Local Interest LLC v. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Local Interest, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. d/b/a Ulta Beauty (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00583, E.D. Tex., 07/15/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains "established and regular places of business" in the district, including retail stores in Plano and Longview, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there. The complaint also notes that in a prior case, Defendant acknowledged having places of business in the district and that venue was proper.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Ulta Beauty: Makeup & Skincare" mobile application and its mobile-accessible website infringe two patents related to location-based services for finding sets of categorized points of interest.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of location-based services on mobile devices, which enable users to search for and receive information about nearby businesses and other points of interest relative to their geographic location.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior case, Lennon Image Technologies, LLC v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., in which Defendant allegedly admitted to having places of business in the Eastern District of Texas and that venue was proper in the district for that action.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-04-15	Priority Date for '899 Patent and '834 Patent
2004-11-08	Application Filing Date for '899 Patent
2009-05-12	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899
2012-11-30	Application Filing Date for '834 Patent
2014-07-08	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,774,834
2026-07-15	Complaint Filing Date

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. 7532899, titled "System for providing location-based services in a wireless network, such as locating sets of desired locations," issued on May 12, 2009.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a "need for improved location-based services and systems," implying that existing methods for finding points of interest (POIs) on mobile devices were not sufficiently user-friendly or efficient '899 Patent, col. 1:48-50
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that allows a user to create a predefined "set" of multiple POI categories (e.g., restaurants, ATMs, coffee shops) '899 Patent, col. 2:25-28 '899 Patent, Fig. 12 With a single user command, the system determines the user's location and "substantially simultaneously" provides a list containing the single geographically closest POI from at least some of the categories in the user's set '899 Patent, abstract '899 Patent, col. 2:30-34 This consolidates multiple searches into one action.
• Technical Importance: This method was designed to streamline the user experience on early mobile data networks by reducing the number of steps required to find a group of frequently sought-after, but distinct, types of nearby locations.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 4 Compl. ¶37
• The essential elements of claim 4 are:
  • Receiving a command from a mobile device to locate POIs associated with two or more different, user-identified categories.
  • Automatically determining the mobile device's 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 mobile device.
  • Providing a "next-closer list" of POIs that are geographically "next closest" to the user.

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. 8774834, titled "System for providing location-based services in a wireless network, such as locating sets of desired locations," issued on July 8, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '899 Patent, the '834 patent addresses the same general problem of providing improved location-based services on a wireless network '834 Patent, col. 1:53-55 This patent, however, focuses on a specific search workflow.
• The Patented Solution: The invention details a method for finding a specific POI where the user's search request "comprises a plurality of letters" '834 Patent, col. 11:52-53 The system determines a POI whose name includes those letters as a "first portion," transmits the full name to the user for selection, and upon receiving the user's selection, transmits detailed data about that POI '834 Patent, abstract '834 Patent, col. 11:56-12:2 Figure 4 of the patent illustrates a user interface prompting the user to "Enter first 4 letters of your preferred [Place] name" '834 Patent, Fig. 4
• Technical Importance: This invention provides a method for name-based POI searching, akin to an auto-complete function, intended to improve search speed and convenience when a user knows part of the name of the place they are looking for.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶64
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • Receiving a request from a mobile device to identify POIs, where the request includes a "plurality of letters."
  • Determining the mobile device's location.
  • Determining a POI with a name that contains the "plurality of letters" as a "first portion."
  • Transmitting the POI name to the mobile device.
  • Receiving a selection of that name from the user.
  • Determining the data associated with the selected POI.
  • Transmitting that data to the mobile device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the "Ulta Beauty: Makeup & Skincare" mobile application for iOS and Android devices and the Ulta Beauty website when accessed via mobile devices (collectively, the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶25

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are used to provide beauty products and services and to help customers locate Ulta stores Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶24 The mobile applications are alleged to be commercially significant, with the Android version having over five million downloads and the Apple version having over 2.3 million ratings Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶27 Figure 2 from the complaint provides screenshots from the Apple App Store, including the app's rewards and birthday perks features Compl. ¶27, Fig. 2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references Exhibits A and B containing infringement evidence, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement summaries provided in the complaint's body.

'899 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving a command from a user's mobile device to locate points of interest near to a location of the user's mobile device, wherein each of the points of interest are associated with one of two or more different and user-identified point of interest categories;	The Defendant's method is alleged to receive a command from a user's mobile device to locate points of interest associated with two or more different and user-identified categories.	¶38	col. 12:42-49
automatically determining the location of the user's mobile device;	The method is alleged to automatically determine the user's mobile device location.	¶38	col. 12:50-51
based at least in part on the determined location, automatically providing to the user's mobile device a list of points of interest, wherein the list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories, and wherein the list of points of interest represent points of interest that are geographically closest to the location of the user's mobile device;	Based on the location, the method is alleged to automatically provide a list that substantially and simultaneously presents at least one geographically closest point of interest for some of the categories.	¶38	col. 12:52-62
receiving input from the user's mobile device; and	The method is alleged to receive input from the user's mobile device.	¶38	col. 12:63-64
providing a next-closer list of points of interest, wherein the next-closer list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories that are geographically next closest to the location of the user's mobile device than points of interest in the list of points of interest.	The method is alleged to provide a next-closer list of points of interest that are geographically next closest.	¶38	col. 12:65-13:5

'834 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving, from a mobile device, a request to identify points of interest near a location of the mobile device, wherein the request comprises a plurality of letters;	The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method that receives a request from a mobile device, which includes a plurality of letters, to identify points of interest.	¶65	col. 11:49-53
determining the location of the mobile device;	The method is alleged to determine the location of the mobile device.	¶65	col. 11:54-55
determining a point of interest having a name comprising a first portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters;	The method is alleged to determine a point of interest having a name that includes the plurality of letters as a first portion.	¶65	col. 11:56-59
transmitting the name of the point of interest to the mobile device;	The method is alleged to transmit the name of the point of interest to the mobile device.	¶65	col. 11:60-61
receiving, from the mobile device, an indication of a selection of the name of the point of interest;	The method is alleged to receive a selection of the name from the mobile device.	¶65	col. 11:62-64
determining point of interest data associated with the point of interest; and	The method is alleged to determine data associated with the selected point of interest.	¶65	col. 11:65-66
transmitting the point of interest data associated with the point of interest to the mobile device.	The method is alleged to transmit the determined point of interest data to the mobile device.	¶65	col. 11:67-12:2

Identified Points of Contention

• For the '899 Patent, a potential point of contention is whether the Accused Products perform a search across "two or more different and user-identified point of interest categories" and "substantially simultaneously" present the results. The complaint's allegations track the claim language but do not specify what these multiple categories are in the context of the Ulta app, raising the question of whether the app's functionality matches this core limitation or if it primarily searches for a single category (i.e., Ulta stores).
• For the '834 Patent, the analysis may focus on the specific sequence of the claimed search method. A technical question is whether the Accused Products' search feature operates by first determining a POI name based on a "plurality of letters," transmitting that name for selection, and only then transmitting detailed data, as strictly required by the claim steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'899 Patent

• The Term: "substantially simultaneously presents"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement theory for the '899 patent. The invention's purported novelty lies in presenting a consolidated list of the nearest POIs from multiple categories in a single action. The construction of this term will determine whether a feature that might search or display results sequentially, or for only one category at a time, can infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition, and the use of "substantially" suggests that absolute simultaneity is not required. One might argue it covers a user experience that feels simultaneous, even if the data is retrieved or rendered sequentially behind the scenes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states the system "substantially simultaneously provides a list of points of interest for at least some of the point of interest categories." Figure 6 (element 602) depicts a single results screen showing different types of businesses (e.g., "McDonalds," "Starbucks," "Wells Fargo") in one list, which may support an interpretation requiring the results to be presented together on one screen.

'834 Patent

• The Term: "a point of interest having a name comprising a first portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters"
• Context and Importance: The construction of this term will define the type of search matching required for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its structure raises ambiguity as to whether it requires a strict prefix match or allows for more flexible "contains" or keyword searching.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "comprising" is typically given a broad, open-ended meaning in patent law. This could support an argument that the "plurality of letters" need only be part of the "first portion" of the name, without being the absolute beginning of the name itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of "first portion" suggests a positional requirement, such as a prefix. This is reinforced by a user interface example in the patent that instructs the user to "Enter first 4 letters of your preferred [Place] name" '834 Patent, Fig. 4, element 404, which points toward an intended prefix-based search mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of the '899 patent Compl. ¶¶40-51 Inducement is based on allegations that Ulta provides the Accused Products with the specific intent to cause infringement by end-users, supported by distributing instructions and promoting the products' use Compl. ¶¶42-43 Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused Products have special features that are a material part of the invention and lack substantial non-infringing uses Compl. ¶¶49-50
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the '899 patent, based on knowledge gained at least as of the filing of the lawsuit Compl. ¶52 It further alleges that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" and has been "willfully blind" to Plaintiff's rights, constituting objective recklessness Compl. ¶¶53-54 The prayer for relief explicitly seeks a willfulness finding and treble damages for the '899 patent Compl. ¶68.d

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

This dispute will likely center on the factual and technical mapping of the accused mobile app's features to the specific requirements of the patent claims. The key open questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core issue for the '899 patent will be one of functional operation: can Plaintiff provide evidence that the "Ulta Beauty" app, which is marketed for a single retail brand, actually performs the claimed method of searching across "two or more different and user-identified" business categories and "substantially simultaneously" presenting the multi-category results, as required by claim 4?

2. A central question for the '834 patent will be one of definitional scope: does the claim term "a first portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters" require a strict prefix-based name search, as suggested by the patent's own examples, or can it be construed more broadly to encompass other search functionalities within the accused app?

3. An overarching evidentiary question for both patents will be one of substantiation: given that the complaint's infringement allegations largely mirror the claim language without providing annotated visual evidence, a key focus of the case will be whether discovery can produce concrete evidence that the Accused Products' actual, step-by-step functionality aligns with the specific limitations recited in the asserted claims.