Nearby Systems LLC v. Kohls Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Kohl's Corporation (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00259, E.D. Tex., 03/29/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has established and maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of alleged infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Kohl's App" mobile application infringes four U.S. patents related to the technology of displaying location-based data from one application within a separate mapping application on a mobile device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for integrating mappable content, such as a business address found in a retail application, with a pre-existing map application on a mobile device to display the new location alongside previously existing map content.
• Key Procedural History: The four patents-in-suit are part of a single patent family, with each subsequent patent being a continuation of a prior application in the chain. The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving these patents.

Case Timeline

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: The patent's background describes a limitation in prior art mobile mapping systems where new location information originating from outside a mapping application (e.g., from an email or social media app) could only be displayed on a new, separate digital map, which would not contain any of the user's previously displayed map content '164 Patent, col. 1:30-38
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for "mashing" or combining data from different sources onto a single map '164 Patent, col. 1:39-42 It describes a system where a user can select addressable information in a first "non-mapping" application, which then causes a separate "map-display application" to launch and display the new location in conjunction with any pre-existing mapping content, such as a previously searched-for point of interest '164 Patent, abstract '164 Patent, FIG. 1C
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to create a more seamless user experience by allowing new location-based content to be layered onto an existing map view, rather than forcing the user to start a new map session for each new point of interest from a different application '164 Patent, col. 3:9-15

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 mobile device storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application.
  • A processor executing both applications.
  • A user interface of the first application configured for the mobile device.
  • A "mapping component" of the first application configured to invoke the second application (which is a mapping application) when "map-able content" on the user interface is activated.
  • The mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service that communicates with the second (mapping) application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '164 Patent, the '980 patent addresses the same technical problem: the siloed nature of mapping data, where location information from one app could not be easily integrated into an existing map view in another app '980 Patent, col. 1:22-38
• The Patented Solution: The '980 patent claims a system on a mobile device that uses a "mapping component" within a first non-browser application to communicate with an online mapping service '980 Patent, col. 15:11-15 This component sends a query with the device's location, gets back map data, and displays it within the first application. The system then stores a second, separate mapping application, which the mapping component can invoke to obtain and display driving directions to a selected location '980 Patent, col. 15:21-25 '980 Patent, col. 16:1-6 This architecture is illustrated in the patent's figures, which show a display application interacting with a separate mapping application via a network '980 Patent, FIG. 10A
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a specific system architecture for integrating store-finder functionality within a primary application while leveraging the more powerful routing capabilities of a dedicated, separate mapping application '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 memory storing a first non-browser application.
  • A processor executing the first application.
  • A touch screen displaying the first application's user interface.
  • A GPS device determining the mobile device's location.
  • A mapping component in the first application that communicates with an online mapping service to download and display map data based on the device's location.
  • The memory also stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
  • The mapping component invokes the second mapping application and directs it to obtain driving directions to a destination.
  • The driving directions are displayed in a map on the touch screen by the mapping application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family, claims a system for displaying location-based content. It focuses on the user interaction where a touch on text associated with an icon on a first map (within a first non-browser app) causes the system to transmit a query and display a second map in a second non-browser app showing a route to that location '145 Patent, col. 15:18-27
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶60
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Kohl's App, which displays store locations on a map and allows users to tap them to get directions via a separate mapping app, infringes this patent Compl. ¶61

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system where a user enters text (like a ZIP code) into a first application, which then displays a map with points of interest. A user's selection of one of these points of interest causes the system to transmit a query and display a new map in a second, separate non-browser application showing the selected point of interest '177 Patent, col. 15:10-25 '177 Patent, col. 16:1-6
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶77
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Kohl's App's store locator feature, which allows users to search for stores and then select one to get directions, infringes this patent Compl. ¶78

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The primary accused instrumentality is the "Kohl's App," a mobile device application provided by Defendant for download on smartphones Compl. ¶¶16-17 The complaint also identifies Defendant's website, https://www.kohls.com/, as an infringing system Compl. ¶16

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Kohl's App is designed to allow customers to locate Kohl's stores Compl. ¶18 The infringement allegations focus on the app's store locator functionality, which allegedly obtains and displays map information on the mobile device to help users identify and navigate to store locations Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶44 The complaint references an exhibit showing the Kohl's App displaying a map with store locations and providing an option to "Get Directions," which then invokes a separate mapping application like Google Maps Compl. Ex. I, p. 11

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides exemplary evidence of infringement for the '164 patent using the "Exxon Mobile App" rather than the accused Kohl's App Compl. ¶26 Compl. Ex. H The analysis below is based on that provided example.

U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for all patents may be whether the act of a retail app (like Kohl's App) using a standard operating system function to pass an address to a separate mapping app (e.g., via a URL scheme) constitutes the specific, integrated "mapping component" that "invokes" and "directs" the mapping application as claimed in the patents. The defense may argue this is a conventional, unpatentable use of basic smartphone functionality, while the plaintiff will likely focus on the specific sequence of steps and system architecture laid out in the claims.
  • Technical Questions: For the '164 patent, the complaint relies on an example of a different company's app (Exxon Mobil) to illustrate infringement. A key question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused Kohl's App operates in a technically identical or equivalent manner to the system described in that example. For the '980 patent, the analysis may focus on whether the initial map displayed within the Kohl's App is downloaded by the same "mapping component" that later "invokes" the separate Google Maps application, as required by the claim's structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mapping component"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the '164 and '980 patents and is the central technological element that allegedly performs the infringing actions. The case may turn on whether the accused Kohl's App contains a specific, identifiable software module that meets the definition of this term and performs all its recited functions (e.g., invoking a second application, transmitting content, communicating with an online service).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the mapping component in functional terms, suggesting it could be any code that performs the recited steps, stating it could be "a top-most application..., an ActiveX control; a widget, an application on a PDA, etc." '980 Patent, col. 4:18-24
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and associated descriptions illustrate the "mapping component" as a distinct module within a larger system architecture, potentially separate from the main "display application" '980 Patent, FIG. 10A, element 1002 This could support an argument that it must be more than just diffuse code performing a function, but a structurally distinct component.

• The Term: "invokes"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the action the "mapping component" takes on the "second non-browser application" (the mapping app). The nature of this interaction is critical. Practitioners may focus on whether a simple "deep link" or URL call-a standard OS feature for app-to-app communication-satisfies the term "invokes" as used in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract suggests a broad meaning, stating the map-display application may be "automatically presented (e.g., launches, become visible, displayed, etc.)" '980 Patent, abstract This language may support an argument that any action causing the mapping app to appear is an "invocation."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is used in the context of a "mapping component" that also "directs" the mapping application to perform a query '980 Patent, claim 1 This linkage could suggest a more integrated or controlling relationship than a simple "fire-and-forget" URL call, potentially requiring an API-level interaction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing the Accused Products to its customers and distributing instructions, advertising, and promotions that guide users to use the products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶79 It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products have special features designed for infringing use with no substantial non-infringing uses Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶63 Compl. ¶80
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶47 Compl. ¶64 Compl. ¶81 The complaint further alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," constituting willful blindness Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶65 Compl. ¶82

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mapping component," described in the patent as a distinct software element, be construed to read on the general store-locator code of a standard retail application? The outcome of this claim construction battle will be pivotal, as it will define the technical feature that Plaintiff must find within the Kohl's App.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the Kohl's App's use of a standard operating system feature to hand off an address to Google Maps or Apple Maps constitute the specific, multi-step process of a "mapping component" that "invokes" and "directs" a separate mapping application as recited in the claims, or is it a fundamentally different and more conventional technical operation?
• A third question relates to patentability and prior art: given that the patents' priority date is 2007, the defense will likely raise the question of whether the claimed method was already a well-understood, conventional, or obvious practice in the early days of smartphone app development, potentially challenging the validity of the claims.