Activemap LLC v. National Vision Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Activemap LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: National Vision, Inc. (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00162, E.D. Tex., Filed 02/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains multiple established places of business in the district, including a specific retail location in Tyler, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website store locator functionality infringes three patents related to interactive electronic maps that link geographical representations with lists of associated information.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for creating interactive online maps where users can select an item from a list to see its location on an accompanying map, and vice-versa, a foundational technology for modern online store locators.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that related European patents have twice been found to be infringed in German court proceedings and that the technology has been licensed thirty times. The patent family has also been cited in over 300 other patents and applications.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,468,464 - "Interactive Electronically Presented Map"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved interactivity in early online mapping systems. The background acknowledges existing electronic maps but implies a lack of seamless, two-way communication between the graphical map and associated textual information about locations on that map Compl. ¶19 '464 Patent, col. 1:34-48
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computerized system that provides "two-way interactivity" '464 Patent, col. 3:7-15 A user can select a location on a map to retrieve associated information (e.g., business details), and conversely, a user can select an item from a list of information to cause the system to identify the corresponding location on the map. This creates a dynamic link between the visual map and its underlying data, allowing for more intuitive exploration '464 Patent, abstract '464 Patent, col. 3:7-15
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges this interactive approach was "foundational for store locator website functionality" and has been widely deployed across various industries Compl. ¶20

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶29
• The essential elements of Claim 1, a system claim, include:
  • A computer programmed to cause a display device to simultaneously present a first portion of a map centered at specific coordinates, information on that map portion, and user-selectable information outside the map portion.
  • The computer is further programmed to, in response to a user's selection of the user-selectable information, cause the display to simultaneously present a second map portion that is at least partially different from the first map portion, along with associated information.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,444,943 - "Interactive Electronically Presented Map"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same patent family, the '943 Patent addresses the same technical challenge: enhancing the usability and interactivity of electronically presented maps by creating a dynamic relationship between the map graphic and its associated data '943 Patent, col. 2:32-38
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a computer system receives a request and, in response, provides a "first display" containing both a graphical map portion and a list of user-selectable items. Upon receiving user input selecting one of the items, the system provides a "second display" that is different from the first, presenting graphical information related to the selected item '943 Patent, abstract '943 Patent, col. 2:56-65 This method formalizes the interactive process of querying a map system and drilling down for more specific information.
• Technical Importance: This method provides a structured approach to the user experience of searching and finding points of interest, a core function of the store locator technology the complaint identifies as foundational Compl. ¶20

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶46
• The essential elements of Claim 1, a method claim, include:
  • Receiving a request and providing a first display containing a graphical map portion and user-selectable information identifying at least two items.
  • Receiving user input to select information relating to the first of the items.
  • In response, providing a second display, at least partially different from the first, which includes graphical information and item information related to the selected first item.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,908,782 - "Interactive Electronically Presented Map"

The Invention Explained

• This patent describes a method for providing interactive maps where a computer receives a query for a category of items. In response, it provides a display with a map centered at a first coordinate and a list of items responsive to the query. When a user selects an item from the list, the system provides a second display with a new map representation centered at a coordinate corresponding to the selected item '782 Patent, abstract '782 Patent, claim 1

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶63

Accused Features

• The complaint alleges that Defendant's website store locator, which allows users to search for store locations and view them on an interactive map alongside a list of results, infringes the '782 patent Compl. ¶¶62-65

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are the "interactive mapping ecosystem" used on Defendant's websites, exemplified by the store locator feature on "https://www.americasbest.com/location/search/" Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶26

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused functionality allows a user to enter a location, such as a city and state or ZIP code, into a search field Compl. ¶26 Compl. Fig. 2 In response, the system displays a map showing relevant store locations marked with indicators, alongside a list of those same stores with addresses and contact information Compl. ¶26 Compl. Fig. 3 The complaint alleges these systems involve "location determination, transmissions to Defendant servers, server-side storage and processing," and map display generation Compl. ¶25 Figure 2 of the complaint shows the initial search interface and a broad map view for the "americasbest" website Compl. Fig. 2 Figure 3 shows the results for a "Tyler TX" search, with a map on the right and a corresponding list of two store locations on the left Compl. Fig. 3

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'464 Patent Infringement Allegations

'943 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of the sequence of displays required by the claims. For the '464 Patent, it will be important to determine what constitutes the "first map portion" versus the "second map portion." For the '943 Patent, the dispute may focus on what actions create a "second display which is at least partially different from the first display."
• Technical Questions: The complaint provides static screenshots of the accused system after a search has been performed but does not show the system's response to a subsequent user selection (e.g., clicking on a listed store). An evidentiary question will be whether the accused system actually performs the second step of the claimed methods-displaying a new or different map portion in response to a user's selection from the results list, as opposed to merely highlighting a location or showing an info-box.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a second map portion... at least partially different from the first map portion" ('464 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on a two-step process: presentation of a first map, followed by a user action that generates a second, different map. The definition of "partially different" is critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because if a minor change like highlighting a pin does not qualify as a "different" map portion, infringement may be more difficult to establish.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general language "at least partially different" could be argued to encompass any change to the map display, including the addition of overlays, highlights, or informational pop-ups, not just a change in the underlying map graphic.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's description of a user action causing the system to "move to the listing's location on the map, and the associated area to be displayed magnified" suggests that a "different" map portion may require a change in the map's center, zoom level, or magnification state '464 Patent, col. 11:13-16

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

• Context and Importance: Similar to the term in the '464 Patent, the core of the asserted interactive method in the '943 Patent hinges on this transition. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused product's response to a user click-which might be a simple highlight or an info-box-constitutes a new "display."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "display" could be interpreted broadly to mean the overall state of the user interface. Any change to what the user sees, even without altering the map's zoom or pan, could be argued to create a "different display."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '943 Patent recites that the second display "includes at least all of: graphical information representing a portion of the geographical area." This could support an interpretation that the "graphical information" itself must change, implying a re-rendering, re-centering, or re-zooming of the map is required, not just an overlay.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by Defendant providing instructions to its customers and end users on how to use the accused store locator functionality Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶72
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations are based on alleged "willful blindness." The complaint asserts, on information and belief, that Defendant has a "policy or practice against investigating third party patent rights," but does not allege that Defendant had specific knowledge of the patents-in-suit before the lawsuit was filed Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶67

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can the plaintiff produce evidence that the accused store locator performs the full, two-step interactive sequence required by the claims? The complaint's visual evidence establishes the first step (a search yielding a map and a list), but the crucial second step (selecting a list item to generate a new map display) is alleged but not depicted.
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope: how will the court construe the term "at least partially different" as it applies to a map portion or display? The case may turn on whether a simple interface change, such as highlighting a pin on the existing map, is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if a more substantial change to the underlying graphical map data, such as re-centering or zooming, is required.