Activemap LLC v. Gap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Activemap LLC (New York)
  • Defendant: The Gap Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00170, E.D. Tex., 02/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains multiple established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, 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 graphical map elements to associated textual information.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the two-way interactive functionality common in online store locators, where a user can select a location from a list to see it on a map, and vice-versa.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the asserted patent portfolio has been licensed 30 times to companies in various industries. It also notes that related European patents were found to be infringed in two separate German court cases. The patent family has purportedly been cited over 300 times by numerous technology and automotive companies.

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 usability and interactivity in electronically presented maps, which at the time of invention often lacked a seamless, two-way connection between graphical map elements and related textual information Compl. ¶20 '464 Patent, col. 2:10-18
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user can interact with a map and an associated list of items. Selecting an item from the list (e.g., a store name) causes the map to update and center on that item's location. Conversely, interacting with a location on the map can bring up associated information. This creates a two-way interactive link between the graphical map and its underlying data '464 Patent, abstract '464 Patent, col. 3:7-16
• Technical Importance: This interactive linking of a map and a data list is described in the complaint as a "foundational" technology for modern store locator website functionality 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 simultaneously present a display with:
  • A first portion of a map centered at a specific coordinate.
  • Information on the map related to items (e.g., location icons).
  • User-selectable information located "outside of the first map portion" (e.g., a list of items).
• In response to a user selecting an item from the outside information, the computer is programmed to present a second display where:
  • The map portion is replaced with a second map portion centered at a different coordinate corresponding to the selected item.
  • The display includes additional information about the selected item.

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 general challenge of making electronic maps more interactive by better integrating graphical representations with associated data lists and information '943 Patent, col. 1:32-38
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for providing interactive displays. The method involves receiving a user request, presenting a "first display" containing a map and a user-selectable list of items, and upon user selection of an item from the list, providing a "second display" that is at least partially different and presents information corresponding to the selected item '943 Patent, abstract '943 Patent, col. 3:7-16 The specification also details a "magnifier" feature for navigating the map '943 Patent, col. 2:5-10
• Technical Importance: The complaint asserts this technology provides specific technological solutions that are foundational for store locators used by companies across all sectors 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, in response, providing a "first display" on a device, which includes:
  • Graphical information representing a portion of a geographical area.
  • Item information at two or more locations on the map.
  • User-selectable "first information" (e.g., a list) identifying at least two of the items.
• Receiving user input selecting one of the items from the user-selectable information.
• In response, providing a "second display" that is at least partially different from the first and includes:
  • Graphical information representing a portion of the geographical area.
  • Item information related to the selected item.
  • Additional information about the selected item.

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, claims a method for providing interactive maps. The method involves receiving a query for a category of items, displaying a map centered at a first coordinate along with a list of items responsive to the query, and upon a user selecting an item from that list, displaying a new map view centered at a different coordinate corresponding to the selected item '782 Patent, abstract '782 Patent, claim 1
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶63
• Accused Features: The accused features are part of Defendant's website store locator, which allows users to search for stores, view the results as icons on a map and as a text-based list, and select an item from the list to update the map and view location-specific details Compl. ¶¶25-26 Compl. Figs. 2-3

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as Defendant's "interactive mapping ecosystem," embodied by the store locator functionality on its websites, such as the one for its Old Navy brand Compl. ¶¶25-26

Functionality and Market Context

The accused store locator allows a user to input a location query, such as a city and state Compl. Fig. 2 In response, the system displays an interactive map populated with icons representing physical store locations alongside a corresponding textual list of those same stores Compl. Fig. 3 This functionality is alleged to be a foundational tool for retailers to guide online visitors to their brick-and-mortar stores Compl. ¶10 The screenshot provided in Figure 3 of the complaint shows a map of the area around Tyler, Texas, with several store locations identified by icons and a corresponding list of stores presented on the left side of the screen Compl. Fig. 3

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,468,464 Patent Infringement Allegations

10,444,943 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of claim terms requiring discrete display states, such as a "first display" followed by a "second display" '943 Patent, claim 1 or a "first map portion" replaced by a "second map portion" '464 Patent, claim 1 The defense may argue that modern, dynamic web interfaces, which may update elements asynchronously without a full page reload, do not meet these sequential requirements. Another scope question is whether the list of stores in the accused product is truly "outside of the...map portion" as required by claim 1 of the '464 Patent, or if the integrated user interface constitutes a single, indivisible "map portion."
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused website functions by creating distinct, sequential "displays" as recited in the claims, versus a single, persistent display state that is merely updated? The complaint's screenshots show different states of the user interface but do not detail the underlying technical implementation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "outside of the...map portion" (['464 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:20))

• Context and Importance: The infringement reading of the '464 Patent's system claim hinges on the list of store locations being "outside of" the map itself. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the list is construed as being part of the "map portion," this element would not be met. The dispute will likely center on whether "map portion" refers strictly to the geographical graphic or to the entire interactive component, including associated lists and controls.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification includes figures that depict a clear visual and functional separation between a graphical map area and a textual list area, which may support an interpretation where the two are distinct portions and the list is therefore "outside" the map '943 Patent, Fig. 5, elements 30 and 90
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Language in the specification describing the overall system as an integrated "interactive map" could be used to argue that all concurrently displayed, interactive elements are part of a single "map portion," even if visually segregated.

The Term: "simultaneously present" (['464 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:20))

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the accused system, which may load map tiles, icons, and list data asynchronously, meets the claim's temporal requirement. The definition will determine if "simultaneously" means rendered in the exact same programmatic instant or simply co-existing on the screen from the user's perspective.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's general description focuses on the user experience of viewing the map and associated information together, suggesting the term could be interpreted as "concurrently visible to a user" '464 Patent, col. 7:20-24
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue for a stricter technical meaning requiring the elements to be presented as part of a single, atomic rendering operation. The patent's detailed description of the software implementation suggests a highly coordinated, script-driven process, which could be argued to imply a more technically precise timing relationship than mere co-location on a screen '943 Patent, col. 15:56-65 '943 Patent, col. 16:1-11

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides its website with the intent that customers use the store locator in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims Compl. ¶34 Compl. ¶37 The allegations point to Defendant advertising and providing instructions for using the allegedly infringing system Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶38

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on the theory of willful blindness. The complaint asserts, on information and belief, that Defendant maintains a policy or practice of not investigating third-party patent rights, which it argues constitutes the requisite knowledge for a willfulness finding Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶67 The complaint does not allege any pre-suit notice or knowledge of the specific patents-in-suit.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "outside of the...map portion," as recited in the '464 Patent, be construed to cover a textual list displayed within an integrated web application frame alongside a map, or will the court determine that both elements are inseparable parts of a single "map portion"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused store locator's dynamic, asynchronous updating of map and list elements meet the claims' requirements for discrete, sequential states (e.g., a "first display" being replaced by a "second display"), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented method and the operation of the accused modern web application?
• A third question will relate to patentability: given the 2001 priority date, the case may involve significant disputes over the state of the art of interactive web-based mapping at that time and whether the claimed inventions were truly novel and non-obvious over prior art systems.