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-0170, E.D. Tex., 06/09/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains multiple established places of business within the district, including a specific 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 list-based information with corresponding geographical locations.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves interactive mapping systems where selecting an item in a list dynamically updates a corresponding map view, a feature that has become foundational for online store locators.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit claim a priority date of April 30, 2001. The complaint alleges that the underlying technology has been licensed to 30 companies and that related European patents were twice found to be infringed in German court proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-04-30	Priority Date for '464, '943, and '782 Patents
2013-06-18	U.S. Patent No. 8,468,464 Issued
2019-10-15	U.S. Patent No. 10,444,943 Issued
2021-02-02	U.S. Patent No. 10,908,782 Issued
2026-06-09	First Amended Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, electronically presented maps were available online, but the patent asserts there was a lack of computerized systems providing a truly interactive map linked with associated information (Compl. ¶21, citing '943 Patent at 1:43-60).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system that provides two-way interactivity between a map and associated information (Compl. ¶26, citing '943 Patent at 3:8-23). The system presents a map display alongside a selectable list of items. When a user selects an item from the list, the system is programmed to present a "second map portion" that is re-centered relative to the first, thereby creating a dynamic link from the information list back to the map '464 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: This system of linking list-based information to a dynamic map display provided a foundational technological solution for what would become ubiquitous store locator functionality on commercial websites Compl. ¶20

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶46
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system with at least one computer programmed to cause a display device to present a "first portion of the map" centered at a first coordinate, along with "information outside of the first map portion" that is user-selectable.
  • In response to a user's selection of the "user-selectable information", the computer is programmed to present a "second map portion" that is centered at a coordinate "different" from the first coordinate.
  • This second presentation also includes "information on the second map portion", "information outside of the second map portion", and "additional information" about the selected item.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement allegations are not limited to claim 1 Compl. ¶43

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the '464 Patent: the need for better integration between electronic maps and related information to improve user interaction (Compl. ¶23, citing '943 Patent at 2:17-32).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method for providing an interactive display. The method involves receiving a request, presenting a "first display" containing a map and user-selectable information (e.g., a list), and, upon receiving user input selecting an item, providing a "second display" that is "at least partially different" and includes a new graphical representation and additional information about the selected item '943 Patent, claim 1 The specification describes this as enabling a user to explore a neighborhood in a manner "similar in essence to actually walking through the area of interest" (Compl. ¶24, citing '943 Patent at 2:33-38).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method provided a more intuitive and "enjoyable manner" for users to obtain and navigate location-based information online Compl. ¶24

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶63
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A method where a computer receives a request and provides a "first display" that includes "graphical information" (a map), "item information" (locations on the map), and "first information" (a user-selectable list of items).
  • The method further involves receiving user input selecting an item from the "first information".
  • In response, the computer provides a "second display" that is "at least partially different" from the first, which includes a new "graphical information" portion, "item information" related to the selected item, and "additional information" about that item.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶43

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,908,782, "Interactive Electronically Presented Map," issued Feb. 2, 2021.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for an interactive map where a user query for a specific category of items generates a first display containing a map and a list of corresponding items. Upon user selection of an item from that list, the system generates a second display with a new map view re-centered based on the selected item's location '782 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶¶32-33
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶80
• Accused Features: The accused functionality is the store locator feature where a user's search generates a map and a list of stores, and selecting a store from the list updates the map display Compl. ¶43 Compl. Fig. 3

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Products are Defendant's "interactive mapping ecosystem," which includes the store locator functionality on its websites, such as the one available at Old Navy Store Locator Compl. ¶41 Compl. Fig. 2

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionality is a website-based store locator. As depicted in the complaint, a user can enter a location, such as "tyler texas," into a search field Compl. Fig. 2 The system then presents a display that includes a map with icons indicating store locations and a list of specific stores on the side, providing details like address and hours (Compl. ¶41; Compl. ¶42; Compl. ¶43). A screenshot in the complaint shows the "FIND A STORE" feature on the Old Navy website Compl. Fig. 2, p. 23 Another screenshot shows the resulting map and list interface after a search is performed Compl. Fig. 3, p. 24 The complaint alleges that this system provides for two-way interaction between the map and the list of items Compl. ¶26

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,468,464 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A system for providing an interactive electronic map, comprising: at least one computer programmed to cause a display device to simultaneously present thereon: a first portion of the map centered at a first x coordinate and at a first y coordinate; ... and information outside of the first map portion ... including user-selectable information;	Defendant's website system presents an initial display with a map showing store locations and a corresponding user-selectable list of stores on the side Compl. Fig. 3	¶43; ¶48	col. 2:17-32
wherein the at least one computer is programmed to cause, in response to selection of user-selectable information from the user-selectable information outside of the first map portion ... the display device to simultaneously present thereon: instead of the first map portion a second map portion ... centered at an x coordinate different from the first x coordinate...	The complaint alleges that when a user selects a store from the list, the system is programmed to present an updated map view that is re-centered to the location of the selected store, thus changing the map's coordinates Compl. ¶35	¶35; ¶43	col. 8:44-67
...the second map portion being at least partially different from the first map portion...	The alleged new map view, being re-centered on a different coordinate, is necessarily a different portion of the map than what was initially displayed Compl. ¶35	¶35; ¶43	col. 8:44-67
[the second display includes] information on the second map portion ... information outside of the second map portion ... and additional information about the user-selectable information that was selected...	The complaint alleges that after a selection, the system presents the new map view along with information related to the selected store Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶29	¶22; ¶29	col. 3:41-4:15

10,444,943 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method ... comprising: the at least one computer receiving a request and in response, providing for presentation on the display device in a first display...	A user enters a search query (the request) like "tyler texas" into the store locator, and the system provides the initial map and list display Compl. Fig. 2 Compl. Fig. 3	¶41; ¶43	col. 21:36-58
...which includes at least all of: graphical information representing a first portion of a geographical area; item information for presentation at two or more locations on the first portion ... and first information ... identifying at least a first and a second of the two or more items...	The initial display includes a map ("graphical information"), pins on the map ("item information"), and a selectable list of stores ("first information") Compl. Fig. 3	¶43; ¶48	col. 21:39-49
the method further comprising receiving user input to the at least one computer to select user-selectable information relating to the first of the two or more items...	The complaint alleges that the user can click on or otherwise select a store from the list, which constitutes receiving user input Compl. ¶35	¶35; ¶43	col. 21:50-54
and in response, the at least one computer providing for presentation on the display device in a second display which is at least partially different from the first display and includes ... graphical information representing a portion of the geographical area; ... and additional information about the first item...	The complaint alleges that selecting an item from the list causes the system to present a new, updated display that includes a new map view and additional details about the selected store Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶43	¶22; ¶29; ¶43	col. 21:54-66

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether selecting an item from the Defendant's list causes the system to present a "second map portion... centered at an x coordinate different" ('464 Patent) or a "second display which is at least partially different" ('943 Patent). The litigation could focus on whether the accused functionality, which may involve highlighting a pin or showing an information box, meets the claimed requirement for a new, re-centered, or different display, as opposed to merely overlaying information on the existing one.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the interactive functionality but does not provide visual evidence of the display after a user selects an item from the list. A key evidentiary question for the court will be what precisely occurs in the Accused Products upon user selection and whether that operation aligns with the specific steps and system configurations required by the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "second map portion ... centered at an x coordinate different from the first x coordinate" '464 Patent, claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis for the '464 Patent. The core of the inventive concept appears to be the two-way link where selecting a list item re-centers the map. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant may argue its system does not "re-center" the map but performs a different function, such as displaying an information overlay, potentially avoiding infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes retrieving and displaying graphical information for a selected region, which could be argued to encompass any update to the map view, not just a dramatic shift (e.g., '943 Patent, col. 8:49-9:14, incorporated by reference).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures showing the "magnifier" moving to a new location on the map could be cited to support a narrower construction requiring a distinct and tangible shift in the map's center point (e.g., '943 Patent, Figs. 5-6).

• The Term: "at least partially different from the first display" '943 Patent, claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the method claim in the '943 Patent. The case may hinge on how much change is required for the "second display" to be considered "at least partially different." Defendant may argue that a minor change, like a pop-up info box, does not create a "different" display in the manner contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "at least partially different" suggests any non-identical display could suffice. The specification's discussion of providing "additional information" alongside the map could support that adding new text or graphics makes the display "partially different" (e.g., '943 Patent, col. 4:5-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the second display as including a new "graphical information representing a portion of the geographical area," which could be argued to require a change to the map itself, not just the addition of textual information overlaying the same map view '943 Patent, claim 1

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by advertising the infringing use and by providing instructions to its customers on how to use the Accused Products Compl. ¶¶52-55 Compl. ¶¶69-72 Compl. ¶¶86-89
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having a "policy or practice against investigating third party patent rights," which allegedly constitutes willful blindness Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶67 Compl. ¶84 The allegations do not assert pre-suit knowledge from a specific notice letter but are based on a general theory of deliberate indifference.

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

• A core issue will be one of functional operation: Does selecting an item from the Defendant's store locator list cause the system to generate a new, re-centered, or "at least partially different" map display as required by the claims, or does it perform a technically distinct function, such as displaying a static information overlay? The complaint's lack of visual evidence for the post-selection state of the accused system makes this a key evidentiary hurdle for the Plaintiff.
• A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely involve significant debate over the construction of claim terms such as "centered at an x coordinate different" ('464 Patent) and "at least partially different from the first display" ('943 Patent). The viability of the infringement claims will depend on whether the court adopts a broad interpretation where minor updates suffice or a narrow one requiring a substantial change to the map's presentation.