Nearby Systems LLC v. Fifth Third Bank National Association

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nearby Systems LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Fifth Third Bank N.A. (Federally chartered)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00635, E.D. Tex., 07/29/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant allegedly having an established and maintained regular place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and having committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's mobile banking applications, the "Fifth Third App" and "Comerica App," infringe four patents related to methods for combining and displaying mapping content from disparate sources on a mobile device's digital map.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the "mashing" of location-based data from different applications (e.g., social media, email) onto a single, unified map, a foundational feature for modern location-aware mobile services.
• Key Procedural History: The four asserted patents are members of the same patent family, claiming an earliest priority date of October 12, 2007, through a chain of continuation and continuation-in-part applications. The complaint also notes a recent merger between Fifth Third Bancorp and Comerica Incorporated, positioning Defendant as the operating entity for both banking brands.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-12	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents ('164, '980, '145, '177)
2013-08-03	'164 Patent Application Filed
2016-11-08	'980 Patent Application Filed
2016-12-27	'164 Patent Issued
2019-09-13	'145 Patent Application Filed
2019-11-05	'980 Patent Issued
2024-02-08	'177 Patent Application Filed
2024-03-19	'145 Patent Issued
2024-12-31	'177 Patent Issued
2026-01-13	Merger of Fifth Third Bancorp with Comerica Incorporated Noted
2026-07-29	Complaint Filed

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

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 Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶22

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a limitation in prior art 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 digital map, thereby losing the context of any previously displayed mapping content '164 Patent, col. 1:33-41
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method for a mobile device to combine "mappable data from disparate sources" onto a single, existing digital map within a mapping application '164 Patent, summary of the invention For example, a user can activate "map-able content" (like an address) in a first non-browser application, which causes a second, separate mapping application to be invoked to display the new location alongside any pre-existing content '164 Patent, abstract '164 Patent, col. 3:1-13
• Technical Importance: The technology enabled a more seamless and contextual user experience by allowing data from various applications (web browsers, email clients, social media) to be aggregated into a single, persistent map view on a mobile device.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶28
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A system with a mobile device memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application.
  • A processor executing both applications.
  • A user interface for the first non-browser application.
  • A "mapping component" within the first non-browser application that "invokes" the second non-browser application when "map-able content" on the user interface is activated.
  • The second non-browser application is a "mapping application."
  • The mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser (mapping) application.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting dependent claims may also be asserted Compl. ¶27

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 Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶39

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '164 Patent, the '980 patent addresses the problem of mapping content from an external source, which in the prior art would display on a separate map devoid of previous context '980 Patent, col. 1:33-41
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a first non-browser application includes a "mapping component" that communicates with an online service to display a map based on the device's GPS location. This component can then invoke a second, separate mapping application and direct it to transmit a query to obtain and display driving directions from the device's location to a selected destination '980 Patent, abstract '980 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a specific workflow for integrating location-finding and turn-by-turn navigation between distinct applications on a mobile device.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶45
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A system with a memory storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser (mapping) application.
  • A GPS device for determining the mobile device's location.
  • A "mapping component" in the first 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 mapping application.
  • The mapping component "directs" the mapping application to transmit a query that includes the mobile device's location and a destination location to obtain driving directions.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting dependent claims may also be asserted Compl. ¶44

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 Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶56
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for displaying location-based content. The claimed invention involves a user touching text corresponding to a location in a first non-browser application, which causes a second non-browser application to display a map showing a route from the mobile device's current location to the selected location Compl. ¶57 '145 Patent, claim 1
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶62
• Accused Features: The accused banking apps are alleged to provide a system for displaying map information that allows a user to identify and navigate to the defendant's banking locations Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶63

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 Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶73
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system where a user enters text for a location into a first non-browser application and receives a map with one or more points of interest. A user selection of one of those points causes a second non-browser application to display a new map of the selected point of interest Compl. ¶74 '177 Patent, claim 1
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶79
• Accused Features: The accused banking apps are alleged to provide a system for displaying map information that allows a user to identify and navigate to the defendant's banking locations Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶80

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Fifth Third App" and the "Comerica App" (the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶20

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are mobile banking applications distributed through smartphone app providers Compl. ¶19 The complaint alleges that a key feature of these apps is their ability to "locate nearby banking locations" Compl. ¶20 This functionality is accused of providing a system and method for displaying map information on a mobile device, which allows a user to "identify and navigate to locations offering Defendant's products" Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶46 The apps are operated under two distinct banking brands, Fifth Third and Comerica, which are both controlled by the Defendant following a merger Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶17 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but relies on references to external exhibits (Exhibits K-N) that were not included with the filing Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶79 The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations of functionality provided in the body of the complaint.

9,532,164 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 and a second non-browser application;	A user's smartphone memory stores one of the Accused Products (the first application) and a separate mapping application (e.g., Google Maps) (the second application).	¶19; ¶20	col. 9:1-16
a mapping component of the first non-browser application configured to invoke the second non-browser application on the mobile device when map-able content displayed on the user interface is activated...	The Accused Product contains functionality that, when a user activates a location-finding feature (e.g., tapping a branch location), it calls or launches the separate mapping application.	¶28; ¶29	col. 4:16-24; col. 3:42-50
wherein the second non-browser application is a mapping application,	The application invoked is a standard mapping application, such as Apple Maps or Google Maps, capable of displaying geographic data.	¶29	col. 3:28-32
wherein the mapping component transmits the map-able content to an online mapping service configured to communicate with the second non-browser application.	The Accused Product sends the address of the selected banking location to a back-end mapping service (e.g., Google's API) for processing and display by the mapping application.	¶28; ¶29	col. 4:45-53

10,469,980 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a GPS device of the mobile device determining a location of the mobile device...	The user's smartphone has an integrated GPS that determines the user's current location for use in finding "nearby" branches.	¶20; ¶46	col. 15:9-11
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 within the user interface...	The Accused Product communicates with a mapping service to display a map showing banking locations relative to the user's current position.	¶45; ¶46	col. 15:12-19
wherein the memory stores a second non-browser application that is a mapping application...	The smartphone's memory stores a separate mapping application (e.g., Google Maps, Waze) in addition to the Accused Product.	¶19; ¶46	col. 15:21-23
wherein the mapping component invokes the mapping application and directs the mapping application to transmit a query including the location of the mobile device and a destination location to...obtain driving directions...	The Accused Product's functionality invokes the mapping app and specifically instructs it to generate and display a route from the user's current GPS location to a selected bank branch.	¶45; ¶46	col. 15:24-32

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be how the Accused Products technically operate. Do they contain a distinct "mapping component" that "invokes" and "directs" a separate mapping application, as required by the claims? Or do they make a simpler, more passive handoff of coordinates to the mobile device's operating system, which then presents the user with options? The degree of control and integration between the banking app and the mapping app will be a central factual dispute.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused functionality, which allows users to find and get directions to bank branches, performs the specific steps of combining data from "disparate sources" onto an existing map that already contains "prior mapping content," a concept illustrated in the patents '980 Patent, abstract

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 central to the system's architecture. Plaintiff alleges this component resides in the first non-browser application (the accused banking app). Defendant may argue that the accused apps do not contain a distinct "component" with the claimed functionality, but rather make simple API calls to the operating system's built-in mapping services. The construction of this term will be critical to determining if the accused system's architecture falls within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad definition, stating the component could be a "top-most application," "an ActiveX control; a widget," or "code providing the map-display application with... functionality" '980 Patent, col. 4:16-24, which may support Plaintiff's view that it covers the functionality within its app.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts describe the component performing specific functions like data normalization and parsing '980 Patent, col. 4:32-44 Defendant may argue the term should be limited to a module that performs these more complex data processing steps, not just one that passes coordinates to another service.
• The Term: "invokes"
• Context and Importance: This term in the independent claims of the '164 and '980 patents describes the action the "mapping component" takes on the second (mapping) application. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely concern whether the accused banking app actively and directly causes the mapping app to launch and perform a function, or whether it is a more passive handoff of data to the operating system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the mapping application being "automatically presented (e.g., launches, become visible, displayed, etc.)," suggesting a broad range of actions could constitute "invoking" '980 Patent, abstract
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 2 of the patents details a specific sequence where the mapping application is re-opened or brought to the forefront of the display '980 Patent, FIG. 2, step 208 A defendant could argue that "invokes" requires this specific, controlled bringing-forward of an application, rather than a simple OS-level intent that a user might act on.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
  • Inducement: Plaintiff claims Defendant induces infringement by providing instructions and advertising that advise and direct customers and employees to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶47
  • Contributory: Plaintiff alleges the Accused Products have "special features... specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶48
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents since at least the filing of the complaint Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶49 The complaint further alleges willful blindness, stating on "information and belief" that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" and that its actions were "objectively reckless" Compl. ¶33-34 Compl. ¶50-51

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused "find a location" feature in Defendant's banking apps operate via a "mapping component" that actively "invokes" and "directs" a separate mapping application, as specified in the claims? Or does it utilize a more passive, OS-mediated handoff of location data that may fall outside the claimed invention's scope?
• A second key issue will be one of patent eligibility: The complaint preemptively argues the patents are not directed to an abstract idea. The court will need to determine whether the claims, which focus on combining and displaying location data from different applications, represent a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality or an abstract idea implemented on a generic mobile device, a frequent battleground for software patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• A final question will relate to damages and intent: Given that the asserted technology is now a ubiquitous feature of mobile devices, establishing a reasonable royalty rate that reflects the invention's contribution at the time of the patent's priority will be a significant challenge. Furthermore, the court will have to evaluate whether the boilerplate allegations of a "policy of not reviewing patents" are sufficient to support a finding of willful blindness and potential treble damages.