Nearby Systems LLC v. Gap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Gap Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00094, E.D. Tex., 02/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s customer-facing mobile applications and websites for its retail brands infringe four patents related to displaying aggregated location-based content on a digital map.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for taking location data from one source or application and displaying it on an existing digital map, potentially alongside pre-existing points of interest, to create a consolidated "mashed-up" view.
• Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents belong to a single family and claim priority back to an application filed in 2007. The complaint indicates that U.S. Patent Nos. 10,469,980, 11,937,145, and 12,185,177 are continuations of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164, which may suggest a substantially common specification across the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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 ("the ’164 Patent"), "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 27, 2016.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent family's specification describes a limitation in prior art mapping systems where new mapping content originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., an address in an email) would be displayed on a new, separate digital map, thereby losing any context from a map the user was previously viewing (’980 Patent, col. 1:32-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for combining, or "mashing," mappable data from disparate sources onto a single digital map ’980 Patent, col. 1:41-44 Specifically, it allows a second set of mappable content, found outside the primary mapping application, to be transmitted to the mapping application and displayed "in conjunction with any of the existing (i.e. previously-displayed) mapping content" ’980 Patent, col. 1:49-53 This is illustrated in the patent family's figures, which show a new point of interest being added to a map that already contains other points of interest ’980 Patent, FIG. 1C
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables a more integrated user experience, allowing data from various applications (social media, email, websites) to be aggregated on a single map without losing the user's original geographic context.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of the ’164 Patent Compl. ¶26
  • The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims of the ’164 Patent for analysis.

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 ("the ’980 Patent"), "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued November 5, 2019.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: As with the parent ’164 Patent, the ’980 Patent addresses the problem of new location data from external sources being displayed on a blank map, which discards previously viewed mapping information ’980 Patent, col. 1:32-40
  • The Patented Solution: The patented system allows "addressable information" from a disparate, non-mapping application to be displayed on an existing map within a separate mapping application, preserving the "at least one prior mapping content previously displayed" ’980 Patent, abstract The specification describes a process where a user can select text in one application and invoke a command to display that location on a map that is already running or open, adding the new location alongside existing content ’980 Patent, col. 3:12-21 ’980 Patent, FIG. 1C
  • Technical Importance: The technology facilitates the creation of dynamic, context-rich maps by aggregating information from multiple application sources, a common feature in modern mobile operating systems.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of the ’980 Patent Compl. ¶43
  • Independent claim 1 of the ’980 Patent recites a system for displaying location-based content, comprising:
    • A memory storing a first non-browser 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 mobile device's location.
    • The memory also stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
    • The mapping component invokes the second non-browser (mapping) application and directs it to transmit a query to obtain and display driving directions from the mobile device's location to a destination location.

U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145
  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 ("the ’145 Patent"), "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued March 19, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of displaying location data from an external source on a new map, which loses any existing context Compl. ¶55 The described solution involves a system that combines this external "mappable data" with previously displayed content on a single digital map within a mobile mapping application ’145 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 Compl. ¶60
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's mobile applications, such as the Gap App, infringe by providing a system for displaying map information that allows users to identify and navigate to store locations Compl. ¶61

U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177
  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 ("the ’177 Patent"), "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 31, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: Consistent with the other patents in the family, the ’177 Patent is directed to improving mapping systems by combining "mappable data from disparate sources" onto a digital map that may already contain existing content Compl. ¶72 The goal is to display the new information "in conjunction with any of the existing (i.e., previously-displayed) mapping content" ’177 Patent, abstract
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 Compl. ¶77
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations target Defendant's mobile apps, which are alleged to provide a system and method for displaying map information to help customers find and navigate to retail stores Compl. ¶78

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Defendant's websites (e.g., https://www.gap.com) and associated mobile applications, including the "Gap App.," "Old Navy App," "Athleta App.," and "Banana Republic App." (collectively, the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶¶16-18

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "designed to allow Defendant's customers to locate stores" Compl. ¶18 This functionality is described as 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, 44, 61, 78). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of the Accused Products or their market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references evidentiary exhibits (Exhibits H, I, J, and K) that purport to detail the infringement of each patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶26, 43, 60, 77). As these exhibits are not included with the complaint, the following analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

’164 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’164 Patent Compl. ¶26 It summarizes the infringing functionality as providing a "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device... to allow a mobile device user to identify and navigate to locations offering Defendant's products" Compl. ¶27 The complaint does not provide an element-by-element mapping of the accused functionality to the asserted claims.

’980 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint's narrative allegations for the ’980 Patent are substantively identical to those for the ’164 Patent Compl. ¶44 The following table maps these general allegations to the specific limitations of independent claim 1 of the ’980 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 of the ’980 Patent recites a system architecture involving two distinct applications: a "first non-browser application" and a "second non-browser application that is a mapping application." An initial point of contention may be whether the Accused Products, which appear to provide integrated mapping features, meet this two-application structure. The analysis may raise the question of whether an application that incorporates a mapping SDK or API constitutes a single application or satisfies the "first" and "second" application limitations.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Accused Products allow users to "identify and navigate" to stores. A technical question for the court may be what evidence demonstrates that this functionality is achieved by the specific claim requirement where a "mapping component" of a first application "invokes" a second, separate mapping application to obtain and display driving directions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis based on U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980.

"a first non-browser application" ... and ... "a second non-browser application that is a mapping application"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this architectural language appears central to the dispute. Infringement will depend on whether an application with an embedded mapping feature (e.g., via an SDK) is considered a single application or if that structure meets the claim's requirement of two separate non-browser applications stored in memory, where one invokes the other.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes mapping information from "disparate applications," which could potentially be argued to include an application and a functionally separate but embedded SDK from a different provider ’980 Patent, abstract
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites two distinct applications stored in the device's memory ’980 Patent, col. 15:3-4; ’980 Patent, col. 15:23-25 The specification describes a process where a user may "launch another application" ’980 Patent, col. 2:55-56 and illustrates distinct application interfaces (e.g., a Facebook application in FIG. 1B and a mapping application in FIG. 1C). This may support a construction requiring two separate, standalone applications.

"mapping component"

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its structure and relationship to the "first" and "second" applications are critical. The claim recites the "mapping component" as part of the "first non-browser application" and as the element that "invokes the mapping application" (the second application).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component in functional terms, such as a "software module receiving location information and relaying it to a mapping application" ’980 Patent, col. 2:4-7, which might support a broad definition covering any code that performs this relay function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The block diagrams in Figures 10A and 10B depict the "MAPPING COMPONENT" as a structurally distinct block from both the "DISPLAY APPLICATION" and the external "MAPPING APPLICATION" ’980 Patent, FIG. 10A; ’980 Patent, FIG. 10B This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct software module.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Defendant for providing the Accused Products and encouraging their use through advertising and instructions (Compl. ¶¶28, 45). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products have special features designed for infringement that are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶29, 46).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when each was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶¶30, 47, 64, 81). The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶31, 48, 65, 82).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: does the asserted claim language requiring a "first non-browser application" that invokes a "second non-browser application that is a mapping application" read on the accused systems, which may utilize a single application with an integrated mapping SDK? This question will likely be central to claim construction and infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: given the general nature of the allegations, the case may turn on what evidence Plaintiff presents to demonstrate that the Accused Products perform the specific multi-step processes recited in the claims, particularly the invocation of a separate application to obtain and display driving directions as required by claim 1 of the ’980 Patent.