Geographic Location Innovations LLC v. Freestyle Brands LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Geographic Location Innovations LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Freesytle Brands, LLC d/b/a FreestyleUSA (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia Johnson, PLLC
• Case Identification: 3:21-cv-00301, N.D. Tex., 02/10/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a resident of the district and because acts of infringement are occurring in the district where Defendant has a regular and established place of business.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website store locator system infringes a patent related to remotely providing location information and route guidance to a positional device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the server-client architecture used to provide online map-based store locators and navigation guidance to users on internet-connected devices like smartphones.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,917,285 - "Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges with early GPS devices, including inconsistent address formats across different devices, the inconvenience of re-entering the same addresses on multiple devices, and the difficulty and safety risks of inputting a destination while driving (’285 Patent, col. 1:41-2:13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a user’s positional device (e.g., a GPS unit or smartphone) requests location information from a remote server. The server determines the coordinates for the requested location and transmits them back to the device, which then calculates and displays route guidance (’285 Patent, col. 2:32-55; Fig. 3). This centralized, remote entry method is intended to bypass the need for direct, manual address input on the end-user device (’285 Patent, col. 3:60-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to streamline user interaction with navigation systems by offloading the task of address lookup to a remote server, offering a more user-friendly and safer alternative to device-specific manual entry (’285 Patent, col. 2:26-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 (’285 Patent, col. 14:26-53; Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of independent claim 13 are:
  • A server configured to receive a request for an address, determine the address, and transmit it.
  • The server receives a time and date associated with the request and transmits the time and date with the determined address.
  • A positional information device, which includes:
    • a locational information module for determining its own location.
    • a communication module for receiving the address from the server.
    • a processing module for determining route guidance.
    • a display module for displaying the route guidance.
  • The positional information device displays the determined address at the associated time and date.
  • A communications network coupling the device to the server.
• The complaint states Plaintiff may assert infringement of "one or more claims, including at least Claim 13" (Compl. ¶22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "store locator system," which includes its mobile website and associated hardware (Compl. ¶¶22-23).

Functionality and Market Context

The system allows a user to find dealer locations via a mobile website on a device such as a smartphone or tablet (Compl. ¶23). The user can input a location (e.g., a zip code), and the system provides a list and map of nearby stores (Compl. ¶¶24-25). The system is alleged to then determine and display route guidance to a selected store based on the user's current location (Compl. ¶28). The complaint provides a screenshot from the accused website showing a map with multiple store locations plotted as pins. (Compl. p. 9, Fig. at top).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’285 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's theory appears to rely on a combination of Defendant's server and an end-user's smartphone to meet the elements of the claimed "system." This may raise questions of divided infringement, specifically whether Defendant directs or controls the user's device in a manner sufficient to be liable for infringement of the entire system claim.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question may be whether the server's alleged receipt of a timestamp via a client-side JavaScript function (e.g., "new Date().getTime();"), which appears to be part of a performance monitoring script, satisfies the claim limitation that "the server receives a time and date associated with the requested at least one location." The complaint shows turn-by-turn directions being provided, which is evidence of route guidance. (Compl. p. 12, Fig. at right). However, the evidence for the server receiving and using a time/date stamp specifically associated with the location request (as opposed to for page-load telemetry) may be a point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "system"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 13 is directed to a "system" comprising both a server and a "positional information device." Plaintiff's infringement theory requires combining Defendant's server with a third-party end-user's smartphone. The definition of "system" and the legal requirements for who is considered to "make" or "use" such a divided system will be critical to determining liability.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the components (server, device, network) as interacting to perform the method, which could support the view that they form a "system" regardless of who owns each component (e.g., ’285 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 8:11-17).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly discuss a scenario where the server provider and the device owner are separate, unaffiliated entities. Embodiments are described from the perspective of a unified service (e.g., a "telematics service"), which could suggest an interpretation requiring a single, controlling entity (’285 Patent, col. 9:1-12).

• The Term: "server receives a time and date associated with the requested at least one location"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is a specific, required function of the server. The complaint's primary evidence is a snippet of client-side JavaScript. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement read depends on whether a client-side performance-monitoring timestamp, which is sent back to a server, qualifies as the server "receiving" a time and date that is "associated with the requested... location" in the manner claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not specify the purpose for which the server receives the time and date, only that it does. One could argue that any timestamp captured during the location request transaction is "associated with" it, and if that data is sent to the server for any reason (e.g., analytics), the server has "received" it. The patent itself suggests transmitting the time and date so that the GPS can display the address at a specified time, implying a scheduling function (col. 10:55-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the time/date as a feature for scheduling future route guidance (e.g., for a trip itinerary) (col. 12:53-65). The claim states the device "displays the determined address at the associated time and date," suggesting a functional link. A court could find that a transient, client-side performance metric, whose primary purpose is unrelated to scheduling or logging the location request itself, does not meet the functional context implied by the specification and the full claim language.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶22). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant provides the website and associated system, which, when used by customers as intended, results in direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of willful infringement or plead facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’285 Patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of divided infringement: Can Plaintiff establish that Defendant is liable for infringing the claimed "system" when it only controls the server component, while the "positional information device" is owned and operated by an end-user? The outcome may depend on the degree of control or direction Defendant is found to exercise over the end-user's device.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional satisfaction: Does the accused system's use of a client-side JavaScript function to capture a timestamp for what appears to be website performance monitoring meet the claim limitation requiring the server to "receive... a time and date associated with the requested... location," particularly when the patent specification ties this feature to scheduling and displaying future travel itineraries?