DCT
5:25-cv-01103
Agingo Corp v. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Agingo Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fox Rothschild LLP
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01103, W.D. Tex., 09/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant ESRI maintains a regular and established place of business in San Antonio, including a regional office that offers training, hosts events, and is devoted to offering the accused ArcGIS software.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ArcGIS geographic information systems (GIS) products and services infringe patents related to multi-infrastructure modeling and cause-and-effect simulation.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to agent-based computer simulations designed to model and predict the cascading effects of an event across multiple, interdependent infrastructures, such as power grids, transportation networks, and economic systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the original patent owner, IntePoint, LLC, worked with Defendant ESRI under a non-disclosure agreement starting in 2008 to incorporate the patented technology into ESRI's ArcGIS product. Plaintiff claims ESRI publicly demonstrated and credited this technology at a 2009 conference but subsequently declined to license the patents in 2012, while continuing to use the technology in its products. The patents were later assigned to Plaintiff Agingo in 2017.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-01-01 | IntePoint, LLC founded (approx.) |
| 2005-06-09 | Priority Date for ’406 and ’436 Patents |
| 2006-10-01 | Patents-in-Suit assigned to IntePoint (approx.) |
| 2008-01-01 | IntePoint and ESRI begin collaboration under NDA (approx.) |
| 2009-01-01 | Agingo Corporation founded (approx.) |
| 2009-01-01 | ESRI demonstrates Patented Technology at FedUC09 conference (approx.) |
| 2010-02-02 | ’406 Patent Issued |
| 2012-01-01 | ESRI declines to license the Patents-in-Suit (approx.) |
| 2012-06-05 | ’436 Patent Issued |
| 2017-08-01 | Patents-in-Suit assigned to Agingo Corporation (approx.) |
| 2025-09-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,657,406 - Multi-Infrastructure Modeling System
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Prior to the invention, computer-based modeling and simulation tools, particularly in the GIS field, were generally limited to analyzing a single infrastructure at a time (e.g., an electrical grid or a water distribution network) ('406 Patent, col. 1:63-2:2). These tools were often static and could not adequately model the complex, cascading interdependencies between different types of infrastructures, such as physical, behavioral, and relational systems (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 40-43).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a software-based system that uses a "society of software agents" to simulate the interactions and interdependencies between multiple, distinct infrastructure models ('406 Patent, Abstract). This "simulation engine" can automatically calculate and visualize how a change in a first infrastructure model (e.g., a power failure) produces a corresponding change in a second, dependent infrastructure model (e.g., a disruption in transportation logistics) ('406 Patent, col. 7:21-34; Fig. 3). The system is designed to handle different categories of infrastructure, including physical (e.g., power grids), behavioral (e.g., population movements), and relational (e.g., social networks) systems ('406 Patent, col. 2:27-38).
- Technical Importance: This approach enabled a more holistic "system of systems" analysis, allowing users to understand and predict how failures or events could cascade across seemingly unrelated infrastructures (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’406 Patent (Compl. ¶75). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A system for simulating interdependencies between a plurality of infrastructure models of different infrastructure categories, comprising:
- a first infrastructure data model that models a first infrastructure, the first infrastructure being of a first infrastructure category that is selected from the group consisting of behavioral infrastructures, relational infrastructures, and physical infrastructures;
- a second infrastructure data model that models a second infrastructure... wherein the second infrastructure data model is from an infrastructure category that is different from the infrastructure category of the first infrastructure data model;
- a simulation engine adapted to automatically produce a change in the second infrastructure data model in response to a change in the first infrastructure data model; and
- a user interface permitting a user to interact with the simulation engine.
U.S. Patent No. 8,195,436 - Multi-Infrastructure Modeling System
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the parent ’406 Patent, the ’436 Patent addresses the inability of prior GIS platforms to adequately model the interrelationships and cascading impacts among different types of critical infrastructures ('436 Patent, col. 4:8-19; Compl. ¶3). The patent background notes that prior tools were often static and could not support interactions across different infrastructure layers ('436 Patent, col. 4:56-59).
- The Patented Solution: The ’436 Patent claims a system for simulating interdependencies between multiple critical physical infrastructure models ('436 Patent, Abstract). Like its parent, it employs a simulation engine, which includes a visualization application, to automatically produce a change in a second infrastructure model in response to a change in a first model, thereby simulating the effect of an event in one infrastructure on another ('436 Patent, col. 8:17-32; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for predictive "what if" scenario analysis for critical infrastructure protection, moving beyond static, single-system GIS visualization (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 28).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’436 Patent (Compl. ¶85). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A system for simulating interdependencies between multiple critical physical infrastructure models, comprising:
- a first infrastructure data model that models a first critical physical infrastructure;
- a second infrastructure data model that models a second critical physical infrastructure, wherein the second... is a different critical physical infrastructure from the first...;
- a simulation engine including a visualization application and adapted to automatically produce a change in the second infrastructure data model in response to a change in the first infrastructure data model; and
- a user interface permitting a user to interact with the simulation engine.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant ESRI's ArcGIS products and services, including but not limited to "ArcGIS Enterprise and Extensions," "ArcGIS Pro and Extensions," "Developer Technology," "Apps" and "Focused Products" (Compl. ¶63). The complaint also identifies ESRI's "Digital Twin Technology," "Location Intelligence," and "Digital Transformation" offerings as using the patented technology (Compl. ¶62).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint focuses on functionality demonstrated in a 2009 video of ESRI's ArcGIS Desktop, which allegedly incorporated the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50). This functionality includes using "cause and effect simulation software" to predict the impact of an event (an airport stimulus project) on local economies, including housing, jobs, and businesses (Compl. ¶54). The demonstration showed the software modeling "first order effects" (new jobs), "second order effects" (retail activity), and "third order effects" (vacant homes becoming occupied) cascading from the initial event (Compl. ¶¶ 55-57). The complaint includes a screenshot of the ArcGIS interface showing "First Order Effects" visualized on a map (Compl. p. 13). The system is described as using "business rules unique to each geography and location" to drive the analysis (Compl. ¶59). A screenshot of the "IMSC Model Builder Tool" within ArcGIS shows an interface for defining these rules (Compl. p. 17).
- The complaint alleges that by incorporating this technology, ESRI became the "world leader in GIS technology," with at least 43% of the global market share and annual revenues of approximately $1.1 billion in 2020 (Compl. ¶65).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’406 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first infrastructure data model that models a first infrastructure... of a first infrastructure category... | The ArcGIS system models multiple types of data, such as economic data (manufacturing, financial, retail businesses) and demographic data (jobs, housing). | ¶52, ¶54, ¶57 | col. 2:27-45 |
| a second infrastructure data model... from an infrastructure category that is different from the infrastructure category of the first... | The ArcGIS system is alleged to model the interdependencies between different data types, such as an airport stimulus project (physical infrastructure) and its effect on jobs and housing (behavioral/economic infrastructure). | ¶54 | col. 2:27-45 |
| a simulation engine adapted to automatically produce a change in the second infrastructure data model in response to a change in the first infrastructure data model | The ArcGIS system allegedly simulates and predicts cascading impacts, such as showing "first order effects representing new jobs as a direct result of the airport project," followed by "second order effects" of retail activity and "third order effects" of housing occupancy changes. | ¶55-57 | col. 7:21-28 |
| a user interface permitting a user to interact with the simulation engine. | The ArcGIS Desktop product provides a graphical user interface with maps and toolbars that allow a user to initiate and view the results of the simulation. A screenshot from the complaint shows the ArcGIS user interface displaying the results of a simulation (Compl. p. 11). | ¶51 | col. 7:29-31 |
’436 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first infrastructure data model that models a first critical physical infrastructure; | The ArcGIS demo allegedly models an "airport stimulus project" as the initial event, which represents a physical infrastructure. | ¶54 | col. 4:51-54 |
| a second infrastructure data model that models a second critical physical infrastructure... different... from the first... | The system models the impact of the airport project on other infrastructures such as retail businesses and housing, which can be considered physical infrastructures. | ¶54, ¶56-57 | col. 4:51-54 |
| a simulation engine including a visualization application and adapted to automatically produce a change in the second infrastructure data model in response to a change in the first... | The ArcGIS system is alleged to be a "cause and effect simulation software" that predicts and displays cascading impacts. The complaint provides a screenshot of the ArcGIS interface visualizing "Second order effects represent[ing] retail business activity" (Compl. p. 14). | ¶54, ¶56 | col. 8:23-28 |
| a user interface permitting a user to interact with the simulation engine. | The ArcGIS Desktop software provides the user interface for initiating the simulation and visualizing the results on a map. | ¶51 | col. 8:28-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "business rules" described in the ArcGIS demo (Compl. ¶59) are equivalent to the "society of software agents" described in the patents' specifications ('406 Patent, col. 7:48-51). The defense may argue that a rules-based query system is architecturally distinct from the claimed agent-based simulation engine.
- Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused ArcGIS product "automatically produce[s]" a change in a second model as claimed. The defense could argue that the system is not a dynamic simulation but rather a tool for visualizing the results of pre-defined spatial queries, and that any "cascading" effects are the result of sequential user-initiated queries rather than an automatic process performed by the engine itself. The complaint's description of viewing "first order effects," then "second order effects," etc., could raise the question of whether these are automatic outputs or staged visualizations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "simulation engine including a society of software agents" (’406 Patent, Claim 1, element not explicitly present in Claim 1 but central to the patent's disclosure and other claims; "simulation engine" is in Claim 1).
Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented solution. The case may turn on whether ESRI's ArcGIS architecture, which is alleged to use "business rules" (Compl. ¶59), can be considered an implementation of an "agent-based" system as disclosed in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes agents as representing infrastructure components that "interact using a distributed, blackboard architecture" ('406 Patent, col. 14:1-6). A plaintiff may argue this language does not require a specific implementation and can broadly cover any system where discrete software components (like "rules") interact to solve a problem.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific conceptual architecture with "Individual infrastructure proxy agents," "mediator agents," and a "community of intelligent software agents" that "collectively sense changes" and "reason" about them ('406 Patent, col. 15:13-30). A defendant may argue this detailed disclosure limits the term to a more complex, autonomous, and specific multi-agent architecture.
The Term: "automatically produce... a change" (’406 Patent, Claim 1; ’436 Patent, Claim 1).
Context and Importance: This term defines the core function of the simulation engine. The dispute may center on whether the accused product's generation of "effects" is "automatic" in the sense required by the claim, or if it requires significant user intervention between steps.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states users "initiate simulations by selecting and disabling infrastructure features and then viewing the impacts" ('406 Patent, col. 14:30-33). This could suggest that "automatically" refers to the process that occurs after the user's initial input, not a process devoid of any user interaction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowcharts for recording a simulation show discrete steps for disabling features, which are then processed by the simulation engine ('406 Patent, Fig. 13A-13B). A defendant could argue this implies a self-contained, continuous simulation process after initiation, potentially distinct from a system that shows sequential, layered query results.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that ESRI actively induces infringement by providing customers with instructions, videos, demonstrations, operating manuals, and training that encourage and facilitate the use of ArcGIS products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 76, 86).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that ESRI had actual, pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their technology based on the 2008 collaboration with the original patent owner, ESRI's public demonstration of the technology in 2009 where it credited the inventor's company, and ESRI's subsequent decision not to take a license (Compl. ¶¶ 47-48, 67-68, 78, 88).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central technical issue will be one of architectural equivalence: does the Defendant's ArcGIS platform, which creates "business rules unique to each geography and location," implement the claimed "simulation engine including a society of software agents," or does it operate on a fundamentally different software architecture that falls outside the patent's scope?
- A key question of claim scope will be one of functional operation: does the accused product's method of displaying "first order," "second order," and "third order" effects constitute the claimed function of "automatically produc[ing] a change" in one model in response to a change in another, or is it a series of user-driven spatial queries whose visualized results are merely labeled as cascading "effects"?