University Of Souhern California v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: University of Southern California (California)
  • Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks & Nessim, LLP; Carter Arnett PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01734, W.D. Tex., 01/26/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas based on Google's regular and established places of business in Austin, the operation of data centers in Texas that house images and models for the accused products, and the presence of employees in the district who are responsible for the development and operation of those products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View products infringe patents related to systems for seamlessly overlaying 2D images onto a pre-existing 3D model.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of user-contributed photographs into navigable 3D digital environments, a foundational capability for modern interactive mapping and virtual navigation services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology based on a research award it provided in August 2007 to the inventor's project, which led to the patents-in-suit. It also alleges knowledge based on Defendant's own patents citing the asserted patents and based on licensing discussions, including the exchange of claim charts, that allegedly began in April 2024.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,026,929 - "Seamlessly Overlaying 2D Images In 3D Model"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in early 3D digital maps where user-contributed photographs appeared as disconnected, "hovering 'playing cards,' rather than seamless and integrated" within the 3D environment Compl. ¶18 ’929 Patent, col. 1:41-44 Existing methods did not allow a community of users to place their own arbitrary images into 3D models in a way that appeared seamless and without visual artifacts ’929 Patent, col. 1:52-56
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that enables users to upload 2D images and have them integrated as correctly aligned overlays within a pre-existing 3D model ’929 Patent, Abstract The system allows a user to provide an approximate location for an image, after which a computer calculates the precise "pose" (location, orientation, and field of view) of the image relative to the model, allowing it to be displayed as a seamless overlay from the original viewpoint ’929 Patent, col. 4:40-45
• Technical Importance: This technology enabled the crowdsourcing of visual data to enrich 3D maps, allowing for more immersive and detailed virtual environments built from the collective perspectives of a user community Compl. ¶¶19-21

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 3 Compl. ¶50
• The essential elements of system claim 3 include:
  • A computer storage system containing a plurality of 2D images and a pre-existing 3D model that was not constructed using those 2D images.
  • A computer system configured to allow a user to navigate the 3D model, see a visual indicator for each 2D image, and take an action with respect to the indicator.
  • In response to the user's action, the system causes the rendering of the 3D model to "snap to the pose" of the 2D image, displaying it as a "substantially-aligned overlay" without alteration.
  • A display system and user interface configured to present the 3D model, visual indicators, and overlaid 2D images.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1–14 Compl. ¶49

U.S. Patent No. 8,264,504 - "Seamlessly Overlaying 2D Images in 3D Model"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’929 Patent, the ’504 Patent addresses the same technical challenge of integrating user-contributed 2D images into 3D models in a seamless, non-artifacted way, overcoming the prior art issue of images appearing disconnected from the 3D environment Compl. ¶29 ’504 Patent, col. 1:47-51
• The Patented Solution: The ’504 Patent discloses a similar system for aligning and overlaying 2D images within a 3D model ’504 Patent, Abstract The asserted claim in the ’504 patent distinctly introduces the concept of viewing the 2D images "posed within an environment of the scene as depicted by an environment image that is associated with the 3D model," suggesting a specific relationship between the 2D image, the 3D model, and a representation of the environment ’504 Patent, col. 10:38-44
• Technical Importance: This invention likewise contributes to the creation of richer, community-enhanced 3D maps by providing a framework for integrating diverse, user-sourced visual content Compl. ¶¶3-5

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 5 Compl. ¶65
• The essential elements of system claim 5 include:
  • A computer storage system with a plurality of 2D images and a pre-existing, separately constructed 3D model.
  • A computer system configured to allow a user to navigate the model, see a visual indicator for each 2D image, and take action.
  • In response to the action, the system causes the user to see the 2D image as a "substantially-aligned overlay within an environment of the scene as depicted by an environment image that is associated with the 3D model," presented without alteration.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert claims 1–17 Compl. ¶64

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View (collectively, the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶2

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are digital mapping platforms that provide interactive 3D representations of terrain, cities, and structures Compl. ¶¶32-33 A core feature is the ability for users to contribute their own 2D images, such as panoramic photographs, which are then "seamlessly integrated and overlaid into the pre-existing 3D model" Compl. ¶36 This allows other users to navigate from a 3D "fly-over" view to a ground-level, interactive panoramic view of a location, an experience the complaint alleges is central to the products' functionality and commercial success Compl. ¶¶5-6, 39 The complaint includes a screenshot from Google Earth showing blue lines overlaid on streets, which, when clicked, transition the user into the ground-level Street View imagery Compl. p. 15

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,026,929 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the phrase "snap to the pose" requires the 3D model itself to be re-rendered from the 2D image's perspective, or if it can be read to cover the accused functionality, which appears to switch from a 3D model view to a separate panoramic image viewer.
  • Technical Questions: The limitation requiring a "pre-existing 3D model which is not constructed using the 2D images" raises the question of how Google's models are built. If Google's photogrammetry techniques use a vast collection of 2D images (potentially including user-submitted ones over time) to construct and update its 3D models, a dispute may arise over whether the model is truly "pre-existing" and "not constructed" from the images in the manner required by the claim.

U.S. Patent No. 8,264,504 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The meaning of "an environment image that is associated with the 3D model" is a primary question. Whether the rendering of the 3D model itself satisfies this limitation, or if a separate, distinct "environment image" is required, will likely be a focus of claim construction.
  • Technical Questions: Similar to the ’929 Patent, a key factual issue may be whether the transition to Street View constitutes showing a 2D image "posed as a substantially-aligned overlay within an environment of the scene," or if it is a functionally distinct operation of switching between different data viewers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "snap to the pose" (’929 Patent, Claim 3)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the claimed user interaction. Its construction will determine whether Google's transition from a 3D aerial view to its Street View panoramic viewer infringes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "snap-to-image" control that varies in its "amount of 'pull'" as a user navigates, suggesting a user-friendly navigational aid rather than a rigid technical command for how the 3D model must be rendered ’929 Patent, col. 4:50-52
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "cause the rendering of the 3D model to snap" could be construed to require that the 3D model's rendering engine itself is commanded to adopt the exact position and orientation of the 2D photo, as opposed to switching to a different display module.

The Term: "a pre-existing 3D model ... which is not constructed using the 2D images" (’929 Patent, Claim 3; ’504 Patent, Claim 5)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the required separation between the base 3D world and the user-contributed 2D photos. This is central to the infringement analysis, given that modern 3D mapping often uses photogrammetry, a technique that builds 3D models from 2D images.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background distinguishes the invention from prior art that integrated images into the model itself, suggesting the key inventive step is overlaying images on a model that already exists, independent of the specific user image being added ’929 Patent, col. 1:45-56
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that the invention is "based on the pre-existence of sufficiently detailed 3D models" ’929 Patent, col. 3:4-7 A defendant may argue that if its model is a fluid composite constantly being updated with 2D image data, it is not "pre-existing" in the static sense contemplated by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Google "actively advertises and instructs users" to upload their images for integration into the Accused Products in a manner that allegedly infringes the patents Compl. ¶37 This allegation is supported by references to Google's public-facing support and marketing webpages Compl. pp. 8, 14
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge from multiple sources. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge stemming from a 2007 research award Google provided to the inventor's "View Finder" project Compl. ¶41 It further alleges knowledge based on Google's own patents citing the asserted patents on their face Compl. ¶¶43-44 Finally, it alleges knowledge from direct communications beginning in April 2024, during which the plaintiff allegedly provided Google with notice and claim charts detailing the infringement allegations Compl. ¶¶45-46

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "snap to the pose," as described in the patent, be construed to cover the accused products’ function of transitioning between a 3D model view and a separate panoramic image viewer, or does the claim require a more integrated rendering action?
• A key technical question will be one of structural separation: does Google's 3D mapping architecture, which may rely on photogrammetry, maintain the distinction between a "pre-existing 3D model" and the "2D images" it integrates, as required by the claims?
• A central question for damages will be one of willfulness: what level of knowledge can be established from Google's alleged 2007 engagement with the inventor's research project and its subsequent patent citations, and how will that influence a potential finding of willful infringement?