Local Interest LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Local Interest, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00265, E.D. Tex., 03/31/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains established and regular places of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Costco Mobile App infringes two patents related to providing location-based services for finding points of interest on mobile devices.
• Technical Context: Location-based services that allow users to search for nearby points of interest are a foundational feature of modern mobile applications, serving as a critical link between digital platforms and physical commerce.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts two patents from the same family; U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899, indicating they share a common specification and priority date.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899 - "System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899, "System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations," issued May 12, 2009.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need in the early 2000s for "improved location-based services and systems" for users of wireless, Internet-enabled devices Compl. ¶36 '899 Patent, col. 1:48-50 Existing services were not optimized for efficiently finding multiple types of nearby locations.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that allows a user to create a predefined set of different Points of Interest (POI) categories (e.g., a "My Everyday Set" containing restaurants, ATMs, and coffee shops) Compl. ¶46 '899 Patent, col. 8:40-47 With a single command, the system determines the user's location and "substantially simultaneously" provides a list containing the single geographically closest POI from each of the different categories in the user's set Compl. ¶37 '899 Patent, col. 2:40-49 The user can then request a list of the "next-closer" POIs Compl. ¶¶44-45 '899 Patent, col. 8:18-32 Figure 6 of the patent illustrates this by showing a single results list with the nearest "McDonalds," "Starbucks," and "Wells Fargo" Compl. p. 15
• Technical Importance: The claimed method aimed to improve user experience by reducing the number of individual searches required for a mobile user to locate several different types of nearby essential services.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent method claim 4 Compl. ¶50
• Essential elements of Claim 4 include:
  • Receiving a command to locate POIs associated with two or more "different and user-identified" POI categories.
  • Automatically determining the user's mobile device location.
  • Automatically providing a list that "substantially simultaneously presents" at least one geographically closest POI for "at least some of the different" categories.
  • Receiving further input from the user's device.
  • Providing a "next-closer list of points of interest" that are geographically next closest.
• The complaint notes that other independent claims (1, 5, 14, 21, 27, and 31) are also asserted Compl. ¶51

U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834 - "System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834, "System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations," issued July 8, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '834 Patent, sharing its specification with the '899 Patent, addresses the same general need for improved location-based services on mobile devices '834 Patent, col. 1:52-54
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a more specific method for searching for POIs. The method involves receiving a request from a mobile device that includes a "plurality of letters" (e.g., from a search query), determining a POI whose name contains those letters, and transmitting the name back to the device. Upon receiving a selection of that name from the user, the system then determines and transmits more detailed POI data '834 Patent, claim 1 This describes a type-ahead or predictive search function tailored for location-based services.
• Technical Importance: This approach provided an efficient method for users with limited input capabilities, such as early mobile keypads, to find a specific, known POI without typing its full name.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent method claim 1 Compl. ¶92
• Essential elements of Claim 1, as summarized in the complaint, include Compl. ¶93:
  • Receiving a request with a "plurality of letters" to identify POIs.
  • Determining the mobile device's location.
  • Determining a POI "having a name comprising" the plurality of letters.
  • Transmitting the name of the POI to the mobile device.
  • Receiving an indication of selection of the name from the mobile device.
  • Determining and transmitting the detailed POI data associated with the selected POI.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Costco Mobile App" available for iOS and Android devices Compl. ¶24

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Costco Mobile App provides services to customers, including location-based features Compl. ¶19 A screenshot provided in the complaint highlights several functions, including "Warehouse Tools," "Featured Savings," "Receipts," and "Shop Online" Compl. p. 7, Figure 2 The "Warehouse Tools" feature is described as enabling a user to "Search your home warehouse to see what's in stock," which suggests the use of location data Compl. p. 7, Figure 2
• The complaint alleges the app is a significant component of Defendant's business, citing over 10 million downloads on Google Play and 1.2 million ratings on Apple's AppStore Compl. ¶¶25-26

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that detailed infringement allegations for the '899 and '834 patents are contained in Exhibits A and B, respectively Compl. ¶65 Compl. ¶92 As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint, the following analysis is based on the narrative infringement summaries provided in the complaint's body.

'899 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that Defendant, through the Accused Products, performs a method for providing wireless telecommunication services that meets the limitations of claim 4 Compl. ¶66 The allegations track the claim language, stating the method involves: receiving a command to locate POIs in different user-identified categories; automatically determining the device's location; providing a list of the closest POIs; receiving input; and providing a next-closer list of POIs Compl. ¶66

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Question: The central technical question for the '899 Patent will be whether the Costco Mobile App performs the specific, multi-category search claimed. What evidence indicates that the app allows a user to pre-define a set of different categories (e.g., "Costco Warehouse," "Costco Gas," "Costco Tire Center") and then, with a single action, receive a list showing the single closest result from each of those categories simultaneously?
• Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over the scope of "a list of points of interest" that "substantially simultaneously presents" results from different categories. Does a standard map view showing pins for various nearby Costco-related services meet this limitation, or does the claim, when read in light of the specification's figures, require a specific text-based list structure where each line item represents a different POI category?

'834 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products perform a method meeting the limitations of claim 1 Compl. ¶93 This summary alleges the app's method includes: receiving a request with a plurality of letters; determining device location; determining a POI with a name containing those letters; transmitting the name to the device; receiving a selection of that name; and then transmitting the associated POI data back to the device Compl. ¶93

Identified Points of Contention:

• Technical Question: The infringement analysis for the '834 Patent may focus on the precise sequence of data transmissions. What evidence shows that the app first transmits only the name of a POI, and then, only after receiving a user selection, transmits the rest of the POI data in a separate step, as recited by the claim? An alternative and more common implementation might involve transmitting a list of names and associated summary data in a single initial step.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "substantially simultaneously presents" (from '899 Patent, claim 4)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the core functionality claimed in the '899 Patent. Its construction will determine what type of user interface and data presentation infringes. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a specific list format presented on a single screen at one time, or if it can be interpreted more broadly to mean data returned in a single server response, regardless of how it is ultimately displayed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a visual format, which could support an interpretation that focuses on the timing of the data provision to the mobile device rather than its display.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts the output as a formatted text list with one entry per category (e.g.,'899 Patent, Fig. 6, block 602). This explicit example of how the results are presented could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to a similar list-based display.

Term: "user-identified point of interest categories" (from '899 Patent, claim 4)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the input required to practice the claimed method. The dispute may center on whether a user must explicitly create and save a "set" of categories, as shown in the patent's specification, or if simply selecting multiple filters in a single search query qualifies as identifying categories.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the categories be "user-identified," which could arguably cover on-the-fly filter selections in a search interface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures emphasize the creation and management of persistent "sets" of categories, such as "My Travel Set" or "My Everyday Set" '899 Patent, col. 8:40-43 '899 Patent, Fig. 13 This could support a narrower construction requiring the system to support the creation of such named, reusable sets.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Defendant provides the Accused Products and instructs or encourages end-users on how to use them in an infringing manner Compl. ¶¶69-72 It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products have "special features" that are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" Compl. ¶¶77-78
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the '899 patent "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action," which supports a claim for post-suit willfulness Compl. ¶67 It further alleges that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," suggesting a theory of willful blindness Compl. ¶81

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

• Functional Congruence: A primary issue for the '899 Patent will be one of functional congruence: does the Costco Mobile App's search feature actually perform the specific, multi-step method of defining a set of disparate POI categories and then receiving a single list that "simultaneously presents" the one closest result from each of those categories, or does it offer a more conventional search that simply lists the nearest Costco-related locations?
• Definitional Scope: The case may turn on a question of definitional scope, particularly for the '899 Patent term "substantially simultaneously presents." Will this term be construed narrowly to require the specific text-list format shown in the patent's figures, or broadly enough to cover modern map-based interfaces that display multiple POI types as pins?
• Evidentiary Sufficiency: Since the complaint's detailed infringement theories are contained in unfiled exhibits, a key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer to demonstrate that the accused app's software architecture and network communications protocols perform the precise, ordered sequences of operations recited in the asserted claims of both the '899 and '834 patents.