Untitled case

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket number and patent.

Good progress. Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit appeal 24-2330 and the PTAB proceedings.

Let me pin down the current disposition of the appeal and the district court docket details.

Case Overview — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2024-2330 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties. This is a dispute between two operating competitors in aerial imagery and property analytics, not an NPE/PAE assertion. The appellant/plaintiff side is Eagle View Technologies, Inc., joined by its affiliate Pictometry International Corp. — a Rochester, New York–based provider of aerial roof-measurement reports, imagery-derived 3D property models, and analytics sold principally into the insurance, roofing, and construction markets (the joint May 2026 press release carries a Rochester dateline and quotes EagleView CEO Piers Dormeyer: eagleview.com press release). EagleView is a vertically integrated operating company that also enforces a large photogrammetry portfolio — Bloomberg Law described the '737 patent as "asserted in infringement actions against some of the largest players in the US roofing industry" (Bloomberg Law, Patent Office Head Revives Challenge to Roof-Estimation Patent, Feb. 21, 2024). The appellee/defendant is Nearmap US, Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Australian geospatial-imagery company Nearmap Ltd., which sells subscription aerial imagery, AI-derived property data, and measurement tools for insurance, government, and solar design (Nearmap's own description in the May 2026 settlement release); the same PRNewswire release is datelined Salt Lake City, consistent with Nearmap's U.S. footprint, though I could not independently confirm Nearmap US's principal place of business. Nearmap Ltd. is no longer ASX-listed following a take-private transaction (widely reported as Thoma Bravo's ~A$1.06 billion acquisition in 2022) — I treat that as background context rather than a fact I verified in primary sources for this matter.

Accused technology and patents. EagleView's Utah complaint targeted Nearmap's core commercial platforms — Nearmap MapBrowser and Nearmap on OpenSolar (a solar-design integration) — i.e., Nearmap's delivery of high-resolution aerial imagery with interactive measurement of roof geometry, the same functional space as EagleView's roof-report business (PatSnap litigation summary of D. Utah No. 2:21-cv-00283; scalejuris case background). The '737 patent (U.S. Pat. No. 9,135,737, "Concurrent display systems and methods for aerial roof estimation," appl. No. 14/450,108, Tech Center 2100) claims a user-interface-based roof-modeling workflow: concurrently displaying multiple aerial images of the same roof taken from different angles with line drawings of roof features overlaid on each; propagating a user's edit of a line drawing on one image to the corresponding line drawing on another image; and generating/outputting a roof estimate report containing numerical slope, area, or edge-length values for planar roof sections, provided for roof repair or construction (claim 1 as reproduced in the PTAB papers, e.g., uspto.gov, IPR2022-00734 Paper 41). The broader Utah case swept in a portfolio of related EagleView/Pictometry patents — secondary sources list U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,202,952; 8,543,880; 8,593,518; 8,670,961; 9,135,737; 9,514,568; 10,528,960; and 10,685,149, with reporting that the case at one point involved as many as 13 patents and 99 claims (PatSnap; scalejuris) — while the companion Federal Circuit matters addressed the '961 and '436 patents ("Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods," directed to remotely generating roof-estimate reports and determining/calculating roof pitch). The Federal Circuit appeal at issue here, however, concerns only the '737 patent, and specifically the PTAB's invalidation of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 25, 26, and 34 over Heller + Quam, and alternatively Heller + Quam + Deaton (IPR2022-00734).

Procedural posture and why the case matters. In the district court, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00283 (D. Utah, filed May 4, 2021), the parties litigated through claim construction and discovery while Nearmap ran a parallel IPR campaign; on August 25, 2025 the court stayed and administratively closed the case pending the PTO and Federal Circuit proceedings, ordering the parties to notify the court within five days of completion and to request a lift of the stay (stay order quoted verbatim in the PatSnap case summary; secondary reporting attributes the order to Judge Ted Stewart — I could not independently confirm the judge assignment or the "Chief Judge" designation used in one AI-generated summary, and both are flagged as unverified). The district case was then resolved by a settlement announced May 27–28, 2026, under which "all pending disputes between the companies are resolved" on confidential terms (PRNewswire/GlobeNewswire releases; scalejuris). The Federal Circuit appeal itself arises from the PTAB: Nearmap petitioned for IPR of the '737 on March 21, 2022; the Board instituted on November 1, 2022; the original Final Written Decision of October 27, 2023 held the claims not unpatentable because EagleView's objective evidence of nonobviousness (commercial success, industry praise) was decisive; Nearmap sought Director Review, and on February 20, 2024 Director Kathi Vidal vacated and remanded, holding that the Board failed to resolve the disputed claim construction (including the printed-matter/no-patentable-weight issue for the roof-report contents) and failed to analyze each Graham factor (USPTO, IPR2022-00734, Paper 43 (Vidal, Dir.); Finnegan "At the PTAB," June 18, 2024). On remand the Board issued a new Final Written Decision on July 15, 2024 holding the challenged claims unpatentable, and EagleView appealed, yielding No. 2024-2330, which was argued April 6, 2026 (cafc.uscourts.gov oral-argument posting for 2024-2330). Notably, on February 3, 2026 the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a separate Eagle View v. Nearmap appeal affirming the invalidation of the '961 and '436 patents on obviousness, rejecting EagleView's argument that "calculate"/"determine a pitch" requires a particular accuracy (fedcircuitblog.com; IPWatchdog, Feb. 3, 2026; IPR2022-01009 / IPR2022-01090). The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it is a leading illustration of the post-Arthrex Director Review mechanism actually flipping a PTAB outcome, and of the Board's obligation under Graham to resolve claim construction and weigh each objective-indicia factor; (2) it tests the printed-matter doctrine as applied to report-content limitations in software/imaging claims (the same construction the Board adopted in Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00592, Paper 50 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017), a prior challenge to the same patent that EagleView won on secondary considerations and that was affirmed on appeal — cited at length in Vidal's decision); and (3) commercially, it is a two-operating-company fight over the roof-measurement/insurance-analytics stack (roofing, insurance claims, and solar design), where the practical FTO question for the whole industry is whether EagleView's photogrammetry family survives — a question sharpened by the fact that the litigation ultimately ended in a settlement after the validity rulings went against the patent owner.

Sourcing caveats (deliberately flagged rather than filled in): (a) I could not confirm the disposition of No. 2024-2330 as of today's date — no opinion or Rule 36 judgment surfaced in my searches; the last verified event is the April 6, 2026 oral argument, and it is unclear whether the appeal was decided or dismissed/held in abeyance in light of the May 2026 global settlement. (b) I could not verify the district court judge assignment, the precise count of patents/claims asserted at each stage, or whether any separate Nearmap-filed declaratory judgment action predates the 2021 Utah complaint. (c) The PatSnap and scalejuris write-ups are secondary/AI-assisted summaries; the PatSnap piece contains at least one clear error (citing "35 U.S.C. § 314" as the stay standard, which is the IPR institution statute, not the stay test), so I have relied on the underlying USPTO documents (IPR2022-00734 Papers 41–43), the Federal Circuit's own pages, Bloomberg Law, IPWatchdog, and the Finnegan PTAB blog where available. (d) Attorney rosters appearing in secondary sources (Fish & Richardson for Nearmap; Haynes and Boone for EagleView before the PTAB; Gibson Dunn/Kirkland/Wilson Sonsini for EagleView and Groombridge Wu for Nearmap in Utah) are corroborated in part by the USPTO filings but should be confirmed against the live docket before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically.

I've identified the underlying litigation. Let me dig deeper into the key orders and the PTAB/Federal Circuit proceedings.

Bottom line

The Federal Circuit docket number in the case metadata — No. 24-2330 — is not an infringement appeal. It is In re Eagle View Technologies, Inc., a patent-owner appeal of an adverse Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in IPR2022-00734 (Nearmap's IPR against U.S. Patent No. 9,135,737). The underlying infringement action is Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Nearmap US, Inc. et al., No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah) — Judge Ted Stewart, with Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg on non-dispositive matters. That action was stayed and administratively closed on 2025-08-25, and the parties settled on 2026-05-27/29, after which the Federal Circuit remanded the appeal (2026-06-25).

A caveat up front: much of my sourcing below comes from the public docket excerpts and third-party litigation aggregators (PatSnap, Patexia, Docket Alarm, Justia/CourtListener). I flag every place where I could not confirm a fact from a primary document, and I have not invented docket entries, counsel, or dates.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• Asserted patents: eight patents were originally asserted, including U.S. Pat. No. 9,135,737 ("Concurrent display systems and methods for aerial roof estimation," app. no. 14/450,108, inventor Chris Pershing) and U.S. Pat. No. 8,209,152. The full asserted set reported by PatSnap is: 8,209,152; 8,542,880; 8,593,518; 8,670,961; 9,134,568… — i.e., US 8,209,152; 8,542,880; 8,593,518; 8,670,961; 9,134,737 is wrong — the list is 8,209,152; 8,542,880; 8,593,518; 8,670,961; 9,514,568; 10,528,960; 10,685,149; and 9,135,737. (I am relaying the PatSnap list; treat the precise eight-patent roster as needing a PACER/docket check.)
• Accused products: Nearmap on OpenSolar and MapBrowser (Compl. ¶ 1), later expanded.
• Answer/counterclaims: Nearmap US answered in mid-2021 (answer deadline 2021-06-01). I could not confirm from the sources reviewed whether Nearmap pleaded declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement/invalidity, or on what date. That is a gap worth verifying on PACER.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

(a) First § 101 motion to dismiss (the '152 and '737 patents) — DENIED.

• Nearmap moved to dismiss EagleView's infringement claims on the '152 and '737 patents as directed to abstract ideas under Alice.
• Oral argument 2021-11-08; decision 2021-11-15 (Dkt. No. 50).
• Holding: the motion was denied; the court found Nearmap had not shown ineligibility as a matter of law, analogizing the claims to the automated-animation claims upheld in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America. The denial was without prejudice to a renewed challenge. (Sources: Studicata summary; Justia PDF of Dkt. No. 50; Casetext.)

(b) Motion for leave to amend the complaint — GRANTED IN PART.

• EagleView moved to amend (Dkt. No. 155). Order 2023-03-14 (Dkt. No. 267) granted the motion in part, rejecting Nearmap's futility arguments (including as to the new Count 13).
• First Amended Complaint filed 2023-03-28 (Dkt. No. 274). It (i) added Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd and Nearmap Ltd as defendants; (ii) added the roof-geometry technology Nearmap acquired from Primitive LLC d/b/a Pushpin as an accused product; and (iii) added a new count (Count 13) asserting U.S. Pat. No. 10,671,648.

(c) Second § 101 motion to dismiss (the '648 patent, Count 13).

• Nearmap moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to invalidate the '648 patent as an abstract idea (motion at Dkt. No. 284).
• The court's decision (Dkt. No. 416; the Justia PDF is timestamped March 2024) rejected EagleView's argument that the motion was an improper motion for reconsideration and applied Alice step one, reasoning that "storing, aggregating, associating, and producing data is simply a combination of abstract-idea processes," distinguishing Enfish and finding the claims directed to an abstract idea with no technological improvement. The excerpt I reviewed reads as a ruling for Nearmap on Count 13, but I could not verify the final dispositional language (dismissal with or without prejudice) or that Count 13 was actually dismissed. Verify Dkt. No. 416 on PACER.

(d) Discovery motions (strategic significance).

• EagleView's short-form discovery motion to compel Nearmap to (i) identify unnamed products of "similar functionality" and (ii) supplement discovery on the Roof Geometry tool (Dkt. No. 111), heard 2022-10-31.
• Order 2023-05-18 (Dkt. No. 298, Mag. J. Oberg): motion denied. The court held that a self-defined "accused products" category covering unidentified products of "similar functionality" is inconsistent with D. Utah Local Patent Rules 2.1/2.3, that the accused products are limited to those specifically named in the infringement contentions, and that EagleView had not shown the two-part nCAP Licensing / EPOS Technologies predicate for discovery into unaccused products. The Roof Geometry tool request was denied without prejudice. Nearmap's objection was held not waived.
• Sealing litigation: orders at Dkt. Nos. 305 (2023-06-02), 307 (2023-06-09) and 310 (2023), resolving competing motions to seal by Nearmap and by third party GAF over, among other things, a confidential services agreement, Nearmap–GAF emails/texts, technical descriptions of an accused product, and interrogatory responses. This indicates discovery reached Nearmap's commercial relationships (GAF is a roofing-materials/customer-side player in this ecosystem).
• Other January 2023 docket entries (Nos. 218, 221, 240) appear in the '737-patent docket search; I could not confirm their subject matter.

(e) Motion to stay pending PTAB/Federal Circuit proceedings — GRANTED.

• Order dated 2025-08-25 (Judge Stewart), quoted verbatim: "ORDERED that all proceedings in the case are stayed and the Clerk's Office shall administratively close the case. It is further ORDERED that the parties notify the Court within five days of completion of the pending proceedings before the PTO and the Federal Circuit and request a lift of the stay."
• The order adjudicates nothing on the merits of infringement or validity. Case duration to that point: roughly 1,574 days.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• The case did proceed through a claim-construction phase before the stay (PatSnap: "the case progressed through claim construction and discovery while parallel USPTO proceedings advanced").
• I could not independently verify a specific Markman hearing date or a claim-construction order in 2:21-cv-00283 from a primary source. No Markman opinion surfaced in my searches. Treat "claim construction occurred; specifics unconfirmed" as the accurate state of the record I can support.
• The only verified constructions in this dispute are the PTAB's, in IPR2022-00734: (i) the "roof estimate report" content limitations were held printed matter entitled to no patentable weight (following the Board's earlier Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00592), and (ii) the Board addressed "generat[ing] and output[ting] a roof estimate report" and "transmitting roof measurement information." Those constructions were central to the Federal Circuit appeal.

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• 2022-01: EagleView's first interrogatory set, defining "accused products" to sweep in unidentified products of "similar functionality."
• 2022-02: Initial infringement contentions naming MapBrowser, Nearmap on OpenSolar, Nearmap Vertical, Nearmap Oblique, Nearmap 3D, and "any other Nearmap products that contain similar functionality."
• 2022-07: Supplemental infringement contentions adding a "Roof Geometry Technology" product (the Pushpin-acquired technology) — the dispute that produced the May 2023 order.
• 2022-08: Second interrogatory set with a broader accused-products definition; Nearmap objects.
• 2022-10-31: Hearing on the motion to compel.
• 2023-03-28: Amended complaint adding foreign Nearmap entities and the Pushpin product — the single most consequential discovery/scope development, because it pulled Nearmap's parent and Australian affiliate into the case and expanded the accused instrumentalities.
• 2023-06: Sealing orders (GAF-related materials).

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• There was no trial and no verdict. The case never reached a jury or bench trial, and no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion was decided. The 2025-08-25 stay came with no trial date set (PatSnap notes the case was "advanced without a set trial date").
• Doctrinally, the /737 patent family had already produced a large damages result in other litigation — plaintiff-side exhibit labels in this docket reference "EagleView's Adventures in IP Earn Co. $375M Enhanced Win" (a reference to the Eastern District of Texas $125M verdict against Xactware/Verisk, enhanced to ~$375M). That is context, not part of this case's outcome.

6. Final disposition / present posture

• 2026-05-27 (PR Newswire, Salt Lake City dateline) and 2026-05-29 (EagleView press release, GLOBE NEWSWIRE, Rochester, NY): Eagleview and Nearmap announced a global settlement of the D. Utah litigation "dating back to 2021," "related primarily to roofing measurement patents and other intellectual property matters," with all pending disputes between the companies resolved and terms confidential. Statements from Eagleview CEO Piers Dormeyer and Nearmap CEO Andy Watt.
• 2026-06-25: Federal Circuit grants the PTO's motion to remand No. 2024-2330 (In re Eagle View Technologies, Inc.) to the PTAB; the PTO's motion for leave to appear for Sarah E. Craven, Nicholas T. Matich, Robert J. McManus and Kevin K. McNish was denied as moot. (Nonprecedential per curiam order.)
• Present posture (as of 2026-09-11): the D. Utah action is administratively closed under the 2025-08-25 stay, and the parties have settled, so the stay will not be lifted; the Federal Circuit appeal has been remanded to the Board, where it will presumably be terminated in light of the settlement. The merits — infringement and validity of the '737 and the other asserted patents — were never adjudicated.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and effect on the litigation

Effect on the Utah litigation: exactly as the 2025-08-25 stay order recites. Nearmap's IPR against the '737 patent, plus the Federal Circuit appeal, were the stated basis for staying and administratively closing the district court case. The Director-review vacatur (2024-02-20) and subsequent remand FWD (2024-07-15) kept the validity question alive through 2025 and into the appeal, which in turn kept the district court case frozen — and the case was resolved by settlement rather than by any merits ruling.

Also note: the Director-review decision in IPR2022-00734 is itself a notable practice development (the Director holding that the Board must resolve claim-construction disputes that materially affect its analysis and must walk through each Graham factor when weighing objective indicia), reported by Finnegan on 2024-06-18.

---

What I could not verify (and would check on PACER/PTAB next)

1. The answer and any counterclaims filed by Nearmap US in 2021 (date, counts).
2. The Markman order in 2:21-cv-00283 — date, terms construed, outcome. No opinion surfaced.
3. Any motion to transfer venue (none appeared in my searches; do not assume one was filed).
4. The actual dispositional language of Dkt. No. 416 on the '648 patent § 101 motion, and whether Count 13 was dismissed.
5. Whether Nearmap filed IPRs against the other seven asserted patents in parallel (only IPR2022-00734 surfaced in my searches; aggregators hint at multiple concurrent proceedings but do not name them).
6. The precise date and text of the FWD on remand (2024-07-15) and which claims, if any, were held unpatentable — this is the predicate for the 24-2330 appeal and is the single most important unverified item for the '737 patent.
7. Counsel of record. PatSnap lists plaintiff-side firms (Gibson Dunn; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilson Sonsini; A&O Shearman; Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar; Parsons Behle & Latimer; Reichman Jorgensen) and defense-side firms (Fish & Richardson; Paul, Weiss; Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone; Hatch Law Group), and PTAB counsel as Walter Renner (petitioner) and Kyle Howard (patent owner). These come from a third-party aggregator and should be confirmed against the docket before being relied on.

Bottom line up front

Federal Circuit No. 24-2330 is not a district‑court infringement suit, and it has no "plaintiff." The docket caption is In re Eagle View Technologies, Inc. / Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., and it is an appeal from the PTAB in IPR2022‑00734 (U.S. Patent No. 9,135,737). See the court's nonprecedential order of June 25, 2026 ("Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022‑00734"), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2330.ORDER.6-25-2026_2715001.pdf; and the argument calendar entry "2024‑2330: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc.," https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/category/oral-argument/page/19/. In an IPR appeal the roles are appellant/patent owner (Eagle View) and appellee/petitioner (Nearmap) — not plaintiff/defendant.

The infringement action your question maps onto is Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. v. Nearmap, U.S., Inc.; Nearmap Australia Pty, Ltd.; and Nearmap, Ltd., No. 2:21‑cv‑00283‑TS‑DAO (D. Utah) (Judge Ted Stewart) — where EagleView/Pictometry are the plaintiffs and the '737 patent was one of the asserted patents (originally alongside the '152 patent). See the § 101 denial, https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-district-of-utah/eagleview-techs-v-nearmap-us-inc-2021-b04up6/ and the docket‑derived summary at https://inc.morelaw.com/verdicts/2-21-cv-00283/UT/[172460](/patent/172460)/.

Important caveat on sourcing: I could not retrieve the D. Utah docket sheet's counsel list (PACER / RECAP) or the Federal Circuit appearance list for 24‑2330 in this session, and the free case-summary pages I found (MoreLaw, Casetext, Justia) either omit or blank the plaintiff's-attorney field. I therefore will not name the district‑court plaintiff's trial counsel, because I cannot verify them. What follows is what is actually documented.

---

1. Patent‑owner / appellant side — i.e., the party that is the plaintiff in the underlying infringement case

These are the only attorney names for the EagleView/Pictometry side I could verify, and they come from the PTAB record in the parallel IPRs (IPR2022‑00733/00734/00735), not from the Federal Circuit appearance list.

Source: PTAB Order Conditionally Granting Patent Owner's Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel, Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry Int'l Corp., IPR2022‑00733/‑00734/‑00735 (Aug. 1, 2022), available at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00735/Nearmap_US_Inc._v._Pictometry_International_Corp/docs/08-01-2022-Board/Order__Other-8-Order__Conditionally_Granting_Patent_Owners_Motion_for__Withdrawal_and_Substitution_of_Counsel__37_CFR_sec_4210.pdf.

• Unverified inference (flagged): A copy of the IPR2022‑00734 final written decision is hosted on Banner Witcoff's site (http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/IPR2022-00734.pdf), which may indicate Banner Witcoff involvement on the patent‑owner side, but hosting a decision is not proof of representation and I could not confirm that Howard/Webb/Bowser are Banner Witcoff attorneys. Treat the firm affiliation for the post‑substitution counsel as unconfirmed.
• Also unverified: the identity of Eagle View's appellate counsel of record in 24‑2330 (the briefs/power of attorney were not retrievable here). I am not naming anyone for that role.

2. Petitioner / defendant side (Nearmap) — for contrast and to avoid confusion

Per the same Aug. 1, 2022 PTAB order, Nearmap's IPR counsel of record were:

• W. Karl Renner, Thomas Rozyłowicz, Daniel D. Smith, W. Ryan Klima, Patrick Darno — Fish & Richardson P.C. (Renner is a well‑known PTAB practice leader at Fish; the firm is the most frequent IPR filer in the country). Order, supra.
• I did not verify whether the same Fish & Richardson team handled the Federal Circuit appeals (24‑1763 / 24‑1290 / 24‑2330), so the appellee's appellate counsel should be checked on the CAFC docket before being cited.

3. Government counsel appearing in 24‑2330 (USPTO Solicitor's Office — not plaintiff's counsel)

The June 25, 2026 order records that the USPTO moved for leave to appear for Sarah E. Craven, Nicholas T. Matich, Robert J. McManus, and Kevin K. McNish, and separately moved to remand; the motion to remand was granted and the motion for leave to appear was denied as moot. https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2330.ORDER.6-25-2026_2715001.pdf. These are government attorneys, not party counsel.

4. Posture you should be aware of before citing "counsel of record" in the present tense

• Feb. 21, 2024: Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Board's IPR2022‑00734 final written decision (which had found the '737 claims not unpatentable based on objective indicia), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/patent-office-head-revives-challenge-to-roof-estimation-patent; analysis at Finnegan, http://www.finnegans.com/print/content/[410376](/patent/410376)/... (discussing IPR2022‑00734, Paper 43).
• June 25, 2026: the Federal Circuit remanded 24‑2330 to the PTO (order cited above). A reported settlement of the entire EagleView–Nearmap dispute announced May 28, 2026 — see https://scalejuris.com/news/14359/eagleview-and-nearmap-settle-long-runnin (note: this is a low‑quality aggregator source; the settlement itself should be confirmed against a company press release or Law360 before being relied on). The timing is consistent with, but does not prove, a settlement‑driven remand.
• The D. Utah case was stayed in August 2025 pending the PTAB/Federal Circuit outcomes (same source; confirm independently).

5. What I could not verify (stated explicitly, per your instruction)

1. Names of EagleView/Pictometry's trial counsel in D. Utah No. 2:21‑cv‑00283 (lead counsel, local counsel, or in‑house) — the docket sheet was not retrievable; no attorney names appear in the free opinion/summary pages I could access.
2. Eagle View's counsel of record in Fed. Cir. 24‑2330 — appearance forms/briefs not retrieved.
3. Firm affiliation of Kyle Howard, Gregory Webb, and Jonathan R. Bowser.
4. Whether any filings in either forum are sealed — unknown.

If you need the definitive counsel list, the fastest verified paths are: (a) the CAFC docket for 24‑2330 (appearance-of-counsel entries and the Rule 26.1/29 corporate disclosure statements), and (b) the D. Utah docket (Dkt. 1 complaint signature block and any notices of appearance/local counsel entries), neither of which I could pull here.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the Federal Circuit docket and the patent itself.

Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit appeal docket 24-2330 and the underlying district court case.

Let me pull the Federal Circuit docket and briefs for 24-2330 to confirm the parties and counsel appearances.

Bottom line: who the defendant is

Federal Circuit No. 2024‑2330 is captioned Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. (the Federal Circuit's oral-argument page for 2024‑2330 lists the case under that caption). It is an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2022‑00734, the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,135,737 — i.e., the PTAB/Federal Circuit leg of the dispute referenced in the D. Utah stay order. The underlying infringement action is Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2:21‑cv‑00283‑TS‑DAO (D. Utah).

The defendant in the infringement case (and the appellee/patent-challenger on appeal) is Nearmap US, Inc. — a single defendant. Plaintiff/patent owner on the other side is Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (with Pictometry International Corp.).

Sources: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/04-06-2026-2024-2330-eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc-audio-uploaded/ ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/shorturl-id-[162561](/patent/162561) (IPR2022‑00734, "Appeal 2024‑2330"); IPR2022‑00734 Final Written Decision and Director‑Review order (Paper 42), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2022-00734_nearmap_us_eagle_view_technologies_paper_42_.pdf

---

Counsel of record for the defendant, Nearmap US, Inc.

1. PTAB / appellate team — Fish & Richardson P.C. (lead)

The signature block for Petitioner Nearmap in IPR2022‑00734 (the '737 IPR that is now CAFC 2024‑2330) names the following Fish & Richardson attorneys. This is the team that has been litigating the '737 patent validity fight and is the most likely set of appellee counsel in 2024‑2330:

Source (name/email list of record for Petitioner Nearmap): USPTO, Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., IPR2022‑00734, Paper 42 (Director Review order) and the Final Written Decision (Banner Witcoff copy: http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/IPR2022-00734.pdf). Caveat: the PTAB signature block does not distinguish "lead" from "of counsel"; I have not verified each individual's office or title from PACER or a firm bio page for this engagement. Treat the role column as listed-order, not an official designation.

2. District court (D. Utah) defense team

In the underlying infringement suit, the court's counsel listing (as reproduced from the June 9, 2023 opinion in No. 2:21‑cv‑00283) shows the defendant-side appearance as:

• Roger A. Denning — Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA (admitted pro hac vice). Longtime F&R patent litigator; part of the Nearmap defense team in Utah. Source: https://app.minerva26.com/case_law/50443-eagle-view-techs-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc
• Brent O. Hatch — Hatch Law Group, Salt Lake City, UT (local counsel). Utah-based local counsel; the same listing carries his name on the sealed/discovery filings in the '283 case (e.g., the Feb. 8, 2024 motion to seal signed "Hatch, Brent"). Source: https://tele.law360.com/companies/eagleview-technologies-inc/dockets ; https://app.minerva26.com/case_law/50443-eagle-view-techs-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc
• Fish & Richardson P.C. — identified in litigation analytics as the principal defendant-side firm. Sources: https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/eagle-view-v-nearmap-aerial-imagery-patent-dispute-stayed-patsnap/ ; https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/articles/eagle-view-v-nearmap-patent-stay-ptab-2025/

Unverified / conflicting detail: the German-language PatSnap case summary also lists Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone LLP (naming Nicholas P. Groombridge, formerly Paul Weiss) as defendant-side counsel, and one counsel listing in the '283 case includes a Paul Weiss name alongside the Fish/Utah entries. I could not confirm from a primary docket document that Groombridge Wu or Paul Weiss entered an appearance for Nearmap in this case — treat those as possible additional/former defense counsel, not established of record. Likewise, Brent Hatch's affiliation appears as "Hatch Law Group" in the court listing but is sometimes indexed as Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone; I have not resolved that discrepancy.

3. In-house counsel

No in-house Nearmap attorney appears in any filing I could locate (PTAB signature blocks and district court appearances are outside counsel only). I will not guess at a name.

---

Do not confuse these with the defendant's counsel (other parties in the same matter)

• Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (plaintiff/appellant): Haynes and Boone, LLP at the PTAB — Kyle Howard, Gregory Webb, Jonathan Bowser (greg.webb.ipr@haynesboone.com), later joined by Debbie McComas, Angela Oliver, Adam Erickson, Laura Vu. In the Utah district court, EagleView has been represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (L. Kieran Kieckhefer, San Francisco), Kirkland & Ellis (Adam R. Alper, Brian M. Buroker), and local firm Parsons Behle & Latimer (Juliette P. White, Patrick J. Neville, Sarah E. Jenkins Dewey, Salt Lake City). Sources: Haynes Boone press release (Oct. 15, 2024) https://www.haynesboone.com/news/press-releases/haynes-boone-secures-dual-patent-wins-for-eagleview.pdf ; https://app.minerva26.com/case_law/50443-eagle-view-techs-inc-v-nearmap-us-inc
• USPTO (Solicitor's Office, not the defendant): Sarah E. Craven, Nicholas T. Matich, Robert J. McManus, Kevin K. McNish moved for leave to appear and to remand in the 24‑2330 docket (order filed June 25, 2026, Doc. 51). Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10880551](/patent/10880551)/in-re-eagle-view-technologies-inc/

---

Status caveats you should carry forward

1. Case posture has moved past the briefs. Oral argument in 24‑2330 was held and audio posted April 6, 2026; the parties announced a settlement on May 28, 2026, and the Federal Circuit granted a remand on June 25, 2026 (Case 24‑2330, Doc. 51). Appearances may be in the process of being withdrawn, so a current PACER docket pull is needed to state counsel "of record" as of today.
2. Caption oddity: the June 25, 2026 order in 24‑2330 is captioned In re Eagle View Technologies, Inc. on CourtListener even though the CAFC case page and Patexia both identify 24‑2330 as Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. I could not fully reconcile that in the time available; if the appeal number was used for more than one filing stream, verify the specific document caption on PACER.
3. Not fabricated but not fully verified: the specific offices and titles of the individual Fish & Richardson attorneys come from firm-level information rather than a docket entry; the PTAB order only gives names and emails. If you need docket-grade certainty on lead vs. supporting counsel, the CAFC Docketing/Appearance forms (Form 5/7) and the D. Utah appearance docket are the authoritative sources.
4. No sealing issue affects the identification of counsel here — the attorney lists appear on public PTAB papers and public district court opinions; only certain substantive exhibits in the Utah case were filed under seal.