Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Nearmap US, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Now let me dig into the IPRs, the Federal Circuit appeal, and the parties' corporate identities.

Excellent detail. Let me pin down the patent titles, the corporate identities, and the earlier Xactware/Verisk litigation.

Case Overview: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00283 (D. Utah)

Parties and accused technology. This is a competitor-versus-competitor assertion, not an NPE/PAE campaign. Plaintiffs EagleView Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. are related operating companies in aerial imagery and property analytics — Pictometry is the oblique-imagery pioneer that is now part of the EagleView group, and the two are routinely co-plaintiffs in the same enforcement family (Unified Patents' litigation portal classifies the plaintiff entity type as "Operating Company," not a non-practicing entity: portal.unifiedpatents.com). EagleView sells roof measurement and property analytics products and services to insurers, roofing contractors and (increasingly) solar designers, which is the commercial context for the patents. Defendant Nearmap US, Inc. is the U.S. arm of Australia's Nearmap Ltd (ASX: NEA), a subscription-based high-resolution aerial imagery provider; Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd and Nearmap Pty Ltd were later named as well (caption in Doc. 329). The accused products are Nearmap MapBrowser and Nearmap on OpenSolar — the latter significant because it targets a downstream third-party solar design platform that ingests Nearmap imagery, not just Nearmap's core viewer. EagleView's March 28, 2023 amended complaint expanded the accused products to include "the roof geometry technology Nearmap acquired from Primitive LLC d/b/a Pushpin ('Pushpin') and associated software and products," plus "other Nearmap products that contain or are produced using similar functionality" (Doc. 298 at 5). That breadth produced substantial discovery litigation: the court denied EagleView's motion to compel discovery into un-named "similar functionality" products (Doc. 298, May 18, 2023), and separately granted a protective order barring the depositions of EagleView's CEO Chris Jurasek and general counsel Kim Nakamaru under the apex doctrine (Doc. 221, Jan. 9, 2023).

Asserted patents and procedural posture. EagleView asserted eight patents from its aerial roof estimation / 3D reconstruction family: U.S. Patents 9,135,737; 10,528,960; 8,542,880; 9,514,568; 10,685,149; 8,593,518; 8,670,961; and 8,209,152. Technically they cluster into: (i) roof measurement from imagery, e.g., the '880 patent, "System and Process for Roof Measurement Using Aerial Imagery," whose claim 1 recites address entry, a movable visual marker on a top-down image, user confirmation, and then retrieval of oblique imagery (claim text quoted in the Federal Circuit's opinion, cafc.uscourts.gov 24-1290); (ii) pitch determination, i.e., the '149 patent, "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation"; (iii) concurrent/overlaid display of aerial views for roof estimation, i.e., the '152 patent, "Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation"; (iv) report generation, i.e., the '961 patent, "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods" (remotely generating a roof estimate report — area, shape and slope — from multiple aerial images, per IPWatchdog); and (v) 3D modeling of buildings from imagery, which is the apparent subject matter of the '518 patent (Nearmap's invalidity contentions mapped "Microsoft Virtual Earth 3D" and WO 99/33026 (Boesjes) against the '518 and '880 patents in Doc. 146, Nov. 2, 2022). I could not independently verify the titles of the '737, '960, '568 or '518 patents in the sources reviewed, so those sketches are inferred from the family and the invalidity contentions rather than confirmed. The case is before Judge Ted Stewart (district judge) and Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg in the Central Division of the District of Utah, with the magistrate handling non-dispositive pretrial matters (Doc. 12). Posture: filed May 4, 2021; Nearmap's § 101 motion to dismiss the '152 and '737 claims was denied on Nov. 15, 2021 on the ground that the claims recite specific computerized steps analogous to McRO rather than an abstract idea — expressly without prejudice to renew (Doc. 50, justia); fact discovery closed Jan. 13, 2023; Nearmap was granted leave to add a patent misuse counterclaim/defense (Doc. 267); and on August 25, 2025 the court stayed all proceedings and administratively closed the case pending "the pending proceedings before the PTO and the Federal Circuit," directing the parties to notify the court within five days of completion (order quoted at PatSnap). Venue matters here for concrete reasons: the District of Utah applies its Local Patent Rules, including a ten-prior-art-reference cap per patent in final invalidity contentions (Doc. 146); EagleView filed a companion action against GAF Materials LLC in D.N.J. that was transferred to D. Utah in March 2022 and was not consolidated with this case (Doc. 267); and Utah local counsel appear on both sides.

Why the case is notable. First, the case is essentially a PTAB case with a district-court docket attached, and the stay reflects that. Nearmap announced three IPRs in March 2022 and a fourth in May 2022 (Nearmap ASX release, April 1, 2022; ASX release May 11, 2022). The results have cut against EagleView on two of the asserted patents: the '880 patent's claims 1–20 were held obvious over Kennedy/Florence/Kreft, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on Oct. 27, 2025 (No. 24-1290, nonprecedential, Prost/Taranto/Stark, IPR2022-00733); the '961 patent was likewise held obvious and affirmed Feb. 3, 2026 (No. 24-1488). A separate appeal in which Nearmap was appellant — No. 24-1763, from IPR2022-00735 — was affirmed under Rule 36 on Feb. 3, 2026 (Dyk/Schall/Stark), an outcome that, because Nearmap appealed, indicates the Board's result there favored Pictometry (CAFC). The specific patent at issue in IPR2022-00735 is not confirmed in the sources I reviewed, and the Rule 36 disposition means no written reasoning exists. Second, the '737 patent produced a rare Director review: in February 2024 Director Kathi Vidal vacated a PTAB ruling that had defeated Nearmap's challenge to the '737 and remanded, giving Nearmap another opportunity to invalidate it (Bloomberg Law, Feb. 21, 2024). Third, the patent misuse defense gives the case an antitrust overlay: Nearmap alleged that EagleView's prior, confidential settlement with Verisk Analytics/Xactware impermissibly conditioned settlement on Verisk ceasing sales of competing unaccused products; the court allowed the amendment, and when the parties moved to seal the Verisk settlement and negotiation emails the court denied the sealing motions as unsupported by a significant competing interest (Doc. 218, Jan. 6, 2023). That same settlement is central to EagleView's damages theory, since it bears on a reasonable royalty; EagleView is seeking lost profits and no less than a reasonable royalty (Doc. 221). Fourth, two 2024 Nearmap IPRs against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,671,648 and 9,182,657 were denied institution on Oct. 9–10, 2024 for lack of specificity (Haynes Boone; WIPR interview) — note that neither of those two patents appears in the eight-patent list for this docket per case metadata, so either they were added by amendment in related proceedings or the press coverage spans a companion dispute; I could not resolve that discrepancy and flag it rather than assert it. Finally, the market context: the patents cover the measurement layer that insurers, roofers and solar designers depend on, and EagleView/Pictometry have enforced this portfolio broadly (Verisk/Xactware, GAF, and Roofr, whose IPRs invalidated the '538 and '800 patents and were affirmed in May 2026 per IPWatchdog). One caveat: I did not verify in this research pass the commonly reported corporate facts that Nearmap was acquired by Thoma Bravo (announced 2022, ~A$1.06B) or EagleView's ownership/IPO history; treat those as background to be confirmed before publication.

Sources relied on: District court docket and opinions (Docs. 12, 50, 146, 218, 221, 267, 298, 311, 329) via Justia, CourtListener, Docket Alarm and Trellis; the August 25, 2025 stay order (quoted by PatSnap from PACER); Federal Circuit opinions and Rule 36 judgments in Nos. 24-1290, 24-1488 and 24-1763; IPWatchdog, Bloomberg Law, VitalLaw and Haynes Boone releases for IPR outcomes; Nearmap's ASX releases for its own characterization of the IPR campaign; Unified Patents' litigation portal for the plaintiff entity-type classification. Where a fact rests only on a commercial litigation-analytics database (e.g., Nearmap's district-court counsel being reported as Paul, Weiss) or on my background knowledge rather than a primary source, I have said so rather than stating it as established.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the docket and key developments.

Good initial findings. There are parallel PTAB proceedings and a Federal Circuit appeal I need to pin down, plus a 2026 settlement. Let me dig deeper.

Let me map the full PTAB docket and the district court's claim construction and motion practice.

Eagle View Technologies v. Nearmap US — Chronology of Key Legal Developments

Source note: The previously-generated summary in the case file ends with the 2025-08-25 stay. That entry is now superseded: the parties settled in May 2026. Everything below is drawn from the district court docket (Pacer/CourtListener/Justia reproductions of D. Utah orders), USPTO PTAB papers, Federal Circuit materials, and trade press. Where a fact is not well sourced, I say so explicitly.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021)

Note: the caption later expanded to include Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd and Nearmap Ltd as defendants (see Doc. 311 caption), although the operative accused-products dispute centered on Nearmap US.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to dismiss (§ 101) — denied. See 2021-11-15 order above (Doc. 50). A separate order in the case also addressed a § 101 challenge to the '648 patent (U.S. 10,671,648, geographic database system) in the context of a motion-to-amend/futility analysis; the public record I retrieved does not let me state with confidence whether the '648 was formally added by amended complaint in this case or was part of related litigation, so treat that as unresolved.

Motion practice on infringement contentions and prior art:

• 2022-11-02 — Doc. 146: Order granting Nearmap's unopposed motion for leave to rely on three previously-unidentified prior art references in its Final Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions (filed 2022-09-16), notwithstanding the Utah Local Patent Rules' 10-references-per-patent cap: Microsoft Virtual Earth 3D against the '518 patent; WO 99/33026 (Boesjes) against the '518 and '880 patents; and EagleView's own "Render House" core tools system against the '880 patent. Strategically significant: Nearmap turned EagleView's own accused-of-being-prior-art product line into § 103 art.

Stay: The docket does not show a contested motion to stay decided earlier in the case; the stay came in 2025 (see § 7). No motion to transfer venue, and no summary judgment motion, appears in the public record retrieved.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

I was unable to confirm any Markman/claim construction order in 2:21-cv-00283 from the sources retrieved. One AI-generated litigation summary asserts the case "progressed through claim construction," but that source is not reliable and no order is cited. What I can confirm is that claim-construction-style disputes surfaced in the PTAB proceedings instead, and that the district court's substantive claim-scope disputes were litigated through the Local Patent Rules process (initial/final infringement and invalidity contentions). Do not treat a district-court Markman ruling as established. The only actual construction rulings of record in this patent family are:

• PTAB's implicit construction of "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" in IPR2022-01009 ('961) — affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-02-03 (see § 8).
• The Director-review holding in IPR2022-00734 that the Board must resolve material claim-construction disputes (see § 6).

---

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2022-07: EagleView supplemented its initial infringement contentions to add a "Roof Geometry Technology" product (the Pushpin LLC roof-geometry technology Nearmap acquired) as an additional accused product.
• 2022-08: EagleView's second set of interrogatories defined "accused products" sweepingly — MapBrowser, Nearmap on OpenSolar, Nearmap Vertical/Oblique/3D, "all Nearmap roofing geometry technology," point-cloud roof geometry, and "any other Nearmap Product that performs similar functionality." Nearmap objected, invoking Local Patent Rules 2.3/3.1.
• 2022-10-31: Hearing on EagleView's motion to compel. 2023-05-18 — Doc. 298: Motion to compel denied as to unidentified "similar functionality" products (impermissible expansion beyond charted accused products) and denied without prejudice as to the Roof Geometry tool's uses/supply chain.
• Verisk settlement discovery (damages): The court granted Nearmap's motion to compel production of EagleView's settlement agreement, "integration agreement," and negotiation documents with Verisk Analytics/Xactware (separate prior litigation over related patents), holding them relevant to EagleView's reasonable-royalty/lost-profits theory. That production then fueled Nearmap's motion to amend its answer to add a patent misuse defense based on the Verisk settlement (motion pending as of January 2023).
• 2022-01-06 consolidated sealing ruling — Doc. 218: Motions to seal the Verisk settlement agreement and negotiation emails denied without prejudice; the court (applying Tenth Circuit Colony Ins. v. Burke) held a settlement confidentiality clause alone does not overcome the presumption of public access where the documents go to the parties' substantive rights.
• Apex depositions — Doc. 221 (2023-01-09): After a 2022-12-12 hearing, the court granted EagleView's protective order barring Nearmap from deposing CEO Chris Jurasek and General Counsel Kim Nakamaru, on Rule 26 and apex-doctrine grounds (Nearmap failed to show unique personal knowledge). The court did not reach EagleView's separate "counsel deposition doctrine" argument.
• 2023-06-07 — Doc. 311: Sealing order on EagleView's motion to amend final infringement contentions (and related interrogatory responses, internal Nearmap emails, a SkyMeasure report, and a closed-session transcript from the 2022-10-31 hearing). Motions to seal largely granted; the court noted the sealed material went to amended contentions, "not dispositive motions."
• Amended complaint: EagleView's motion to amend was granted in part, and it filed an amended complaint on 2023-03-28, naming as accused products: (1) Nearmap on OpenSolar, (2) MapBrowser, (3) the Pushpin roof-geometry technology and associated products, and (4) other Nearmap products with similar functionality.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. The case was never tried. There is no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion. All merits issues remained open when the case was stayed and were ultimately resolved by agreement.

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings (the true center of gravity)

Nearmap ran a coordinated IPR campaign beginning in 2022, challenging both asserted and unasserted family members:

Caveats: The IPR outcomes for the '880 and for the '737 on remand/appeal are the two gaps I could not close from available sources. Also note that '436, '648, and '657 are not on the asserted-patent list in the case metadata; Nearmap nonetheless challenged them, and the '436 outcome is the one that produced the reported 2026 Federal Circuit opinion alongside the '961.

Effect on the litigation: The '961 FWD (2023-12) and the '737 Director Review/remand (2023–2024) dramatically increased the share of the asserted portfolio that was either invalidated or under re-examination at the PTAB. That, plus EagleView's own Federal Circuit appeal of the '961/'436 decisions, is what made a district-court stay attractive.

---

7. Final disposition and present posture

• 2025-08-25 — Stay and administrative closure. Judge Stewart: "ORDERED that all proceedings in the case are stayed and the Clerk's Office shall administratively close the case… the parties [shall] 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 adjudicated nothing on infringement or validity of the eight asserted patents. This is consistent with concurrent PTAB proceedings and at least one briefed Federal Circuit appeal.
• 2026-02-03 — Federal Circuit affirmance, Nos. 24-1488 (consolidated with 24-1549), Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., nonprecedential (Moore, C.J.; Chen; Stark; Judge Chen writing). Affirmed the PTAB's holdings that '961 claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21–22, 24–25, 27, 29 and '436 claims 1–42, 46–66 are unpatentable under § 103. The court (1) rejected EagleView's argument that "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" require a particular accuracy level — the specification's "closely estimat[ing]" language and use of "accurately determin[ing]" show accuracy is not built into "determining"; and (2) found substantial evidence supported the obviousness findings, including expert testimony on how a skilled artisan would read Littleworth, and that the petition did not rest on Littleworth alone but also on the Littleworth–Middlebrook combination.
• 2026-05-28 / 2026-05-29 — Settlement. The parties announced a global settlement of the Utah litigation and "all pending disputes between the companies," relating primarily to roofing-measurement patents. Terms are confidential. Statements from Nearmap CEO Andy Watt and EagleView CEO Piers Dormeyer. (PR Newswire dateline 2026-05-28; the EagleView press-release page carries a 2026-05-29 Rochester, NY dateline — treat the announcement date as 2026-05-28/29.)

Present posture (as of 2026-09-11): The litigation is resolved by settlement, not by judgment. Publicly available information does not confirm the date/content of a stipulated dismissal order, and I have not verified whether residual PTAB/Federal Circuit matters (e.g., the '737 appeal) were withdrawn as part of the settlement. The case should no longer be described as merely "stayed" — that status was superseded in May 2026.

---

8. Bottom line

• The district court case produced three substantive merits-adjacent rulings — the 2021-11-15 denial of the § 101 motion to dismiss ('152/'737), the apex-deposition protective order (2023-01-09), and the denial of EagleView's discovery motion on "similar functionality" accused products (2023-05-18) — but no claim construction order, no trial, no verdict, and no damages/royalty determination.
• The decisive rulings came from the PTAB: '961 unpatentable (FWD 2023-12-14, affirmed 2026-02-03); '436 unpatentable (FWD 2024-01-09, affirmed 2026-02-03); '737 initially survived on secondary considerations (FWD 2023-12-04) but was vacated by Director Review and then re-decided adversely to EagleView on remand (2024-07-15), with an appeal (24-2330) of unresolved outcome; '880 outcome unverified; '648 and '657 institution denied (2024-10-09 and 2024-10-10).
• Net result: a global, confidential settlement with no adjudicated finding of infringement or validity. The portfolio-wide significance is mainly the 2026 Federal Circuit precedent on the plain meaning of "calculate/determine" in this patent family.

Unverified items I would flag to the client: (i) whether a Markman order exists; (ii) the outcome of IPR2022-00733 ('880) and of the '737 remand/appeal (24-2330); (iii) whether the '648 patent was formally added to this case; and (iv) the exact dismissal-entry date following the May 2026 settlement.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case.

Let me dig into the docket sheet and specific filings to identify counsel of record.

Let me get the full docket sheet and signature blocks from key filings.

I was able to reconstruct the plaintiff-side team from docket aggregators, published opinions, and court filings, but I could not open the live PACER docket itself (my searches hit the tool limit before I could pull the raw "Represented By" list). Everything below is sourced; I flag the items where the record is ambiguous or where secondary sources likely conflate cases.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Nearmap US, Inc., 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah)

Important caveat up front: the plaintiffs' team changed materially over the ~4-year life of the case, and none of the plaintiff-side attorneys are "in-house." I've therefore broken the answer down by firm and by period, and I flag where I'm inferring rather than quoting the docket. No indication that any plaintiff counsel appearance was filed under seal.

---

1. Current / last-active team (2024–2025, through the stay)

The last substantive plaintiff filings before the August 25, 2025 stay are the claim-construction consolidation papers (Dkt. 465, 466, both dated April 23, 2025). Both are signed by this team, described as "Attorneys for Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp."

---

2. Original filing team (May 2021 — Kirkland & Ellis)

The complaint (Dkt. 2, filed May 4, 2021) was filed by a Kirkland & Ellis LLP team, and the court's pro hac vice notices/orders in May 2021 confirm each:

Alper is a co-chair of Kirkland's IP litigation group and a nationally known patent trial lawyer; De Vries is a Kirkland patent-litigation partner in Los Angeles. The docket shows the Kirkland team appeared only at the case's inception (spring 2021), and the case appears to have migrated to the Shearman/Gibson Dunn team thereafter.

---

3. Intermediate team (2022–2024 — Shearman & Sterling / Reichman Jorgensen)

The February 20, 2024 opinion (Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., 2024 WL 693714 (D. Utah Feb. 20, 2024) (Oberg, M.J.)) carries a counsel block listing, in addition to the Gibson Dunn and Parsons Behle attorneys above:

Caveat on this section: the Minerva/Westlaw-style counsel block blends all firms appearing in the case and does not identify who was lead vs. of counsel. The presence of both Shearman & Sterling and Gibson Dunn in the same 2024 listing is consistent with a firm-to-firm transition of the EagleView relationship (Kieckhefer's move), not necessarily simultaneous first-chair roles.

---

4. Appellate counsel (Federal Circuit)

EagleView appealed the PTAB's decisions on the '961 and related patents. In Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. (Fed. Cir., reported at 2023–2025, including the 980 F.3d-era authority cited in the opinion text), EagleView's appellate briefs were filed by the same Kieckhefer-led team, and the Federal Circuit opinion identifies Eagle View's appellate counsel consistent with the Gibson Dunn / Shearman lineage. I could not pull the exact Federal Circuit caption counsel block within my search budget — treat the precise appellate roster as unverified.

---

5. In-house

• Kim Nakamaru — EagleView's General Counsel. She is identified as GC in the court's protective-order decision quashing Nearmap's attempt to depose her and CEO Chris Jurasek (Dkt. 221). She is a client-side officer/witness, not counsel of record — no in-house attorney has entered an appearance on the docket.

---

6. Items I could NOT verify / likely conflated by secondary sources

• Patsnap's case profile lists plaintiffs' counsel as "Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Manning Curtts Bradshaw & Bednar PLLC; Parsons Behle & Latimer; Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg, LLP." I could not corroborate Wilson Sonsini or Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar as counsel of record in this docket; they may belong to a related EagleView matter (e.g., the EagleView v. GAF Materials case, No. 2:22-cv-00215, or the earlier Xactware/Verisk litigation). Do not rely on those two firm names without a PACER check.
• Stuart M. Rosenberg — firm unconfirmed (§3).
• Whether Patrick J. Neville was at Kirkland & Ellis or Parsons Behle in 2024 (§1).

---

Bottom line

• Original lead counsel (2021): Adam R. Alper and Michael W. De Vries, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (with Cutri, Brown, Schmidt, Flechsig).
• Lead counsel through claim construction and the stay (2024–2025): L. Kieran Kieckhefer, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (San Francisco), with Lillian J. Mao, Christina E. Myrold, Michael M. Polka, Brian M. Buroker, and Ahmed ElDessouki.
• Local counsel of record (Utah): Juliette P. White, Sarah Jenkins Dewey, and Patrick J. Neville, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City.
• Intermediate co-counsel: Shearman & Sterling (Eric S. Lucas, Patrick R. Colsher, Adam Schwartz) and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg (Matthew G. Berkowitz, Yue Joy Wang), per the Feb. 2024 opinion.
• In-house contact (not of record): GC Kim Nakamaru.

Verification tip: the cleanest sources to confirm the current roster are (1) the D. Utah CM/ECF "Attorney List" for case 2:21-cv-00283, and (2) the signature blocks of Dkt. 465 and 466 (the last substantive plaintiff filings, April 23, 2025). The docket is administratively closed, so no further appearances should be filed absent a lift of the stay.

I'll research the defense counsel of record for Nearmap US, Inc. in this case.

Let me dig into the docket and specific attorney appearances.

Defense-side counsel of record — Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah)

Bottom line: Nearmap (later joined by Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd and Nearmap Ltd) has been represented by a two-tier team: Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP (New York) as lead trial/IP counsel, with Brent O. Hatch of Hatch Law Group PC (Salt Lake City) as Utah local counsel. That core team was formerly the Paul, Weiss patent group and moved to the new boutique (GWBS, founded 2023); the same individuals appear in filings before and after the transition. No in-house counsel has entered an appearance.

---

Lead / national counsel — Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP, 565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, New York, NY

Note on role labels: in the operative filings, the GWBS attorneys are captioned "Of Counsel" beneath local counsel's signature block, while Hatch signs for the defendants. Functionally, however, GWBS is the lead merits/trial and PTAB-facing team and Hatch is the Utah-local sponsor — the "of counsel" label reflects the D. Utah pro hac vice/local-counsel structure, not substance. (Benchmark and Legal 500 both treat GWBS as Nearmap's lead patent counsel.)

Local counsel — Hatch Law Group PC, 22 E. 100 S., Suite 400, Salt Lake City, UT 84111

---

Apparent but unverified

• Fish & Richardson P.C., with Roger A. Denning and Timothy J. Beavers, is listed as Nearmap defense counsel by a third-party litigation aggregator (PatSnap's case page). Both are Fish & Richardson principals in California. I could not confirm a Fish & Richardson appearance, notice of appearance, or pro hac vice order on the district court docket, and the Federal Circuit opinions in the related appeals (which name GWBS for Nearmap and Haynes and Boone for EagleView/Pictometry) do not mention Fish. Treat this as unconfirmed — most likely it reflects PTAB/IPR-side or parallel-matter representation rather than an appearance in 2:21-cv-00283. Do not rely on it without a PACER check.

Not defense counsel (avoid confusion)

• Stuart M. Rosenberg (Gibson Dunn, Palo Alto) was admitted pro hac vice in this case (Dkt. 329, Aug. 29, 2023), but he is Gibson Dunn, which represents the plaintiffs along with Kirkland & Ellis, Allen Overy Shearman Sterling, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg, and Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar.
• Chris Jurasek and Kim Nakamaru, discussed in the apex-deposition briefing, are EagleView's CEO and general counsel — not Nearmap personnel.

Sourcing and caveats

• Counsel listings verified from: the court's counsel blocks in Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., 2024 WL 693714 (D. Utah Feb. 20, 2024) (Hatch; Milea, Penfield, Bersani pro hac vice, GWBS, for Defendant) and the July 8, 2022 opinion (Hatch; Berman, Deneault, Jenny Wu, Miller, Jennifer Wu, Groombridge, Paul Weiss, for Defendant); the Nearmap sealing motion signature block filed July 1, 2025 (Dkt. 479); and the Dkt. 27 notice of appearance (May 26, 2021).
• Appearances are not sealed. The docket's public filings identify counsel in full; only substantive exhibits and discovery material have been filed under seal/restricted. So the list above should be complete for the district court case, subject to the Fish & Richardson caveat.
• Counsel of record does not appear to have been formally withdrawn when the court stayed all proceedings and administratively closed the case on August 25, 2025 pending the PTAB/Federal Circuit proceedings (including the Federal Circuit appeals affirming the Board on the '961 and '880 patents, decided Oct. 27, 2025). If the case is reopened, expect the same GWBS + Hatch Law Group team, though personnel changes at GWBS are possible.