Activemap LLC v. Lowe's Companies Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Activemap LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: Lowe's Companies, Inc. (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00160, E.D. Tex., 02/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the defendant, Lowe's, maintains multiple established places of business in the state and specifically operates a physical store within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website store locator functionality infringes three patents related to interactive electronic maps that link graphical map elements with corresponding informational lists.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the two-way interactive functionality between a map and a data list, a system that has become a foundational component of online store locators and other geographic search tools.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the underlying technology has been licensed 30 times by industry companies, has been cited in over 300 subsequent patents, and that related European patents were successfully asserted in two German court proceedings.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,468,464 - "Interactive Electronically Presented Map", issued June 18, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the need for improvements in the presentation and usability of electronically displayed maps and their associated information, which at the time of invention were often static or difficult to navigate interactively '943 Patent, col. 2:18-22
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for two-way interactivity between a graphical map and a list of items or locations. A user can select an item from the list to see its corresponding position highlighted on the map, and conversely, a user can select a location on the map to retrieve associated information from the list '943 Patent, abstract '943 Patent, col. 3:7-15 This creates a dynamic link between the visual map data and the textual information data, as illustrated in the system architecture of Figure 1 of the patents.
• Technical Importance: This interactive approach was described in the complaint as being "foundational for store locator website functionality" Compl. ¶20

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶29
• The complaint does not provide the language of the asserted claim(s) for analysis.

U.S. Patent No. 10,444,943 - "Interactive Electronically Presented Map", issued October 15, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation within the same patent family, the '943 Patent addresses the same technical challenge of improving the "ease of use of electronically presented maps" and the information associated with them '943 Patent, col. 2:18-22
• The Patented Solution: The solution is consistent with the parent patent, focusing on a computerized method that enables two-way interactivity. It details a process where a user's selection of an item in a list triggers a change in the map display to indicate the item's location, and selection of a map location can retrieve associated data '943 Patent, abstract The patent also describes a "magnifier" feature that allows for a movable, magnified view of a portion of the map to be displayed simultaneously with the main map '943 Patent, col. 3:24-44
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a core functional framework for modern online geographic search tools, particularly for commercial applications like store locators Compl. ¶20

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶46
• Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential steps:
  • Receiving a request and, in response, providing a "first display" that includes a map portion, item information at multiple locations, and a user-selectable list identifying at least two of the items.
  • Receiving user input selecting information related to one of the items from the list.
  • In response, providing a "second display" that is "at least partially different from the first display" and includes a map portion, item information related to the selected item, an updated selectable list, and "additional information about the first item."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of "at least claim 1" leaves this possibility open Compl. ¶46

U.S. Patent No. 10,908,782 - "Interactive Electronically Presented Map", issued February 2, 2021

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the '464 and '943 patents and addresses the same technical problem of enhancing user interaction with electronic maps. The patented solution centers on a method for creating a two-way interactive link between a graphical map display and associated data, allowing user selections in one to trigger corresponding updates in the other, thereby improving the usability of features like online store locators.
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶63
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Lowe's website store locator, which provides an interactive map alongside a list of store locations, of practicing the patented method Compl. ¶¶25-26 Compl. ¶¶62-65

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "Defendant interactive mapping ecosystem," which includes the Lowe's website (https://www.lowes.com/), its store locator feature, and associated backend components like servers and software Compl. ¶¶25-26

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Lowe's website provides a store locator where a user can input a location query, such as "tyler, texas" Compl., Fig. 2 In response, the system displays a list of nearby store locations alongside a map showing icons for each store Compl., Fig. 3 The complaint alleges this functionality is central to the user experience for customers trying to find physical retail locations and is an example of the widely deployed technology claimed by the patents-in-suit Compl. ¶20 Figure 3 of the complaint shows a screenshot of the accused website displaying a map of the Tyler, Texas area with store locations and a corresponding list of results. Compl., Fig. 3

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide the asserted claim language or a claim chart exhibit for the '464 Patent or the '782 Patent. The infringement theory for these patents is that the Lowe's website store locator, by providing an interactive map linked to a list of store locations, performs the methods claimed in the patents (Compl. ¶28; Compl. ¶29; Compl. ¶30; Compl. ¶31).

'943 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential issue for claim construction may be the meaning of "a second display which is at least partially different from the first display." The question for the court could be whether dynamic, on-page updates (e.g., expanding a details section within a list without a full page reload) qualify as a "second display," or if the term requires a more substantial change to the interface.
• Technical Questions: The asserted claim is a method claim. The complaint alleges direct infringement by Lowe's for making, using, and testing the system Compl. ¶47 A potential point of dispute could be whether Lowe's performs all steps of the claimed method, or if some steps are performed exclusively by the end user, which could shift the analysis toward indirect infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a second display which is at least partially different from the first display" (from claim 1 of the '943 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining infringement. If the dynamic, client-side updates common in modern web applications do not constitute a "second display," it could present a challenge to the infringement allegations. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether routine interactive features of the accused website fall within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the invention in general terms of retrieving and displaying information in response to a user's selection, without requiring a specific mechanism like a full page reload '943 Patent, col. 9:8-14 This could support a construction that includes any change in the presented information.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, such as FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, depict noticeably distinct screen layouts when new information is presented, which could suggest that a more substantial interface change is contemplated than simply expanding an existing element on the same page.

• The Term: "providing for presentation" (from claim 1 of the '943 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the allegation of direct infringement against Lowe's. The dispute may center on whether Lowe's, by operating the server that transmits the website data, is "providing for presentation," or whether the presentation is solely performed by the end-user's browser.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's system diagram (FIG. 1) shows a server (12) sending an application and data to a user device (14) for display '943 Patent, col. 14:15-25 This architecture suggests that the entity controlling the server is the one "providing for presentation" to the end user.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the term requires direct control over the final rendering of the display on the user's screen, an action performed by the user's local browser software, not the remote server.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads inducement and contributory infringement in the alternative for all three patents. It alleges that Lowe's takes active steps to induce infringement by providing instructions to customers on how to use the accused store locator functionality Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶72
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Lowe's purported "policy or practice against investigating third party patent rights," which the complaint characterizes as "willful blindness" qualifying for the requisite knowledge of the patents-in-suit Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶67 The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge from a specific notice letter.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "a second display which is at least partially different from the first display," as claimed in the patents, be construed to cover the type of dynamic, on-page content updates that are standard in the accused website's modern user interface, or does it require a more distinct screen transition as arguably depicted in the patents' figures?
• A key legal question will be one of attribution of action: does Lowe's' operation of its website and backend servers constitute direct infringement of the asserted method claims, or are essential steps of the claimed user interaction performed only by the end-user, thereby requiring Plaintiff to meet the higher evidentiary standards for proving indirect infringement?