DCT
2:26-cv-00852
Infogation Corp v. Situm Tech SL
Key Events
Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Infogation Corporation (Texas)
- Defendant: Situm Technologies, S.L. (Spain)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00852, E.D. Tex., 09/18/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper under the alien-venue rule, as Defendant is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Spain.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital wayfinding products, which provide navigation for venues like hospitals, infringe a patent related to methods for navigating on non-linearly scaled, artistic maps.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves reconciling stylized, user-friendly digital maps with precise, underlying geographic coordinate data to provide accurate navigation within complex indoor or outdoor spaces.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-08-11 | ’628 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-10-23 | ’628 Patent Issue Date |
| 2026-09-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,107,628 - “Method and Apparatus for Navigating on Artistic Maps”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional GPS navigation systems, which are designed for linearly scaled, geographically accurate maps ’628 Patent, col. 1:49-55 Such systems are incompatible with "artistic" maps—like those for theme parks, zoos, or resorts—which often distort scale and exaggerate features to be more user-friendly ’628 Patent, col. 1:24-31
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user interacts with a "non-linearly scaled artistic map" displayed on a portable device ’628 Patent, col. 2:4-8 When a user selects a destination on this artistic map, the system translates the selection into a corresponding "physical point" (e.g., latitude and longitude) on a hidden, geographically accurate map ’628 Patent, abstract A route is calculated using the geographic map, and the resulting navigational directions are then transformed back so they can be accurately displayed and followed on the user-facing artistic map (’628 Patent, col. 2:12-17; '628 Patent, FIG. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows developers to create visually engaging and branded navigation experiences without sacrificing the locational precision of underlying geographic data systems ’628 Patent, col. 1:56-62
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 4–8, and 11–18 Compl. ¶28 Independent claims 1 (method) and 11 (apparatus) are asserted.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Downloading an "artistic map" that is "non-linearly scaled" and has "exaggeratedly shown" objects.
- The artistic map is not used directly for navigation, and an underlying "geographical map" is not displayed.
- Receiving a user's selection of an object on the artistic map.
- Transforming coordinates of the selected object on the artistic map to a "physical point" (latitude and longitude) on the geographical map, where all points of the selected object correspond to that single physical point.
- Detecting the device's current location in the geographical map.
- Determining a navigational direction from the current location to the selected object using the geographical map.
- Showing the determined navigational direction on the displayed artistic map.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶26
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Situm Wayfinding, Situm SWIM, Situm SDKs, and customer applications implementing these products Compl. ¶17
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities provide interactive mapping and wayfinding, particularly for indoor environments like hospitals Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶21 The system is described as featuring dynamic 2D/3D maps, tappable points of interest, routing from a user's current location, and turn-by-turn guidance Compl. ¶19
- Technically, the complaint alleges the accused products maintain georeferenced navigation data (e.g., latitude/longitude) separately from the stylized presentation layer shown to the user Compl. ¶24 It further alleges the system performs conversions between global latitude/longitude coordinates and local Cartesian coordinates Compl. ¶20
- The complaint references a webpage describing a U.S. hospital deployment as an example of the accused system in the market Compl. ¶21 This page, cited as (S3) in the complaint, is presented as evidence of the accused system's functionality and U.S. presence.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'628 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| downloading... an artistic map, the artistic map being non-linearly scaled and including various objects being exaggeratedly shown... | The accused system downloads digital map content and displays a customized or artistic map, which is non-linearly scaled because features like buildings and points of interest are enlarged or emphasized out of strict geographic scale. | ¶22; ¶25 | col. 7:26-29 |
| the artistic map is not used directly by the computing device for navigation... the geographical map is not being displayed... | The system allegedly maintains georeferenced navigation data separately from the displayed stylized map, and this underlying geographic data is not shown to the user. | ¶24 | col. 7:31-38 |
| receiving... a selection on the one of the objects from the user as a selected object; | The system permits users to select a displayed object or destination on the map. | ¶22 | col. 8:1-3 |
| transforming... the pair of coordinates to a physical point represented by a pair of latitude and longitude... all of the different pairs of coordinates for the selected object corresponding substantially to the physical point... | Selecting a displayed region on the map allegedly identifies a physical destination represented by geographic coordinates, with any point in the region identifying substantially the same destination. | ¶23 | col. 8:14-23 |
| detecting a current location of the computing device in the geographical map; | The system is alleged to determine the user's current location. | ¶22 | col. 8:24-26 |
| determining according to the geographical map a navigational direction from the current location to the one of the objects being selected; | A route or direction is computed using the separate, georeferenced navigation data. | ¶22 | col. 8:27-30 |
| and showing the navigational direction on the artistic map being displayed. | The computed route and guidance are transformed and rendered on the displayed artistic map for the user. | ¶22; ¶24 | col. 8:31-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused "stylized" or "three-dimensional presentation layer" Compl. ¶24 qualifies as an "artistic map" as contemplated by the patent. The defense could argue its maps are simply customized digital maps, not the "exaggeratedly shown" type described in the patent's examples ’628 Patent, FIG. 1 The complaint's reference to documentation describing coordinate systems (S2) may be used by the plaintiff to demonstrate the dual-map structure central to the patent Compl. ¶20
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires that "all of the different pairs of coordinates for the selected object" on the artistic map correspond "substantially to the physical point." This implies a many-to-one mapping where an entire displayed area maps to a single geographic coordinate for routing. The complaint alleges this occurs Compl. ¶23, but a key factual question will be whether the accused system actually implements this specific transformation logic, or if it uses a more complex one-to-one or piecewise mapping between the artistic and geographic layers.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "artistic map"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's scope. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the Defendant's digital maps for venues like hospitals are construed as "artistic." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether the patent applies to modern customized digital maps or is limited to more stylized, illustrative maps like those for theme parks.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an artistic map is one that is "non-linearly scaled" ’628 Patent, col. 2:5-6 and includes objects that are "exaggeratedly shown" ’628 Patent, col. 2:7-8, a description that could potentially cover any map that prioritizes visual clarity over strict geographic accuracy.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary examples provided are a zoo map (’628 Patent, FIG. 1`) and a theme park map ’628 Patent, col. 8:57-60, which could suggest the term is limited to maps for recreational or entertainment venues with highly distorted layouts.
The Term: "all of the different pairs of coordinates for the selected object corresponding substantially to the physical point"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific technical mechanism for translating a user's selection into a routable destination. Infringement may turn on whether the accused system's transformation process meets this "all... corresponding... to the physical point" requirement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (supporting infringement): The word "substantially" suggests that minor deviations or edge cases might not defeat infringement, as long as the general function of mapping a selectable screen region to a single destination point is met. The complaint alleges this functionality Compl. ¶23
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (against infringement): The specification provides strong support for a strict interpretation, stating, "no matter where a point is located in the artistic map... as long as it is in a segment, it is only represented by a pair of latitude and longitude representing the segment" ’628 Patent, col. 4:47-51 This suggests a specific, simplified data structure that the accused system may not use.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by distributing the Accused Instrumentalities and providing "documentation, SDKs, demonstrations, updates, marketing, and technical support instructing customers and users to operate the accused functions in the infringing manner" Compl. ¶32
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant’s alleged continued infringement after having notice of the patent, with knowledge established "at least as of service of this Complaint" Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶34
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may hinge on two central questions for the court:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "artistic map", which the patent illustrates with examples like a zoo, be construed to cover the allegedly "stylized" and "three-dimensional" but functional indoor maps used in Defendant's commercial wayfinding products?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused software's method for linking a user's tap on a screen to a destination coordinate meet the specific claim requirement that "all" points within a selectable object are transformed to a single "physical point," or does it employ a different, more granular mapping technique that falls outside the claim's literal scope?
Analysis metadata