DCT
1:25-cv-01734
University Of Souhern California v. Google LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: University of Southern California (California)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks & Nessim, LLP; Carter Arnett PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01734, W.D. Tex., 10/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Google maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including corporate offices in Austin, operates data centers in Texas that allegedly house data for the accused products, and employs personnel in the district responsible for the development and operation of those products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View products infringe patents related to systems and methods for seamlessly overlaying two-dimensional (2D) images onto a three-dimensional (3D) model.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the integration of user-contributed photographs and other 2D imagery into navigable 3D digital maps, a foundational capability for modern virtual navigation and geographic information systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Google was aware of the technology prior to the patents issuing, citing a research award it provided in August 2007 to the inventor's university project. It further alleges knowledge based on Google’s own patents citing the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff also claims to have contacted Google regarding a potential license in April 2024.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-06-26 | Patent Priority Date (’929 and ’504 Patents) |
| 2011-09-27 | ’929 Patent Issued |
| 2012-09-11 | ’504 Patent Issued |
| 2025-10-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,026,929 - “Seamlessly Overlaying 2D Images In 3D Model” (Issued Sep. 27, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem in early 3D mapping applications where user-contributed photographs appeared as disconnected, "hovering 'playing cards'" rather than being seamlessly integrated into the 3D environment (Compl. ¶18; ’929 Patent, col. 1:43-46). Existing systems lacked a method for a community of users to integrate their own arbitrary images into rich 3D models in a seamless way without visible artifacts (’929 Patent, col. 1:50-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system that allows a community of users to upload 2D images and integrate them as correctly aligned overlays within a pre-existing 3D model (’929 Patent, Abstract). The system provides "visual indicators" to show users where images are available within the 3D model and includes a "snap-to-view" feature that allows a user to transition to the perspective of a posed 2D image (’929 Patent, col. 2:12-22). The patent describes this process as respecting the integrity of the original images by presenting them unaltered from their original viewpoint (’929 Patent, col. 3:62 - col. 4:3).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for enriching detailed "ground truth" 3D models with a layer of crowdsourced, user-generated visual data, enhancing the model's realism and informational value (Compl. ¶3, ¶19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1–14 of the ’929 patent (Compl. ¶44).
- Independent Claim 3 is recited in full and forms a basis of the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶45). Its essential elements include:
- A computer storage system containing a plurality of 2D images and a "pre-existing 3D model" that was not constructed using those 2D images.
- A computer system configured to allow a user to navigate the 3D model, see a "visual indicator" for each 2D image, and take an action that causes the model to "snap to the pose" of the 2D image, displaying it as a "substantially-aligned overlay" without alteration.
- A display system and user interface to present these features to the user.
U.S. Patent No. 8,264,504 - “Seamlessly Overlaying 2D Images in 3D Model” (Issued Sep. 11, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’929 patent, the ’504 patent addresses the same technical challenge of integrating user-submitted 2D images into 3D models without the images appearing as disjointed, non-integrated elements (’504 Patent, col. 1:45-50).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a similar system for navigating a 3D model and viewing posed 2D images as overlays. The claims of the ’504 patent introduce the concept of an "environment image that is associated with the 3D model," which appears to be used in the process of displaying the 2D overlay within the 3D environment (’504 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:1-5).
- Technical Importance: The invention refines the technical approach for integrating crowdsourced imagery with foundational 3D geographic data, a key development for interactive digital maps (Compl. ¶3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1–17 of the ’504 patent (Compl. ¶60).
- Independent Claim 5 is recited in full and forms a basis of the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶61). Its essential elements are similar to Claim 3 of the ’929 patent but are framed in the context of an "environment image":
- A system for viewing 2D images posed within an environment "as depicted by an environment image that is associated with the 3D model."
- A computer storage system with a plurality of 2D images and a pre-existing 3D model not constructed from them.
- A computer system allowing a user to navigate, see a visual indicator, and take action to see the 2D image as an overlay "within an environment of the scene as depicted by an environment image."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as flagship mapping platforms that provide users with interactive 3D representations of terrain, cities, and structures (Compl. ¶31-33). Google Street View allows users to virtually navigate through panoramic image sequences of real-world locations (Compl. ¶34).
- A key accused functionality is the ability for users to upload their own images corresponding to a specific location, which are then "seamlessly integrated and overlaid into the pre-existing 3D model" (Compl. ¶36). A promotional screenshot from Google encourages users to "Create and publish your own Street View imagery" (Compl. p. 13).
- The complaint alleges that these products are of high commercial importance, generating "tens of billions in dollars" in yearly revenue and commanding "roughly two-thirds of the relevant market" (Compl. ¶6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’929 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] a computer storage system containing: [a1] a plurality of 2D images... and [a2] a pre-existing 3D model which ... is not constructed using the 2D images | Google's servers allegedly store a plurality of 2D images (including those from users and Street View) and a pre-existing 3D model of the environment not constructed from those stored 2D images. | ¶47 | col. 3:4-9 |
| [b1] navigate to different locations throughout the 3D model | The Accused Products provide a computer system that allows users to navigate throughout the 3D model. | ¶48 | col. 2:13-15 |
| [b2] to see a visual indicator of each 2D image within the 3D model... that changes in viewpoint as the user navigates | The Accused Products allegedly use visual indicators, such as highlighted blue lines on streets, to show the location of available 2D images, and these indicators change perspective as the user navigates the 3D model. The complaint provides a screenshot showing these indicators overlaid on a 3D map of Austin, Texas (Compl. p. 14). | ¶48 | col. 2:15-16 |
| [b4] in response to the user taking action with respect to a visual indicator, to cause the rendering of the 3D model to snap to the pose of the scene... and to cause the user to see the 2D image posed as a substantially-aligned overlay... without alteration | When a user interacts with a visual indicator (e.g., clicks on a blue Street View line), the view allegedly "snaps" to display the corresponding 2D panoramic image as an aligned overlay within the 3D model, presented without alteration. A screenshot depicts the result of this action, showing a ground-level 2D view of the Texas Capitol (Compl. p. 15). | ¶48 | col. 4:46-56 |
| [c] a display system configured to display the 3D model, the visual indicators, and the 2D images posed as substantially-aligned overlays | The Accused Products provide a display system (e.g., on a computer or mobile device) configured to display the 3D model, indicators, and overlays. | ¶49 | col. 2:12-13 |
| [d] a user interface configured to allow the user to navigate through the 3D model and to see the visual indicators and the 2D images | The Accused Products provide a user interface that enables the described navigation and viewing functionalities. | ¶50 | col. 8:46-48 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of "not constructed using the 2D images." The analysis may turn on the degree of separation between the data used to build Google’s 3D models and the distinct set of user-contributed or Street View images that are overlaid.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the transition from the 3D aerial view to the 2D ground-level Street View functions as a "snap to the pose" as described in the patent, versus a different form of data transition? The technical implementation of this feature in the Accused Products will be a key factual issue.
’504 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [preamble] ...posed within an environment of the scene as depicted by an environment image that is associated with the 3D model | The complaint alleges the Accused Products allow users to navigate a 3D model and view 2D images posed within an environment depicted by an associated environment image. | ¶62 | col. 12:1-5 |
| [a] a computer storage system configured to contain: [a1] a plurality of 2D images... and [a2] a pre-existing 3D model which... is not constructed using the 2D images | As with the ’929 patent, Google’s servers are alleged to store user-uploaded 2D images and a pre-existing 3D model built from different data sources. | ¶63 | col. 3:10-15 |
| [b4] in response to the user taking action... to cause the user to see the 2D image posed as a substantially-aligned overlay within an environment of the scene as depicted by an environment image | Upon user interaction with a visual indicator, the Accused Products allegedly display the 2D image as an overlay within the scene's environment, which is itself depicted by an environment image associated with the 3D model. A complaint screenshot shows a top-down view with numerous visual indicators for photos and Street View paths overlaid on the base map imagery (Compl. p. 23). | ¶64 | col. 4:48-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The definition of "environment image that is associated with the 3D model" will be a critical issue for claim construction. The dispute may focus on whether the underlying satellite or aerial map layer in the Accused Products meets this definition and is "associated" with the 3D model in the manner required by the claim.
- Technical Questions: Does the technical architecture of the Accused Products rely on an "environment image" to facilitate the display of 2D overlays, or is the overlay accomplished through a different technical mechanism that falls outside the claim scope?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the ’929 Patent: "pre-existing 3D model which ... is not constructed using the 2D images" (Claim 3)
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement theory. If the accused 3D model is found to be constructed "using" the very 2D images that are overlaid upon it, infringement may be negated. Practitioners may focus on this term because the line between model-building data and overlay data in a complex system like Google's could be ambiguous.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the article "the" ("the 2D images") could suggest that the model must not be constructed from the specific plurality of 2D images stored per limitation [a1], but could potentially be constructed from other, similar 2D images.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes between "ground truth" models derived from sources like aerial photography and lidar, and the "arbitrary images" uploaded by a community of users, suggesting the "pre-existing model" and the "2D images" are of fundamentally different origins and types (’929 Patent, col. 1:25-33; col. 3:4-14).
Term from the ’504 Patent: "environment image that is associated with the 3D model" (Claim 5)
- Context and Importance: The presence of this term is a key distinction in the ’504 patent's asserted claim. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on identifying a corresponding feature in the Accused Products.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which may support an interpretation that it covers any base-layer imagery, such as the satellite or map tiles upon which the 3D models and 2D overlays are presented.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites viewing a 2D overlay "within an environment of the scene as depicted by an environment image," suggesting a functional relationship where the environment image actively depicts the context for the overlay, rather than merely serving as a background. Claim 1 of the patent suggests the environment image is part of what is displayed when showing the overlay, implying an active role in the system's output (’504 Patent, col. 11:49-61).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Google actively induces infringement by encouraging users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶53, ¶67). This is supported by allegations that Google encourages users to upload their own images for integration into the 3D model (Compl. ¶5, ¶36). The complaint includes a screenshot from Google’s website inviting users to "Add your photos and videos" to "Create on Earth" (Compl. p. 18).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶38-42). Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on a 2007 research award from Google to the inventor's project and the fact that Google's own patents cite the asserted patents (Compl. ¶39-40). The complaint also alleges Google has been on notice since at least April 14, 2024, due to licensing outreach from the plaintiff (Compl. ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of data provenance and claim scope: For both patents, can the data sets used to construct Google's 3D models be proven to be distinct from the user-contributed and Street View 2D images that are overlaid, as required by the claim term "not constructed using the 2D images"?
- A central claim construction question will be the definition of "environment image" in the ’504 patent: Can the underlying satellite and map layers in the Accused Products be construed as the claimed "environment image," and do they function in the specific manner described by the patent?
- A key question regarding willfulness will be one of imputed knowledge: What legal weight will be given to Google's 2007 funding of the inventor's academic project and citations in its own patent portfolio? Did these events create a pre-suit duty of care to avoid infringement of the subsequently issued patents?