DCT

2:26-cv-00858

Infogation Corp v. Sygic As

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00858, E.D. Tex., 09/21/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the alien-venue rule, as the defendant is a foreign corporation based in Slovakia.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GPS navigation applications and software development kits (SDKs) infringe a patent related to navigating using non-linearly scaled, "artistic" maps.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns digital mapping technology, specifically the user interface challenge of displaying points of interest and routing information on stylized or thematically-designed maps rather than on traditional, strictly scaled geographic maps.
  • 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 Issue Date
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” (issued Oct. 23, 2018)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional GPS displays, particularly in remote or leisure areas, can be uninformative and fail to highlight nearby points of interest until a user is very close, making navigation in places like parks or zoos difficult ’628 Patent, col. 1:38-54
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-map system. A user interacts with a visually appealing, "artistic map" that is "non-linearly scaled," meaning objects like landmarks or zoo exhibits can be exaggerated in size for easier selection ’628 Patent, abstract When a user selects a point on this artistic map, the system translates the screen coordinates of that selection to a specific physical point (latitude and longitude) on a hidden, conventional "geographical map." It then calculates a route using the precise geographical data and transforms that route back for display on the artistic map, creating a user-friendly experience that leverages accurate backend navigation ’628 Patent, col. 2:26-39 ’628 Patent, Fig. 3
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for the creation of customized, aesthetically pleasing navigation experiences for specific venues (e.g., theme parks, zoos) without sacrificing the underlying precision of GPS technology ’628 Patent, col. 2:55-65

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a method) and 11 (a portable device), as well as dependent claims 4-8 and 12-18 Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶28
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method) requires steps including:
    • Downloading an "artistic map" that is "non-linearly scaled" and has "exaggeratedly shown" objects.
    • Receiving a user's selection of one of the objects.
    • "Transforming" the coordinates of the selection to a "physical point" (latitude/longitude) on a "geographical map" that is not displayed.
    • Determining a "navigational direction" from the user's current location to the selected object using the geographical map.
    • "Showing the navigational direction on the artistic map."
  • Independent Claim 11 (Apparatus) recites a portable device with a processor and memory configured to perform substantially the same steps as method claim 1 ’628 Patent, col. 9:30-10:11
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶26

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Sygic GPS Navigation, Sygic Maps & Navigation SDK, and implementations of their 3D map, routing, POI, and route-display functions" Compl. ¶17

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products download digital map content and display a "customized or artistic map" on a portable device Compl. ¶22 This display is described as "non-linearly scaled" because objects like buildings and points of interest are "enlarged, modeled, extruded, emphasized, or otherwise displayed out of strict geographic scale" Compl. ¶25 The complaint alleges the system maintains the underlying "georeferenced navigation and route data separately" from the stylized presentation layer, and that this geographic data is not directly displayed Compl. ¶24 The complaint provides an image from the Sygic GPS Navigation application, showing a stylized 3D road view with navigation icons Compl. p. 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... an artistic map, the artistic map being non-linearly scaled and including various objects being exaggeratedly shown... The accused products download digital map content and display a "customized or artistic map" with "non-linearly scaled" objects that are "enlarged, modeled, extruded, [or] emphasized." ¶22; ¶25 col. 2:55-58
receiving... a selection on the one of the objects from the user as a selected object; The accused products "permit selection of a displayed object or destination." ¶22 col. 6:13-14
determining by the computing device a pair of coordinates for one of the points on the selected object; Selecting a point within a displayed region identifies coordinates associated with the destination. ¶23 col. 6:15-19
transforming... 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 underlying "geographic navigation data is not displayed directly; instead, the route and guidance are transformed and rendered on the displayed artistic map." ¶24 col. 6:20-22
detecting a current location of the computing device in the geographical map; The accused products "determine current location." ¶22 col. 6:35-37
determining according to the geographical map a navigational direction from the current location to the one of the objects being selected; The accused products "compute a route or direction using georeferenced navigation data." ¶22 col. 6:23-25
showing the navigational direction on the artistic map being displayed. The accused products "render that guidance on the displayed map." ¶22 col. 6:26-34

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the defendant’s 3D-rendered navigation display, which the complaint alleges is "stylized" Compl. ¶24, qualifies as an "artistic map" in the context of the patent, whose examples focus on illustrative venue maps like for a zoo ’628 Patent, Fig. 1
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused products use a two-map architecture where display coordinates are "transformed" to a separate, hidden geographical map Compl. ¶24 A key factual question will be whether the accused products operate in this manner, as opposed to using a more conventional single-database rendering system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "artistic map"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental. If the accused Sygic map is not an "artistic map," infringement of the asserted claims may be difficult to prove. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the patent applies only to illustrative venue maps or more broadly to any stylized digital map.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the invention can be used in leisure activities like "touring a city, a park or a zoo" ’628 Patent, col. 2:55-58, implying a scope beyond just zoo or theme park maps.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s primary examples and figures depict highly stylized, 2D illustrative maps ’628 Patent, Fig. 1 The abstract describes the map as having "objects being exaggeratedly shown" ’628 Patent, abstract, which a party could argue points to a specific, non-photorealistic style rather than any 3D-rendered map.

The Term: "non-linearly scaled"

  • Context and Importance: This term is crucial for distinguishing the claimed invention from conventional maps. Whether a standard 3D perspective view constitutes "non-linear scaling" will be a point of contention.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges this term is met where objects are "enlarged, modeled, extruded, emphasized, or otherwise displayed out of strict geographic scale" Compl. ¶25 This interpretation could encompass any map where different elements are not represented at a single, uniform scale.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes a figure showing a resolution curve that is higher at the center of the display and lower toward the edges ’628 Patent, Fig. 4C ’628 Patent, col. 5:40-47 A party could argue this points to a specific technical implementation of non-linearity, such as a "fish-eye" view, rather than any general deviation from scale.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement, stating that Sygic provides "documentation, SDKs, demonstrations, updates, marketing, and technical support instructing customers and users to operate the accused functions" Compl. ¶32 It further alleges that end-users directly infringe the patent Compl. ¶31
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that Sygic has actual knowledge of the ’628 Patent "at least as of service of this Complaint" and that any continued infringement after this notice is "deliberate and willful" Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶34

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

The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court’s answers to two central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "artistic map," which is rooted in the patent's examples of illustrative 2D venue maps, be construed broadly enough to encompass the defendant's 3D-rendered road navigation displays?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical architecture: Does the accused Sygic software perform the specific "transforming" step claimed in the patent, where user selections on a stylized display map are mapped to a separate, hidden "geographical map," or does it use a different, non-infringing method to render its display and calculate routes?