DCT
2:25-cv-01095
Nearby Systems LLC v. Shell Information Technology Intl BV
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Shell USA, Inc. (Delaware); Shell Information Technology International B.V. (Netherlands)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01095, E.D. Tex., 11/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district, including multiple Shell gas stations and petroleum infrastructure, and have committed acts of infringement in the district. Venue over the foreign defendant, SITIBV, is alleged to be proper in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Shell Mobile App infringes four patents related to combining and displaying mappable content from disparate sources on a mobile device.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for integrating location-based data found in non-mapping applications (e.g., emails, social media) onto a single, persistent digital map, a foundational concept for modern, interconnected mobile services.
- Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents are part of a single family and share a common specification, with the later patents claiming continuation status from the application that led to the earliest-issued patent. This prosecution history suggests the patents describe a related set of inventive concepts evolving over time.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-10-12 | Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted 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 |
| 2025-11-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 - “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164, “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices,” issued December 27, 2016 (the "’164 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in prior art mobile mapping systems where new mapping content originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., an address in a separate email application) could only be displayed on a new digital map, which would not contain any of the previously-displayed mapping information from the original map context (’164 Patent, col. 1:33-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a mobile device to take “mappable data from disparate sources” and combine it onto a single digital map within a mapping application (’164 Patent, col. 1:41-44). This allows new location information, found in a separate, non-mapping application, to be transmitted to an existing mapping application and displayed in conjunction with the map’s existing content, preserving context (’164 Patent, col. 1:49-54; Figs. 1A-1C).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables the integration of location data from various applications (e.g., social media, communications, web browsers) onto a unified map, creating a more seamless and context-rich user experience.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system with a memory storing a first non-browser application and a processor executing it.
- A mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke a second non-browser application (which is a mapping application) when map-able content is activated.
- The mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service that communicates with the second non-browser (mapping) application.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980, “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices,” issued November 5, 2019 (the "’980 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’164 Patent, the ’980 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the inability of prior art systems to add location information from an external application to an already-displayed map without losing the original map’s content (’980 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method and apparatus for mapping information from disparate applications onto an existing map on a mobile device (’980 Patent, Abstract). It allows a user to select addressable information in one application (e.g., an email) and invoke a command to automatically present that information on a map-display application that retains its prior content (’980 Patent, col. 2:54-65).
- Technical Importance: This technology facilitates a workflow where users can aggregate points of interest from multiple sources onto a single map, which is central to planning and navigation on mobile devices.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system including a memory with a first non-browser application, a processor, a touch screen, and a GPS device.
- A mapping component that communicates with an online mapping service, transmitting a query that includes the mobile device's location.
- The memory stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
- The mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs it to transmit a query including a destination location to the online mapping service to obtain driving directions.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 - “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145, “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices,” issued March 19, 2024 (the "’145 Patent").
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for displaying location-based content where a user's touch of text corresponding to a location in a first non-browser application triggers a query to an online mapping service. The service returns a map that is then displayed in a second non-browser application (a mapping app), showing a route from the mobile device's location to the selected location (’145 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶65).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, including the Shell Mobile App, provide a system for displaying map information to identify and navigate to locations, thereby infringing the ’145 Patent (Compl. ¶66).
U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 - “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177, “Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices,” issued December 31, 2024 (the "’177 Patent").
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system where a user enters text for a location, which is sent to a mapping service. In response, a map with at least one point-of-interest (POI) is displayed. A user selection of one of the POIs then causes the system to transmit a new query to the mapping service corresponding to that selected POI (’177 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶82).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, including the Shell Mobile App, provide a system for displaying map information to identify and navigate to locations, thereby infringing the ’177 Patent (Compl. ¶83).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is primarily the "Shell: Fuel, Charge & More, App" (the “Shell Mobile App”), which is available for download on smartphone app providers (Compl. ¶20-21). The complaint collectively refers to the app and associated services as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The Shell Mobile App is alleged to be a mobile device application that allows customers to locate Shell fuel stations and EV chargers, pay for services, and manage accounts (Compl. ¶22). The complaint states that the app provides a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device" to allow users to "identify and navigate to locations" offering Shell's products (Compl. ¶32, 49). It is advertised with the phrase “Locate nearby gas stations and EV chargers” (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references exhibits (Exhibits H, I, J, K) as containing "Exemplary Evidence of Use Regarding Infringement" for each asserted patent, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶22, 31, 48, 65, 82). The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations, which are general in nature and nearly identical for all four asserted patents.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges that the Shell Mobile App provides a system for displaying map information on a mobile device to help users find and navigate to Shell locations (Compl. ¶32, 49, 66, 83). This general functionality is mapped to the asserted claims. The following tables summarize the apparent infringement theory for the lead patents based on these allegations.
'164 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke the second non-browser application on the mobile device when map-able content displayed on the user interface is activated | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of a "first" and "second" non-browser application structure within the accused Shell Mobile App. | ¶32 | col. 15:5-13 |
| wherein the second non-browser application is a mapping application, | The Shell Mobile App is described as providing a system for displaying map information, which is consistent with the functionality of a mapping application. | ¶32 | col. 15:14-15 |
| wherein the mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application. | The Shell Mobile App allegedly obtains data to display maps that present information for navigation, which suggests communication with a back-end or online mapping service. | ¶32 | col. 15:16-19 |
'980 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a GPS device of the mobile device determining a location of the mobile device, | The app's function to "Locate nearby gas stations" suggests it uses the device's location, which is typically determined by a GPS device. | ¶23 | col. 15:11-12 |
| a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to communicate with an online mapping service...wherein the mapping component transmits a query including the location of the mobile device to the online mapping service, | The app allegedly displays map information to allow users to navigate to locations, which suggests that the app's mapping component transmits the device's location to a service to retrieve relevant map data. | ¶49 | col. 15:13-21 |
| wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query including the location of the mobile device and a destination location... | The app’s function of allowing users to identify and navigate to locations suggests a process of selecting a destination and receiving directions, which would require a query to a mapping service. | ¶49 | col. 15:24-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Questions: The core of the patents' inventive concept appears to relate to integrating data from a separate, disparate application into a mapping application. The complaint accuses a single, self-contained application (the Shell Mobile App). A primary point of contention may be whether the Shell Mobile App's internal architecture can be characterized as having a "first non-browser application" that "invokes" a "second non-browser application," as required by claims like Claim 1 of the ’164 Patent. The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations to support such a distributed architecture.
- Functional Questions: The patents describe "mashing" external content onto an existing map. The complaint alleges the Shell Mobile App provides map-based location finding. This raises the question of whether the app performs the specific function of integrating external, third-party data as described in the patent specification, or if it simply displays its own proprietary data (a list of Shell stations) on a map interface, a function that may differ from the patented method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "first non-browser application" and "second non-browser application that is a mapping application"
Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for claims like Claim 1 of the '164 and '980 Patents hinges on whether the accused Shell Mobile App can be considered to be, or to contain, two distinct applications as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product appears to be a single, integrated application, creating a potential mismatch with the claim language.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses embodiments where a "mapping component" and a "display application" are distinct modules, which could support an argument that the claims cover separate software components within a single parent application, not just separately installed applications (’980 Patent, Fig. 10B).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses examples of distinct, commonly understood applications, such as an "email application" and a separate "Mapping Application," to illustrate the invention (’980 Patent, Figs. 7A-7C). This may support an interpretation limiting the claims to interactions between two different, standalone applications.
The Term: "invokes"
Context and Importance: The nature of the interaction between the "first" and "second" applications is defined by this term. Its construction will be critical to determining whether an internal API call between software modules, as might occur in a single app, constitutes infringement, or if the term requires the operating system to launch a separate application process.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "invoke" is a general software term that could encompass a wide range of function calls or inter-process communications.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states that the map-display application "may be automatically presented (e.g., launches, become visible, displayed, etc.)," suggesting a more significant event than a background API call, such as bringing a new application to the foreground (’980 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Defendants providing the Accused Products along with advertising and instructions that allegedly encourage infringing use (Compl. ¶33, 50, 67, 84). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Products have "special features" designed for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶34, 51, 68, 85).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when they were notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶35, 52, 69, 86). The complaint also alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶36, 53, 70, 87).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: does the claim language requiring a "first non-browser application" that "invokes" a "second non-browser application" read on the functions of a single, integrated mobile app like the accused Shell Mobile App? The resolution will depend on whether these terms are construed to mean distinct software applications or can extend to separate modules within one application.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the accused Shell Mobile App perform the patented "mash-up" of combining location data from a disparate, external source onto an existing map, as emphasized in the patents' specification? Or does it perform a different function of displaying its own proprietary data on a map, which may raise questions about whether its operation aligns with the patented invention.