DCT

2:26-cv-00583

Local Interest LLC v. Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00583, E.D. Tex., 10/08/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including retail stores in Plano and Longview, and has committed acts of infringement in the District. The complaint also cites a previous lawsuit in which Defendant allegedly admitted to having places of business in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website and mobile application infringe two patents related to location-based services for finding categorized points of interest near a user.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves methods for a mobile device user to search for and receive information about nearby points of interest, such as retail stores, by leveraging the device's geographical location.
  • Key Procedural History: The First Amended Complaint follows an original complaint filed on July 15, 2026. According to the complaint, one of the asserted patents, the '899 patent, expired on August 9, 2026, shortly after the original filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-04-15 '899 and '834 Patents - Earliest Priority Date
2004-11-08 '899 Patent - Application Filed
2009-05-12 '899 Patent - Issue Date
2012-11-30 '834 Patent - Application Filed
2014-07-08 '834 Patent - Issue Date
2026-07-15 Original Complaint Filed
2026-08-09 '899 Patent - Expiration Date
2026-10-08 First Amended Complaint Filed

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 addresses the need for an improved method for users of wireless devices to efficiently locate multiple types of desired businesses or points of interest (POIs) in their vicinity without conducting numerous separate searches ([’899 Patent, col. 1:46-51](https://ex:cit:1)).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user can pre-define a set of different POI categories (e.g., restaurants, ATMs, coffee shops). With a single command, the system determines the user's location and "substantially simultaneously" provides a list of the nearest POIs for at least some of the categories in the user's pre-defined set ([’899 Patent, abstract](https://ex:cit:2); [’899 Patent, col. 2:26-36](https://ex:cit:3)). Figure 2 illustrates the user flow for initiating a "My 5 Nearby" search, which embodies this concept ([’899 Patent, Fig. 2](https://ex:cit:4)).
  • Technical Importance: This technology streamlined the process for a mobile user to find a group of relevant but different nearby services in a single, automated action, enhancing the utility of early location-based services ([’899 Patent, col. 2:26-36](https://ex:cit:3)).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 4 and dependent claims 5, 6, 10, 12, and 13 ([Compl. ¶37](https://ex:cit:5)).
  • Independent Claim 4 requires:
    • Receiving a command from a user's mobile device to locate points of interest near the device, where the POIs are associated with two or more different and user-identified POI categories.
    • Automatically determining the location of the user's mobile device.
    • Based on the location, automatically providing a list of POIs that "substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories," representing the geographically closest POIs.
    • Receiving input from the user's mobile device.
    • Providing a "next-closer list" of POIs that are geographically next closest.

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: This patent, from the same family as the '899 patent, addresses a specific workflow for finding a POI when a user has a particular place in mind but may not know its exact name or location ([’834 Patent, background](https://ex:cit:6)).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a server receives a request from a mobile device containing a "plurality of letters" (a partial name search). The system determines the device's location, identifies a POI whose name includes those letters, transmits the POI name back to the device, receives a selection confirmation, and then sends detailed data (e.g., address, phone number) for the selected POI ([’834 Patent, col. 11:46 - col. 12:3](https://ex:cit:7)).
  • Technical Importance: The technology facilitates a "search-as-you-type" functionality for location-based services, allowing users to quickly narrow down and select a specific POI based on partial text input.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, and 20 ([Compl. ¶74](https://ex:cit:8)).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • Receiving a request from a mobile device to identify POIs, wherein the request comprises a plurality of letters.
    • Determining the location of the mobile device.
    • Determining a POI having a name comprising a first portion, where the first portion comprises the plurality of letters.
    • Transmitting the name of the POI to the mobile device.
    • Receiving an indication of a selection of the name of the POI.
    • Determining POI data associated with the point of interest.
    • Transmitting the POI data to the mobile device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Products" are collectively identified as the Ulta Beauty website (specifically its "Find a Store" feature), the "Ulta Beauty: Makeup & Skincare" mobile application (specifically its "Store Locator" feature), and the associated servers, software, and backend functionality that Defendant owns and operates ([Compl. ¶25](https://ex:cit:9)).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products provide location-based services enabling customers to find nearby Ulta Beauty retail stores ([Compl. ¶36](https://ex:cit:10)). The system uses the mobile device's location to generate a list and map of stores, which can be filtered by service categories such as "In-Store Shopping" and "Same Day Delivery" ([Compl. ¶40](https://ex:cit:11); [Compl. ¶42](https://ex:cit:12)). The complaint alleges the mobile application is widely distributed, citing over five million downloads on Google Play and over 2.3 million ratings on Apple's App Store ([Compl. ¶26](https://ex:cit:13); [Compl. ¶27](https://ex:cit:14)). Figure 1 of the complaint shows a screenshot of the Google Play store listing for the "Ulta Beauty: Makeup & Skincare" app ([Compl. ¶26, Fig. 1](https://ex:cit:15)). Figure 2 shows a similar screenshot from the Apple App Store, highlighting the app's popularity ([Compl. ¶27, Fig. 2](https://ex:cit:16)). The "Store Locator" also includes a search field allowing users to type partial text to find stores ([Compl. ¶75](https://ex:cit:17)).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,532,899 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...wherein each of the points of interest are associated with one of two or more different and user-identified point of interest categories Ulta's server receives a command via the "Find a Store" feature to locate Ulta stores. The user can identify categories such as "In-Store Shopping" and "Same Day Delivery" via a "Filter" option, which the server receives and applies. ¶40 col. 2:55-60
automatically determining the location of the user's mobile device Ulta's server receives location data from the mobile device and uses it to automatically determine the device's precise location to rank nearby stores by distance. ¶41 col. 4:39-44
based at least in part on the determined location, automatically providing to the user's mobile device a list of points of interest that substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories... Ulta's server generates and transmits a list view of stores based on the device's location and the selected filter categories, showing each store's distance from the user. ¶42 col. 2:55-65
receiving input from the user's mobile device Ulta's server receives a request from the mobile device to expand the displayed results when a user zooms out on the map view. ¶43 col. 5:51-56
providing a next-closer list of points of interest...that are geographically next closest to the location of the mobile device... In response to the request to expand results, Ulta's server generates and transmits a "next-closer list" of stores not presented in the prior list that fall within the user-identified filter categories. ¶44 col. 6:42-50

8,774,834 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 Ulta's server receives a request from the "Store Locator" search field containing a plurality of letters, for example "dulles," entered by the user. ¶75 col. 11:48-52
determining the location of the mobile device Ulta's server determines the mobile device's location from the location data the device sends. ¶75 col. 11:53-54
determining a point of interest having a name comprising a first portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters Ulta's server determines stores whose names begin with the requested letters, such as "Dulles 28" and "Dulles Landing." ¶75 col. 11:55-58
transmitting the name of the point of interest to the mobile device Ulta's server transmits the names of the determined stores to the mobile device. ¶75 col. 11:59-61
receiving, from the mobile device, an indication of a selection of the name of the point of interest Ulta's server receives an indication from the mobile device that a specific store was selected. ¶75 col. 12:1-3
determining point of interest data associated with the point of interest Upon selection, Ulta's server determines additional data for the store, such as its address, phone number, and store hours. ¶75 col. 12:1-3
transmitting the point of interest data associated with the point of interest to the mobile device Ulta's server transmits the determined additional data to the mobile device. ¶75 col. 12:1-3
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question ('899 Patent): A central dispute may concern the term "different...point of interest categories." The complaint alleges that service filters like "In-Store Shopping" and "Same Day Delivery" for Ulta stores satisfy this limitation ([Compl. ¶40](https://ex:cit:11)). The defense may argue that the patent contemplates categorically different types of businesses (e.g., restaurants, banks, parks), as shown in the specification's examples ([’899 Patent, col. 2:32-36](https://ex:cit:28)), not different service options for the same business.
    • Legal Question (Both Patents): The complaint advances a detailed argument that Defendant alone directly infringes the method claims, asserting that the user's actions (e.g., tapping a button, typing text) are merely "unclaimed input" that trigger the automated performance of the claimed steps by Defendant's software system ([Compl. ¶¶38-39](https://ex:cit:29); [Compl. ¶75](https://ex:cit:17)). This raises a key legal question of divided infringement and whether the user's participation constitutes performance of a claim step, which would require Plaintiff to rely on its alternative "direction and control" theory ([Compl. ¶48](https://ex:cit:30); [Compl. ¶76](https://ex:cit:31)).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1 '899 Patent, Claim 4

  • The Term: "different...point of interest categories"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the '899 patent hinges on whether the service options offered in the Accused Products' "Filter" function (e.g., "In-Store Shopping," "Same Day Delivery") are considered "different...categories." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require different kinds of businesses, rather than different services from the same business, the infringement case could be significantly weakened.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "categories," which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, broad enough to encompass different service classifications.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently provides examples of categories that are distinct types of businesses, such as "restaurants, automatic teller machines (ATMs), supermarkets, parks, and coffee shops" ([’899 Patent, col. 2:32-36](https://ex:cit:28)). Further, user interface mockups show lists of disparate business types like "Beauty Salon," "Check Cashing," and "Convenience Store" ([’899 Patent, Fig. 9](https://ex:cit:32)).

Term 2 '899 Patent, Claim 4

  • The Term: "substantially simultaneously presents"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to how the results for the different categories must be displayed. The analysis will question whether the accused list, which contains only one type of POI (Ulta stores), can "simultaneously present" results for "different categories."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The word "substantially" suggests that perfect simultaneity is not required, potentially allowing for results that are generated together on the backend and presented in a single, unified list, even if they are not explicitly segregated by category on the front end.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a "single click" action that allows a user to "automatically find the nearest listing for each of these points of interest" ([’899 Patent, col. 2:28-31](https://ex:cit:33)), which could be interpreted to require a presentation that clearly shows the nearest result for each distinct category. The accused product, by listing only Ulta stores, may not meet this interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads induced and contributory infringement in the alternative to its direct infringement theories ([Compl. ¶53](https://ex:cit:34); [Compl. ¶60](https://ex:cit:35)). Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant encourages and instructs customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner through on-screen prompts, navigational links like "Find a Store," and filter options that invite infringing use ([Compl. ¶55](https://ex:cit:36)). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the store-locator functionality is a material component of the invention that was especially made for infringement and has no substantial non-infringing use ([Compl. ¶60](https://ex:cit:35); [Compl. ¶61](https://ex:cit:37)).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the '899 patent based on Defendant's knowledge of the patent "from the time it gained knowledge" of it until its expiration ([Compl. ¶62](https://ex:cit:38)). The complaint alleges this knowledge arose at least as of the date Defendant was notified of the action ([Compl. ¶56](https://ex:cit:39)). The complaint also alleges Defendant was willfully blind by maintaining a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" ([Compl. ¶63](https://ex:cit:40)).

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

This case presents several focused questions for the court's determination:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "different...point of interest categories," which the patent illustrates with examples of distinct business types like restaurants and banks, be construed to cover service-based filters like "In-Store Shopping" and "Same Day Delivery" applied to a single type of business?

  2. A second central issue will be one of divided infringement: Does Defendant's software system perform all steps of the asserted method claims automatically, rendering the end-user's interactions "unclaimed input" as the complaint argues under SiRF, or does the user perform at least one claim step, requiring Plaintiff to prove infringement under the more stringent "direction or control" standard of Akamai?

  3. An evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: The complaint alleges that user interactions like zooming on a map or selecting a filter trigger automated server-side processes that map directly to claim limitations. The case will likely require a detailed factual analysis of how the client-side code on the user's device and the server-side code interact to determine whether Defendant's system, as a whole, performs the claimed methods.