Nearby Systems LLC v. Walgreens Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Walgreens Co. (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00418, E.D. Tex., 05/19/2026
• 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 patent infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Walgreens App" for mobile devices infringes four U.S. patents related to methods for combining and displaying mapping content from disparate sources onto a single digital map.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the software-level integration of location data from various applications (e.g., social media, email, websites) into a unified map view on a mobile device, a key function in modern location-based services.
• Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents are part of a single family sharing a common specification and claiming priority back to an application filed in 2007. The patents represent a chain of continuation applications, which may suggest an effort to capture evolving aspects of the technology with progressively refined claim sets.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-12	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2016-12-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 Issued
2019-11-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980 Issued
2024-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145 Issued
2024-12-31	U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177 Issued
2026-05-19	Complaint Filed

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,980, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued November 5, 2019.

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., an address in an email) could only be displayed on a new, separate map, thereby losing the context of any information already displayed '980 Patent, col. 1:31-43
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for combining mappable data from "disparate sources" onto a single, pre-existing digital map '980 Patent, summary of the invention It describes a system where a "second set of mappable content, found outside the mapping application," can be transmitted to and displayed by the mapping application "in conjunction with any of the existing (i.e. previously-displayed) mapping content" '980 Patent, col. 1:49-55 This process is illustrated in figures showing a second point of interest from one application being added to an existing map from another application '980 Patent, Figs. 1A-1C
• Technical Importance: This technology enables a "mash-up" of geographic information from different applications into a single, unified view, which is a foundational feature of modern, integrated mobile operating systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 '980 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶43
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A system with a memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application that is a mapping application.
  • A processor executing the first non-browser application.
  • A GPS device for determining the mobile device's location.
  • A mapping component of the first non-browser application that communicates with an online mapping service to download and display a map based on the device's location.
  • The mapping component invokes the second non-browser (mapping) application and "directs" it to transmit a query to obtain driving directions to a destination.
  • The driving directions are displayed in a map on the touch screen.
• 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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,937,145, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued March 19, 2024.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same patent family, the '145 Patent addresses the same problem of siloed mapping applications as the '980 Patent '145 Patent, col. 1:31-43
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a similar solution of combining data from disparate sources onto an existing map '145 Patent, col. 1:44-55 The claims, however, recite a more specific user interaction pathway to achieve this integration, involving touching on-screen text associated with an icon to trigger the display of a route on a second map '145 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: This patent claims a specific workflow for integrating location data, focusing on a direct user interaction (a touch) within one application to trigger a complex mapping function (routing) in a second application.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 '145 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶60
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A system with a memory storing first and second non-browser applications.
  • A touch screen displaying a first user interface of the first application, which shows a first map, an icon on the map, and text associated with the icon.
  • A mapping component that, upon receiving a touch on the text, transmits a query to an online mapping service.
  • In response, the touch screen displays a second map with a route to the icon's location in a second user interface of the second non-browser application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164 - "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,532,164, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 27, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: As the parent of the other asserted patents, the '164 patent discloses the core technology for combining location data from disparate applications onto a single, unified digital map to overcome the limitations of siloed mapping services '164 Patent, background of the invention '164 Patent, summary of the invention
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶26
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Walgreens App's system for displaying map information to allow users to identify and navigate to store locations infringes the '164 patent Compl. ¶27

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,185,177, "Mashing Mapping Content Displayed On Mobile Devices," issued December 31, 2024.
• Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family, the '177 patent also describes technology for mashing up mapping content from different applications onto one map '177 Patent, background of the invention '177 Patent, summary of the invention
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶77
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Walgreens App's functionality for displaying map and location information for Defendant's products of infringing the '177 patent Compl. ¶78

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Walgreens App," a mobile device application, and the associated website at https://www.walgreens.com/ Compl. ¶¶16-18

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are designed to allow customers to locate Walgreens stores Compl. ¶18 The core accused functionality is the "system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device... to obtain the data to display text and maps that present information to allow a mobile device user to identify and navigate to locations offering Defendant's products" Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶61 Compl. ¶78 This functionality is central to the app's utility as a tool for connecting online customers to physical retail locations.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,469,980 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a memory of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application;	The mobile device's memory stores the Walgreens App (the first non-browser application).	¶44	col. 9:15-23
wherein the memory stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application, and	The mobile device's memory stores an underlying OS-level mapping application (e.g., Apple Maps, Google Maps), which the Walgreens App allegedly invokes.	¶44	col. 3:15-20
a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to communicate with an online mapping service to download map data and display a map...	The Walgreens App allegedly includes a software component that communicates with a mapping service to display store locations on a map.	¶44	col. 14:10-20
wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query including... a destination location to the online mapping service to obtain driving directions...	The Walgreens App allegedly invokes the underlying OS mapping application and directs it to query for and display driving directions to a selected store.	¶44	col. 15:23-16:8

11,937,145 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a touch screen... displaying a first user interface of the first non-browser application, wherein the first user interface displays a first map, an icon corresponding to a location on the first map and a text associated with the icon;	The Walgreens App allegedly displays a map showing store locations, where each store is represented by an icon and associated text (e.g., store address).	¶61	col. 10:16-24
wherein upon receiving a touch of the touch screen corresponding to the text, the mapping component transmits a query...	When a user allegedly touches the text for a store location in the Walgreens App, a query is transmitted to an online mapping service.	¶61	col. 15:19-24
wherein, in response to the query, the touch screen displays in a second user interface of the second non-browser application a second map of the... icon and a route between the location of the mobile device and the location of the icon.	In response to the user's touch, an underlying mapping application allegedly displays a new map view showing a route to the selected store.	¶61	col. 15:25-30

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue for the '980 patent may be whether the Walgreens App's use of a standard OS-level API to request directions from a separate mapping application satisfies the claim limitation "invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query." The analysis may turn on the degree of command and control the term "directs" requires. For the '145 patent, a scope question is whether a transition from a store-list map view to a route-guidance view within the same mapping application instance constitutes a "second map" displayed in a "second user interface of the second non-browser application" as claimed.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are general, stating the app provides a way to "identify and navigate to locations" Compl. ¶61 However, the claim of the '145 patent recites a highly specific sequence of operations. A key evidentiary question will be whether the Walgreens App's actual operation mirrors this specific claimed workflow (displaying a first map, touching text, invoking a second application to show a second map with a route), or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '980 Patent

• The Term: "invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the relationship between the accused first application (Walgreens App) and the second, underlying mapping application. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a standard API call to an OS service is sufficient for infringement, or if a more specialized, commanding interaction is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses relaying information between applications in general terms, which could support an interpretation where any API call that causes the mapping application to perform a function qualifies as "invoking and directing" '980 Patent, col. 5:20-27
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts, which describe passing search queries and managing application states, could suggest that "directs" implies a higher level of control than a simple fire-and-forget API call, potentially requiring the first application to construct and pass the specific query parameters to the second '980 Patent, col. 4:15-24 '980 Patent, col. 4:47-53

For the '145 Patent

• The Term: "a second map" in a "second user interface"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory for the '145 patent. The case may hinge on whether transitioning views within a single map instance (e.g., from a pin-drop view to a turn-by-turn directions view) meets this limitation, or if the claim requires the instantiation of a genuinely separate map object or screen.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "second map" or "second user interface," leaving room for an argument that any substantively different map display (e.g., a route overlay) constitutes a "second map."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses interactions between separate and distinct applications (e.g., a "non-mapping application" and a "mapping application") '145 Patent, col. 3:20-33 This context, combined with figures illustrating a move from one application context to another (e.g., from email to a map), could support a narrower reading that requires a new application window or a fully distinct interface, not just a different mode within the same interface.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides the Walgreens App and actively encourages its customers to use the accused mapping features through instructions and promotional materials Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶79 It further alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused features are specially designed for an infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing purpose Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶63 Compl. ¶80
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents since at least the filing date of the complaint Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶47 Compl. ¶64 Compl. ¶81 The complaint also alleges willful blindness, asserting on information and belief that Defendant maintains a policy of not reviewing the patents of others Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶65 Compl. ¶82

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

• A core issue will be one of operational correspondence: does the actual functionality of the Walgreens App's store locator, which likely relies on standard, high-level operating system APIs, perform the specific, multi-step, and arguably more integrated processes required by the asserted claims, particularly the more detailed claims of the later-issued patents?
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope: can terms like "invokes... and directs the mapping application" be broadly construed to cover a conventional API call from one application to another, or does the patent's specification demand a more specialized and commanding form of inter-application control that is absent in the accused system?
• The case presents a strategic question of patent family escalation: given that the four asserted patents claim similar technology with varying levels of specificity, the court will need to determine whether the generic store locator function described in the complaint can be mapped onto the more granular limitations of the recently issued patents, or if infringement, if any, is confined to the broader claims of the earliest patent.