support a narrower reading where the "map-able content" must originate from a disparate source and not simply be, for example, a pre-programmed list of store locations already within the primary application's data.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant providing the Accused Products and distributing instructions that guide users to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶28, 45). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Products have "special features" specifically designed for infringement that are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶29, 46).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on two grounds: (1) Defendant's knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the lawsuit (post-suit knowledge) and (2) a pre-suit "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff characterizes as willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶30-33, 47-50).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does the Nordstrom App's store locator function merely display store locations on a map, or does it perform the specific "mashing" process claimed in the patents—namely, taking mappable content from a separate, "disparate" application and adding it to an existing map view that preserves "previously-displayed" content? The facts supporting this technical point are not detailed in the complaint.
  • A second key issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the integrated mapping feature of the Nordstrom App be considered a "second non-browser application" that is "invoked" by a "first non-browser application," as required by certain asserted claims? The construction of these architectural terms will be critical in determining whether the structure of the Accused Products aligns with the structure of the patented systems.