DCT

2:21-cv-00283

Eagle View Tech v. Nearmap

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00283, D. Utah, 03/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because Defendant Nearmap US, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s suite of aerial imagery and roof measurement products infringes thirteen patents related to generating roof reports and analyzing aerial imagery.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using non-stereoscopic aerial images to generate accurate three-dimensional models and measurement reports for roofs, aiming to replace manual, on-site inspections in the roofing, insurance, and solar industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that several of the patents-in-suit have been subject to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, with asserted claims remaining valid and enforceable. At least one patent was also subject to an ex parte reexamination. The complaint also references prior successful litigation in the District of New Jersey involving several of the asserted patent families, where certain claims were found to be patent-eligible and infringed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-17 Earliest Priority Date (’152, ’436, ’840, ’961, ’568, ’960, ’737, ’376, ’149 Patents)
2008-01-01 EagleView Launched
2008-05-22 Earliest Priority Date (’880 Patent)
2008-10-31 Earliest Priority Date (’518 Patent)
2011-12-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 Issued
2012-05-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 Issued
2012-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,209,152 Issued
2013-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,542,880 Issued
2013-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,593,518 Issued
2014-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961 Issued
2014-06-03 Earliest Priority Date (’648 Patent)
2015-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,129,376 Issued
2015-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,135,737 Issued
2015-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,182,657 Issued
2016-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 9,514,568 Issued
2019-07-02 Nearmap submits IDS identifying the ’152 Patent
2019-12-01 Nearmap Acquires Pushpin
2020-01-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,528,960 Issued
2020-06-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,671,648 Issued
2020-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,685,149 Issued
2023-03-28 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,209,152 - “Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation,” issued June 26, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Before the patented inventions, generating a roof repair estimate required a contractor to physically visit a property to take measurements and inspect the area (Compl. ¶37). This process was time-consuming and inefficient, particularly when dealing with disparate sets of existing image data taken at different times, angles, and resolutions (Compl. ¶9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-implemented method for generating a roof estimate report by displaying multiple aerial images of a building from different views (Compl. ¶86). A user provides an indication of a roof feature in one image, which is used to modify a three-dimensional model of the roof; the system then displays a projection of that feature as an overlaid line drawing on the other aerial images, allowing for interactive and iterative adjustments to the 3D model (Compl. ¶¶40, 86; ’152 Patent, col. 4:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This technology was intended to improve the efficiency and accuracy of creating roof reports by allowing adjustments to a 3D model using 2D image overlays, a process that could not be accomplished manually (Compl. ¶¶37, 40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least dependent claims 2 and 10, which incorporate independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶83-87).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • displaying a first and second aerial image of a building's roof, each providing a different view;
    • receiving an indication of a feature of the building shown in the first aerial image;
    • modifying a three-dimensional model of the roof based on the received indication; and
    • displaying a projection of the feature from the modified model onto both aerial images as an overlaid line drawing.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims but alleges infringement of "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶83).

U.S. Patent No. 8,542,880 - “System and Process for Roof Measurement Using Aerial Imagery,” issued September 24, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint notes that aerial image databases are often incorrectly geocoded, meaning an address input may not correspond to the correct location in the imagery (Compl. ¶49). This inaccuracy prevents reliable retrieval of oblique imagery needed for detailed roof analysis.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a process where a user inputs location data, is shown an overhead aerial image, and can move a visual marker from its initial (potentially incorrect) position to a final, more precise location on the target building's roof (Compl. ¶125). The corrected location coordinates are then used to provide visual access to corresponding oblique images of the correct roof structure from an aerial imagery database (’880 Patent, col. 2:1-12). The complaint includes a visual from the patent's Figure 4B and a contemporary map screenshot to illustrate that the geocoding problem addressed by the patent persists today (Compl. p. 15).
  • Technical Importance: This system provides a specific technological solution to the problem of inaccurate geocoding in aerial databases, enabling users to create accurate roof reports from low-resolution or incorrectly coded data that was not previously possible (Compl. ¶¶16, 49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶126).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a process with the acts of:
    • providing a computer input field for first location data;
    • providing visual access to a straight-down overhead aerial image corresponding to the first location data;
    • on that image, providing a moveable visual marker that initially corresponds to the first location data;
    • allowing the marker to be moved to a final, more precise location on the building to identify its coordinates;
    • providing a computer input to signal user-acceptance of the final location; and
    • providing visual access to one or more oblique images corresponding to the final location's coordinates.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶126).

U.S. Patent No. 8,593,518 - “Computer System for Continuous Oblique Panning,” issued November 26, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of panning separate oblique images in a continuous manner. It claims a specific method of panning within a primary oblique image, detecting a user-triggered transition event, selecting an adjacent secondary oblique image, and displaying both images together so that features are aligned, matching the perspectives from which they were captured (Compl. ¶54; ’518 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶151).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's MapBrowser 3D product, alleging that when a user rotates the view, a transition event is triggered that loads new adjacent images while keeping features of interest aligned on the display (Compl. ¶¶152-157).

U.S. Patent No. 8,670,961 - “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” issued March 11, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a computing system that generates a roof report using a plurality of aerial images taken independently at different times and dates, including at least one top-plan view and one oblique perspective view. The system performs image analysis, calculates the pitch for roof sections, and generates a roof report annotated with numerical values for pitch, area, and edge length using at least two different indicia for different roof properties (Compl. ¶¶48, 170).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶170).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Nearmap on OpenSolar and Roof Geometry Technology. It alleges these products use Nearmap’s vertical and oblique imagery, which may be taken on different dates, to calculate roof slope and generate a report with annotated views showing pitch, area, and lengths with different colored lines indicating different properties (Compl. ¶¶171-182, 183-188).

U.S. Patent No. 9,135,737 - “Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation,” issued September 15, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent recites an improved computer system for generating roof measurements using an interactive interface. The system displays line drawings representing roof features over two different aerial views; when a user changes the line drawing on one image, corresponding changes are made to the line drawing on the second image, allowing for iterative adjustment and accurate feature identification (Compl. ¶50).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶203).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses MapBrowser and Roof Geometry Technology. It alleges that in MapBrowser, a line representing a roof feature (e.g., a hip) is displayed over a primary view and, when the user clicks to an alternative view, the line appears in the second view, constituting a corresponding change (Compl. ¶¶208-210).

U.S. Patent No. 9,514,568 - “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” issued December 6, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method of generating a roof report by receiving a request, receiving first (top plan) and second (oblique) aerial images, and calibrating them. The system performs image analysis by correlating the images, including registering corresponding pairs of points, to generate a 3D model, determine pitch, and generate a report annotated with pitch, direction, and color-coded ridge and valley lines (Compl. ¶¶39, 235).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶235).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Nearmap on OpenSolar and Roof Geometry Technology. The allegations point to the use of top-down and oblique images, user-directed correlation of roof edges in both views, generation of a 3D model, and the output of a report with color-coded lines for different features like ridges and valleys (Compl. ¶¶236-251, 252-266).

U.S. Patent No. 10,528,960 - “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” issued January 7, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a process for generating a roof report that involves constructing a 3D model by calibrating aerial images to convert pixel distances into physical lengths. This is achieved by identifying common reference points in different views, triangulating them in 3D space to determine their location, and then calculating the physical length between them to determine pitch and area (Compl. ¶¶39, 48, 281).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶281).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Nearmap on OpenSolar and Roof Geometry Technology. It alleges that Nearmap's technology uses calibration information (geolocation, height, angle) and triangulates reference points to build a "textured mesh" and generate reports with pitch and area values (Compl. ¶¶283-289, 290-300).

U.S. Patent No. 10,685,149 - “Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation,” issued June 16, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method using an interactive user interface control that can be manipulated by an operator to align with the slope of a roof section on an aerial image. This alignment allows the user to specify the pitch, which is then used to modify a model of the roof and generate a detailed roof estimate report (Compl. ¶¶52, 314).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶314).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Nearmap on OpenSolar and Roof Geometry Technology. It alleges that OpenSolar's user interface allows a user to modify a wireframe to reflect the pitch (or "slope") of a roof section, which is then used to generate a report (Compl. ¶¶316-321, 322-329).

U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 - “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” issued December 13, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a computing system that generates a roof estimate report by receiving and correlating first (top plan) and second (oblique) non-stereoscopic aerial images. Based on this correlation, it generates a 3D model with planar roof sections having corresponding slope, area, and edges, and then transmits a report with annotated top plan views using different indicia for different roof properties (Compl. ¶¶47, 344).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶344).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Roof Geometry Technology, alleging it receives top-down and oblique images, correlates them to generate a 3D model, and outputs a report with annotated views indicating slope, area, and lengths using different colors for different roof properties (Compl. ¶¶345-351).

U.S. Patent No. 8,170,840 - “Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation,” issued May 1, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a method using a "pitch determination marker" overlaid on an aerial image. An operator uses the marker to indicate the pitch of a planar roof section, and this indication is then used to modify a model of the roof (Compl. ¶¶47, 51, 366).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶366).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Roof Geometry Technology, alleging its process includes displaying and using a pitch determination marker to indicate pitch, which is then used to modify a roof model (Compl. ¶¶367-371).

U.S. Patent No. 9,129,376 - “Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation,” issued September 8, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’840 patent, this patent claims a method using a graphical user interface with an interactive "pitch determination marker." An operator manipulates the marker by moving it and adjusting an arm to align with a sloped edge on an aerial image, which allows the system to determine pitch and generate a roof report (Compl. ¶¶51, 386).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶386).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Roof Geometry Technology, alleging it provides a graphical user interface with a manipulable pitch determination marker that is used to determine pitch and generate a report (Compl. ¶¶387-395).

U.S. Patent No. 9,182,657 - “Method and Apparatus for Capturing, Geolocating and Measuring Oblique Images,” issued November 10, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims an improved image capturing system using two separately-controlled image-capturing devices (one for oblique images), a geo-locating device, and a computer system. The computer system associates the geo-location signal with each captured image and separately controls the two capturing devices (Compl. ¶55).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶409).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's camera systems (HyperPod, HyperCamera), alleging they are a system with a first device capturing oblique images, a second image-capturing device, a geo-locating device, and a computer system that associates the signals and controls the devices separately (Compl. ¶¶410-417).

U.S. Patent No. 10,671,648 - “Integrated Centralized Property Database Systems and Methods,” issued June 2, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for aggregating property information from different sources over time. It claims a method of storing data items associated with geographic and time identifiers, receiving a query for a location and time, retrieving matching data items from the aggregation system, and outputting them (Compl. ¶¶56, 427).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶427).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Nearmap AI, alleging it stores data items associated with geographic coordinates and time identifiers (image capture dates), receives queries that can include location and date restrictions, and retrieves and outputs the corresponding data (Compl. ¶¶428-432).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The primary accused instrumentalities are (1) Nearmap on OpenSolar, (2) Nearmap MapBrowser, and (3) the roof geometry technology Nearmap acquired from Pushpin and used in products like GAF QuickMeasure reports (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are software systems and services that use aerial imagery to allow users to generate detailed roof measurement reports (Compl. ¶1).
  • Nearmap on OpenSolar is alleged to be a computer-implemented tool that displays vertical and oblique aerial images, allows a user to outline a roof to create a 3D model, and generates a roof report or "proposal" (Compl. ¶¶87, 89, 90). The complaint includes a screenshot from a YouTube tutorial for Nearmap on OpenSolar showing the user interface for outlining a roof on a vertical image (Compl. ¶90, p. 31).
  • MapBrowser is described as a web-based application for navigating Nearmap's library of aerial photos (Compl. ¶133). Its accused functionality includes allowing a user to input an address, view an overhead image, and move a "pin" to a more precise location to correct for geocoding errors before accessing oblique imagery for that corrected location (Compl. ¶¶128-132).
  • Roof Geometry Technology refers to the system used to produce reports such as the GAF QuickMeasure report (Compl. ¶95). The process allegedly involves a customer ordering a report from a website, which then uses Nearmap's aerial imagery to create and deliver a detailed roof model and report (Compl. ¶96). A screenshot from the GAF QuickMeasure ordering webpage shows a user interface for inputting an address and adjusting a pin on an aerial map (Compl. p. 51).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant Nearmap directly competes with Plaintiffs in the construction, government, insurance, and solar markets with these products (Compl. ¶1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,209,152 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
From Claim 1: A computer-implemented method for generating a roof estimate report, the method comprising: Nearmap on OpenSolar is alleged to be a computer-implemented method for generating a roof report called a “proposal.” ¶87, ¶88 col. 2:27-29
displaying a first and a second aerial image of a building having a roof, each of the aerial images providing a different view of the roof of the building; Nearmap on OpenSolar displays a top-down vertical view and allows users to access North, East, South, and West oblique views of the same house. ¶89 col. 4:1-4
receiving an indication of a feature of the building shown in the first aerial image; The system instructs a user to “outline your roof and set edge types” in the vertical image, which constitutes receiving an indication of roof features. ¶90 col. 4:5-6
modifying a three-dimensional model of the roof based on the received indication of the feature of the building; and Based on the user's outlining of the roof in the vertical view, the system modifies a 3D model. This is inferred from the subsequent instruction to "align map and roof edges in the oblique view." ¶90, ¶91 col. 4:7-9
displaying a projection of the feature from the modified three-dimensional model onto the first and second aerial images as a line drawing of the feature, each overlaid on corresponding locations of the feature... When a user makes changes to the wireframe in one view and toggles to another, the wireframe has corresponding changes, which allegedly constitutes displaying a projection. ¶92 col. 4:10-15
From Claim 10: The method of claim 1 further comprising: displaying a marker operable to specify a point on an image; Nearmap on OpenSolar displays purple points to indicate corners and a yellow line to indicate a ridge line, which allegedly function as the claimed marker. ¶92 col. 5:29-30
receiving, via the marker, an indication of a point on the first aerial image; and A user utilizes the purple points and yellow line to specify and indicate corners and ridge lines in the aerial image. ¶92 col. 5:31-32
registering, based on the received indication of the point, the aerial image to a reference grid corresponding to the three-dimensional model. Based on the user's point indications (e.g., a corner or line), the system registers the aerial images to a reference grid corresponding to the 3D model, facilitated by georeferencing techniques. ¶93, ¶94 col. 5:33-36

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "registering... to a reference grid" as used in the patent can be construed to cover the automated "georeferencing technique" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶94), or if it requires a more specific, user-driven alignment process.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that when a user toggles between views, "the wireframe has corresponding changes" (Compl. ¶92), which it maps to the "displaying a projection" limitation. A key factual question will be what technical process occurs when a user toggles views and whether this process is in fact a "projection from the modified three-dimensional model" as required by the claim.

8,542,880 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A process for determining attributes of a roof structure ... comprising the acts of: providing at least one computer input field for a user to input first location data generally corresponding to the location of the building; MapBrowser provides a search bar in the top left corner where a user can enter location information, such as "Australian War Memorial." ¶128 col. 2:1-4
providing visual access to an aerial image of a region including the roof structure ... the aerial image taken from a straight down overhead view...; MapBrowser displays a top-down overhead image of the region corresponding to the address entered by the user. ¶129 col. 2:5-8
on the aerial image of the region, providing a visual marker that is moveable on a computer monitor around said region, said visual marker initially corresponding to said first location data... MapBrowser provides a "drop a pin" feature that serves as a visual marker, which initially corresponds to the entered location data and is moveable by the user. A screenshot from a MapBrowser tutorial shows this pin-dropping functionality (Compl. p. 46). ¶130 col. 2:9-12
...wherein said visual marker may be moved to a final location on top of the building to more precisely identify the location of the building roof structure, the final location having location coordinates; The user can move the pin from its initial location to a more precise final location on the building's roof to identify its coordinates. ¶130 col. 2:13-17
providing a computer input capable of signaling user-acceptance of the final location of said marker; and, After moving the pin, the user's ability to click an "Oblique Photos" button allegedly signals user-acceptance of the marker's final location. ¶131 col. 2:18-20
providing visual access to one or more oblique images of an aerial imagery database corresponding to location coordinates of the final location. After the user clicks "Oblique Photos," the system provides access to oblique images of the address corresponding to the final coordinates where the marker was placed. ¶132 col. 2:21-23

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether clicking a navigational button labeled "Oblique Photos" constitutes "signaling user-acceptance of the final location of said marker." A defendant could argue this is merely a user interface command to change views, not an affirmative "acceptance" step tied to the process of correcting a location.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may arise regarding whether the initial pin placement in MapBrowser "initially correspond[s] to said first location data" in a way that is technically consistent with the claim, or if the initial pin is placed based on other parameters, only to be moved by the user later.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’152 Patent

  • The Term: "registering... the aerial image to a reference grid" (Claim 10)
  • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges this element is met by georeferencing techniques that facilitate registering images to a reference grid (Compl. ¶¶93-94). The definition of this term is critical because it will determine whether an automated or semi-automated background process like georeferencing satisfies a claim limitation that could be interpreted to require a specific, user-initiated action to align an image with a model's grid. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused product performs the claimed step at all.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to explicitly define "registering," which may support giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing any technical process that aligns the image to a grid.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context of claim 10, which recites user manipulation of a "marker," could suggest that "registering" is part of this interactive, user-driven process, rather than a background system function like georeferencing.

For the ’880 Patent

  • The Term: "user-acceptance of the final location" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The complaint equates clicking an "Oblique Photos" button with this limitation (Compl. ¶131). The viability of the infringement theory depends on whether this user action is construed as an affirmative acceptance of a location for the claimed process, or merely a standard navigational command. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a user's intent to a specific step in the claimed process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the user moving the marker and then having the option to proceed, stating "once the user has accepted the final location of the marker, the user is provided with visual access to one or more oblique images" (’880 Patent, col. 4:1-4). This language does not require a specific button labeled "accept" and could be read broadly to cover any user action that advances the process after the marker is placed.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "signaling user-acceptance" as a distinct act. The patent's flow chart (Fig. 3) also shows "USER ACCEPTANCE SIGNAL" as a discrete step. This may support an argument that the act must be more than an implicit consequence of navigating to a different view and requires a more explicit confirmation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Nearmap induces infringement by providing promotional, advertising, and instructional materials (such as the YouTube tutorials referenced in the infringement counts) that instruct and encourage end users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶111, 192). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Accused Products are a material part of the invention, are especially made or adapted for infringing use, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶112, 193).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. For the ’152 Patent, this knowledge is alleged to stem from Nearmap identifying the patent in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed during the prosecution of its own patent application on July 2, 2019 (Compl. ¶109). For numerous patents, knowledge is also alleged based on Plaintiffs' product marking, website, and substantial press coverage of Plaintiffs' prior successful litigation against competitors involving the same patent families (Compl. ¶¶110, 141-142). The complaint alleges that Nearmap's continued infringement despite this knowledge is objectively reckless and willful (Compl. ¶117).

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional correspondence: Does the sequence of user actions within the accused Nearmap platforms—such as searching for an address, moving a pin, outlining a roof, and toggling between views—perform the specific, multi-step computer-implemented processes recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused product's operation and the patented methods?
  • A central question will be one of definitional scope: Can claim terms such as "registering... to a reference grid" and "signaling user-acceptance" be construed broadly enough to read on the alleged functionalities, which involve a combination of automated georeferencing and standard user interface navigation commands? The resolution of this claim construction issue may be dispositive for several of the asserted patents.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: Given Nearmap’s alleged citation of the ’152 patent in its own prosecution history and extensive public reporting on EagleView’s prior litigation, what was the extent and timing of Nearmap's knowledge of the patents-in-suit, and does its conduct support a finding of willful infringement?