Infogation Corp v. Pointr Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Infogation Corporation (Texas)
  • Defendant: Pointr Limited (England and Wales)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00855, E.D. Tex., 09/21/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper under the alien-venue rule because Defendant is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales. The complaint also notes Defendant's U.S. deployments and a North American office in Boston as support for personal jurisdiction.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s indoor navigation software, platforms, and SDKs infringe a patent related to navigation on non-linearly scaled, artistic maps.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns digital mapping systems that use stylized, visually-enhanced maps for navigation rather than strictly scaled geographic maps, a common feature in applications for theme parks, malls, and airports.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-11	’628 Patent Priority Date
2018-10-23	’628 Patent Issued
2026-09-21	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 complaint identifies U.S. Patent No. 10,107,628 (“the ’628 Patent”), titled “Method and Apparatus for Navigating on Artistic Maps,” issued on October 23, 2018. Compl. ¶12

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional GPS navigation as potentially unengaging or uninformative for leisure activities, such as touring a zoo or park. It notes that standard maps may fail to display distant points of interest and can be visually "boring," showing only roads until a user is very close to their destination (ʼ628 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a navigation system using a non-linearly scaled "artistic map" where objects and points of interest are "exaggeratedly shown" to enhance user experience (ʼ628 Patent, col. 2:27-29). A key aspect is a two-map system: a user interacts with the visible artistic map, but all routing calculations are performed on a hidden, conventional "geographical map" (e.g., one based on latitude and longitude). When a user selects an object on the artistic map, the system transforms that selection into a specific coordinate on the hidden geographic map, calculates a route on that geographic map, and then transforms the resulting route back for display on the artistic map (ʼ628 Patent, abstract; ’628 Patent, col. 2:32-41; ’628 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This method allows for the use of visually rich, user-friendly maps (e.g., stylized theme park or mall maps) within a functional, coordinate-based navigation framework, aiming to make the experience more pleasant and intuitive (ʼ628 Patent, col. 1:61-66).
• Analogy: The system works like using a tourist caricature map of a city to get directions. You might tap on a large drawing of the Eiffel Tower on the fun map. The system, in the background, looks up the actual GPS coordinates for the Eiffel Tower on a real-world map (like Google Maps), calculates the walking path, and then draws that path back onto your fun tourist map, curving the line to match the distorted streets.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claims 1 (method) and 11 (apparatus), and dependent claims 4-8 and 12-18 Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶28
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Downloading an "artistic map" that is "non-linearly scaled" and has "exaggeratedly shown" objects.
  • Receiving a user's selection of one of the objects on the map.
  • Determining coordinates for a point on the selected object.
  • "Transforming" those coordinates to a "physical point" (latitude and longitude) on a "geographical map" that is not displayed.
  • Detecting the device's current location.
  • Determining a navigational direction on the geographical map.
  • Showing the resulting navigational direction on the displayed artistic map.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶26

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Pointr Deep Location, Pointr Maps, Pointr indoor navigation SDKs, MapScale, and customer applications implementing those products Compl. ¶17

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products provide indoor navigation solutions for U.S. clients including The Home Depot, Albany International Airport, and UCHealth Compl. ¶6 The system is alleged to display a "customized or artistic map," allow users to select destinations, determine a user's "live BLE/GPS position," and compute routes using "georeferenced navigation data" that is kept separate from the visual map layer Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶24 The complaint further alleges that the route is calculated using the hidden data and then "transformed and rendered on the displayed artistic map" Compl. ¶24 The complaint includes screenshots of the Pointr user interface, which show a stylized indoor map with an overlaid navigation route Compl. ¶19 Compl. at 4

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'628 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
downloading from a network into a computing device an artistic map, the artistic map being non-linearly scaled and including various objects being exaggeratedly shown...	Defendant's products download or receive digital map content to display a "customized or artistic map." This display is alleged to be "non-linearly scaled" because objects are "enlarged, modeled, extruded, emphasized, or otherwise displayed out of strict geographic scale."	¶22; ¶25	col. 2:27-31
receiving in the computing device a selection on the one of the objects from the user as a selected object;	The accused system permits user "selection of a displayed object or destination," which are rendered as "selectable screen regions."	¶22; ¶23	col. 5:12-14
determining by the computing device a pair of coordinates for one of the points on the selected object;	The act of selecting a displayed region is alleged to identify a destination associated with geographic coordinates.	¶23	col. 2:32-34
transforming in the computing device the pair of coordinates to a physical point represented by a pair of latitude and longitude in the geographical map not being shown on the display, the points representing the selected object having different pairs of coordinates, but all of the different pairs of coordinates... corresponding substantially to the physical point...	The system is alleged to maintain georeferenced navigation data (the "geographical map") separately from the stylized presentation layer. This geographic data is not displayed. Selecting any point within a displayed region is alleged to identify the same underlying physical destination.	¶23; ¶24	col. 2:34-37
detecting a current location of the computing device in the geographical map;	The system determines the user's current location, described as a "live BLE/GPS position."	¶19; ¶22	col. 2:37-38
determining according to the geographical map a navigational direction from the current location to the one of the objects being selected;	The system is alleged to "compute a route or direction using georeferenced navigation data."	¶22	col. 2:37-39
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." This is depicted in screenshots provided in the complaint.	¶22; ¶24	col. 2:39-41

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "artistic map," developed in the context of outdoor, GPS-based leisure activities like visiting a zoo (ʼ628 Patent, Fig. 1), can be construed to read on the indoor, BLE-supported commercial wayfinding maps allegedly used by Defendant.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges Defendant's maps are "non-linearly scaled" because objects are "enlarged... or emphasized" Compl. ¶25 A central question will be whether this general description meets the specific technical meaning of "non-linearly scaled" as used and potentially defined by the patent specification, which includes figures suggesting a specific type of distortion where resolution changes with distance from the center (ʼ628 Patent, Fig. 4C).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "artistic map"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to all asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether Defendant’s stylized indoor floor plans fall within the scope of the patent.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term covers maps that are "artisticly made to make the navigation as a pleasant experience" (ʼ628 Patent, col. 1:65-66), which could be argued to encompass any non-standard, stylized map.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s summary and embodiments repeatedly tie the term to maps that are "non-linearly scaled" and feature "exaggeratedly shown" objects (ʼ628 Patent, col. 2:13-16; ’628 Patent, col. 2:27-29). This could support an argument that "artistic map" is not merely stylistic but requires a specific form of technical distortion.

• The Term: "non-linearly scaled"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a primary technical characteristic of the "artistic map." Infringement hinges on whether Defendant’s maps, which the complaint describes as having enlarged or emphasized objects Compl. ¶25, meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that on such maps, "points of interests are exaggeratedly displayed" (ʼ628 Patent, col. 4:4-6), suggesting any map that intentionally distorts scale to emphasize features could be considered "non-linearly scaled."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes a specific embodiment where resolution decreases from the center of the display to the edge (ʼ628 Patent, Fig. 4C). A defendant may argue this figure defines the term, limiting it to a "fisheye" or similar radial distortion, rather than simply having some objects appear larger than others.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant encourages infringement by providing its products, SDKs, documentation, and technical support, which allegedly instruct customers and end-users to operate the technology in an infringing manner Compl. ¶32 The complaint also asserts that end-users are direct infringers Compl. ¶31
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after gaining knowledge of the ’628 Patent and the infringement allegations "at least as of service of this Complaint" Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶34 The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

This dispute appears to center on the interpretation of claim language and its application to a modern technology that may differ from the patent's original context. The key questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the terms "artistic map" and "non-linearly scaled", which the patent illustrates with outdoor zoo maps and specific distortion patterns, be construed broadly enough to cover the stylized but structured indoor floor plans used in Defendant's wayfinding products?

2. A second issue will be one of technical evidence: Does the architecture of Defendant’s system in fact perform the claimed "transforming" process—mapping a selectable region on a stylized display to a single "physical point" on a hidden geographic map for routing, and then re-transforming the route for display—or does it utilize a different technical method to link its user interface to its navigation engine?