Nearby Systems LLC v. Sephora USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Sephora USA, Inc. (Michigan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00076, E.D. Tex., 01/28/2026
• 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 mobile application and website infringe four patents related to displaying location-based data from one software application on a map within another application.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of mappable information from disparate sources, such as emails or social media, into a unified map view on a mobile device, a common function in modern smartphone ecosystems.
• Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents are part of a single patent family, with each subsequent patent being a continuation of a prior application in the chain. All patents claim an earliest priority date of October 12, 2007.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-12	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2016-12-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Issued
2019-11-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Issued
2024-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 Issued
2024-12-31	U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 Issued
2026-01-28	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 - Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Prior art mapping systems on electronic devices were limited in that new mapping content originating from outside a dedicated mapping application (e.g., a location mentioned in an email or on a website) would typically be displayed on a new, separate digital map, which would not contain any previously displayed mappable information or context (’980 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system for combining, or "mashing," mappable data from disparate sources onto a single digital map within a mapping application ’980 Patent, col. 1:42-47 For example, a user could select an address in a non-mapping application, and the system would add that location as a new point of interest on an existing map view, preserving any prior content already displayed ’980 Patent, col. 2:56-col. 3:7 This allows for the aggregation of location data from various applications into a unified, contextual map view Compl. ¶21
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a more integrated and seamless user experience by allowing location data found in any application to be consolidated onto a single map, eliminating the need to toggle between separate, context-less map views for each new piece of information ’980 Patent, abstract

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶26
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system with a memory storing a first non-browser application and a processor executing it.
  • A mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke a second non-browser application (which is a mapping application) when map-able content displayed in the first application is activated.
  • The mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service that is configured to communicate with the second non-browser application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent but makes general allegations of infringing "one or more claims" Compl. ¶25

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the parent '164 Patent, the technology addresses the problem of location data from outside a mapping application being displayed on a new, separate map, thereby losing the context of any information previously displayed on an existing map ’980 Patent, col. 1:35-41
• The Patented Solution: The invention enables the transfer of "generally-mappable information" from a non-mapping application (such as a social media app) to a map-display application ’980 Patent, col. 2:56-62 This new information is then displayed as an additional point of interest on the same digital map that may already contain prior mapping content, creating a consolidated view ’980 Patent, col. 3:1-7 ’980 Patent, Figs. 1A-1C
• Technical Importance: The solution enhances the functionality of mobile mapping systems by allowing users to build a single, customized map with points of interest aggregated from multiple, disparate application sources, improving workflow efficiency ’980 Patent, abstract

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶43
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system for displaying location-based content, comprising a memory, processor, touch screen, and GPS device.
  • A memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
  • A mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to communicate with an online mapping service to download and display a map within the user interface of the first non-browser application.
  • The mapping component also invokes the second non-browser (mapping) application and directs it to transmit a query including the mobile device's location and a destination location to obtain driving directions.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent but makes general allegations of infringing "one or more claims" Compl. ¶42

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

• Technology Synopsis: Continuing the technology of the parent patents, this invention concerns a system for displaying location data on a mobile device. It describes a process where touching text associated with a location in a first non-browser application causes the system to transmit a query to an online mapping service and display a route to that location in a second non-browser (mapping) application (’145 Patent, claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶60
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products provide a system for displaying map information to allow users to identify and navigate to Defendant's store locations Compl. ¶61

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent also builds on the same technological foundation, claiming a system where a user action on a location in a first application prompts a choice between multiple different map-display applications. A query is then sent to a mapping service associated with the selected mapping application (’177 Patent, claim 7).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶77
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products provide a system and method for displaying map information that allows users to identify and navigate to store locations offering Defendant's products Compl. ¶78

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Sephora App" mobile application and the website "https://www.sephora.com" are identified as the "Accused Products" Compl. ¶¶16, 18

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are designed to allow customers to locate Defendant's stores and manage their accounts Compl. ¶18 The specific infringing 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 asserts that Defendant owns, operates, and controls these products to advertise and sell its goods and services Compl. ¶16

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references evidentiary exhibits (Exhibits H and I) that purport to detail the infringement of the asserted patents, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶26, 43). In lieu of a claim chart, the narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'164 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint's narrative suggests that the Sephora App functions as the claimed "first non-browser application" containing a "mapping component" Compl. ¶27 It alleges that when a user activates map-able content (e.g., a store location), this component "invokes" a "second non-browser application" (e.g., the device's native mapping application like Apple Maps or Google Maps) and transmits the location data to an online mapping service, which in turn communicates with the second application to display the location Compl. ¶27

'980 Patent Infringement Allegations

For the ’980 Patent, the complaint alleges the Sephora App is a system that infringes by, among other things, providing a "mapping component" that communicates with an online mapping service to display a map of store locations within the Sephora App's own user interface Compl. ¶44 The allegations further suggest that this system infringes by then invoking a "second non-browser application" (a separate mapping app) to provide driving directions to a selected store, consistent with the limitations of claim 1 of the ’980 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be whether a modern mobile application that uses a standard operating system API or SDK (e.g., Apple's MapKit or a Google Maps SDK) to display a map within its own interface and then uses a URL scheme to hand off coordinates to a separate default mapping app meets the specific claim requirements of having a "mapping component" that "invokes" and "directs" a second application.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question may be how the accused Sephora App is architected. The analysis may turn on whether the app's functionality is performed by a distinct "mapping component" as contemplated by the patents, or if it simply leverages built-in, conventional functionalities of the underlying mobile operating system, which could raise questions about whether the app itself performs all the claimed steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"mapping component"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the '164 and '980 patents and is the central software element alleged to perform the inventive steps. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the software architecture of the Sephora App includes the claimed invention or merely utilizes standard, non-infringing operating system services.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component in broad, functional terms as a module that can "receive data representing location information from a source external to the component" and relay it to a mapping application ’980 Patent, col. 4:21-27 This functional description could support a construction that covers a wide range of software modules.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of the component, such as an "ActiveX control" or a "web-browser plug-in," which were prevalent technologies at the time of the invention ’980 Patent, col. 8:17-19 ’980 Patent, col. 14:11-12 These examples could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to software modules with similar characteristics, potentially distinguishing them from modern mobile app SDKs. The patent figures also depict the "mapping component" as a distinct architectural block ’980 Patent, Figs. 10A-10B

"invokes the mapping application"

• Context and Importance: This active step, required by claim 1 of both lead patents, is performed by the "mapping component." The dispute will likely center on whether making a generic system call that causes the OS to open a default map application meets the claim limitation of the "mapping component" itself "invoking" the second application.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a special definition for "invokes," suggesting it could be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might include any action that causes the mapping application to launch.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’980 Patent states the "mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query." This linkage could suggest a level of control or direct communication beyond simply passing a location to the operating system via a standard URL scheme, potentially supporting a narrower construction that requires a more direct software interface between the component and the invoked application.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on Defendant allegedly providing the Accused Products and instructing customers and others on how to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶28, 45, 62, 79). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the Accused Products have "special features" that are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶29, 46, 63, 80).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶30, 47, 64, 81). It further alleges that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which it characterizes as willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶31, 48, 65, 82).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical architecture and scope: does the Sephora App's use of modern mobile operating system frameworks and SDKs for displaying maps and linking to external map applications constitute the specific "mapping component" that "invokes" a second application, as claimed in patents conceived in an earlier technological era?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: what specific software processes are executed when a user interacts with the store locator feature in the Sephora App, and do these processes align with the sequence of steps required by the asserted claims, such as the "mapping component" itself transmitting content or directing a second application to act?
• The case may also hinge on a question of definitional evolution: can claim terms like "mapping component," rooted in the context of web browser plug-ins and ActiveX controls from 2007, be construed to read on the integrated software development kits (SDKs) and API-driven functionalities that characterize contemporary mobile app development?