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

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources before drafting.

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper into the district court case, the parties, and the litigation history.

Case Overview: Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1488)

Note on framing: The case in the metadata (Fed. Cir. 24-1488, terminated/affirmed Feb. 3, 2026) is the appellate tail of a much larger infringement fight. The underlying litigation is Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry Int'l Corp. v. Nearmap US, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah), and the appeal arose from the PTAB proceedings that the district court case was stayed behind. I cover both layers below.

Parties — two operating companies, not an NPE/PAE

This was a straight competitor-versus-competitor dispute in the aerial-imagery/property-intelligence market. EagleView (datelined Rochester, NY in its 2026 releases; historically Bellevue/Bothell, WA) is a ~25-year-old practicing company that pioneered aerial roof measurement — it sells roof-measurement reports and GeoAI property analytics to insurers, roofers, solar installers, and government, and claims 300+ patents, 3.5 billion high-resolution images, and coverage of 96% of the U.S. population (EagleView/Nearmap settlement release). It operates through Eagle View Technology Corporation alongside subsidiary Pictometry International Corp., and has been private-equity owned (Vista Equity Partners acquired EagleView in 2015). Nearmap US, Inc. is the Salt Lake City–based U.S. arm of Australia's Nearmap Ltd, a global aerial-capture and property-intelligence company (CEO Andy Watt). The Utah complaint also named Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd. and Nearmap Ltd. as defendants (Dkt. 465). Neither side is a non-practicing entity; EagleView, however, is a serial enforcer — it won a $125M jury verdict and a permanent injunction against Xactware/Verisk in D.N.J. in 2019 and has sued GAF on overlapping patents, so this suit fits a deliberate portfolio-enforcement pattern rather than opportunistic assertion.

Accused technology and patents

The accused products were Nearmap MapBrowser, Nearmap's flagship aerial-imagery platform, and Nearmap on OpenSolar ("NMOS"), which embeds Nearmap imagery into the OpenSolar solar-design tool — signaling that EagleView targeted both the core platform and a downstream integration (PatSnap summary of the Dkt.; Dkt. 465). On the patent side, the Federal Circuit appeal concerned two patents — U.S. Pat. No. 8,670,961 and U.S. Pat. No. 8,078,436 — both titled "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods," sharing a common specification and directed to remotely generating roof estimate reports (area, shape, pitch/slope) by analyzing multiple aerial images, including at least one top-plan view and one oblique view, to build and annotate a 3D roof model (Fed. Circuit Blog; IPWatchdog; Vitallaw). Caveat: the case metadata lists only the '961 patent, but the published 24-1488 opinion and contemporaneous coverage address both the '961 and '436 IPRs (IPR2022-01009 and IPR2022-01090), so the appeal appears to have covered both. The district court case asserted a larger, evolving set — one joint filing charts roughly 13 patents against Nearmap (including the '961, '436, '840, '376, '152, '880, '568, '960, '737, '518, '149, '657, and '648 patents), while a secondary source (PatSnap) describes "eight asserted patents." The asserted family generally spans aerial-image capture, roof-feature extraction and measurement, 3D building reconstruction, pitch determination, and generation of structured measurement reports; separately, Nearmap attacked the '648 and '657 patents as database/data-aggregation and image-geolocation claims in later IPRs.

Procedural posture and why venue matters

EagleView filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, on May 4, 2021 (No. 2:21-cv-00283), before Judge Ted Stewart with Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg (Dkt. 146). Venue is significant because Nearmap's U.S. subsidiary is headquartered in Salt Lake City, making Utah a natural, defendant-anchored forum rather than a plaintiff-chosen plaintiff-friendly venue; the same day, EagleView filed a companion suit against GAF (D.N.J., where GAF is headquartered). The case was stayed in its entirety on August 25, 2025, pending "the pending proceedings before the PTO and the Federal Circuit," with the parties required to notify the court within five days of their completion (PatSnap reproducing the PACER stay order). On the PTAB side, the '961 and '436 IPRs instituted and went to final written decisions holding the challenged claims obvious (Dec. 14, 2023, 2023 WL 8651434, and Jan. 9, 2024, 2024 WL 100923), while EagleView defeated Nearmap's later petitions on the '648 and '657 patents (IPR2024-00716 and IPR2024-00729), which the Board declined to institute (Haynes Boone/WIPR). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board on Feb. 3, 2026 in a nonprecedential opinion (origin: PTO), with Judge Chen on the panel, rejecting EagleView's claim-construction argument that "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" require accuracy beyond estimation (CAFC opinion page; CCH opinion PDF). The parties then settled globally in late May 2026, resolving "all pending disputes between the companies" on confidential terms (Law360; Manila Times/PR Newswire).

Why the case is notable

It is a textbook illustration of IPR-driven stay dynamics: the district case never reached a merits ruling on infringement or validity, sat administratively closed behind the PTAB and the appeal, and effectively ended when the Federal Circuit affirmed the obviousness holdings that invalidated key '961/'436 claims — collapsing EagleView's leverage and producing a settlement before the stay was ever lifted. It also shows operating-company-versus-operating-company enforcement in a niche where the stakes are commercial rather than litigation-finance-driven: aerial roof measurement underpins insurance claims processing and solar design, and EagleView has cited cost savings of roughly $549 per report and an industry it claims to have "reinvented." For competitors offering rooftop-measurement, aerial analytics, or solar-design tools, the breadth of the asserted family (capture → processing → reconstruction → reporting) creates overlapping exposure that makes designing around any single patent difficult. Finally, the nonprecedential affirmance reaffirms the Board's willingness to credit expert testimony about how a skilled artisan would read a prior-art disclosure, and the case highlights the interplay of § 101 (EagleView survived Nearmap's Alice challenges in the district court) and § 103 (EagleView lost on obviousness at the PTAB and the Federal Circuit).

Sourcing caveats: I verified party identities, the accused products, the IPR numbers, the stay order, the Federal Circuit affirmance, and the settlement from the sources linked above (CAFC, Law360, IPWatchdog, Fed Circuit Blog, Vitallaw, company press releases, and secondary docket aggregators). I could not independently pull PACER docket entries during this session, so exact docket-application dates, the precise number of patents still asserted in Utah at the time of the stay, and the full Federal Circuit panel (beyond Judge Chen) are drawn from secondary sources; the "eight asserted patents" figure (PatSnap) conflicts with a party filing charting ~13 patents against Nearmap, so the exact count should be confirmed against the operative complaint.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with parallel searches.

I found key threads. Let me dig into the district court docket, the IPRs, and counsel.

Let me fill a few remaining gaps on dates and the final disposition.

I'll research counsel of record across the Federal Circuit appeal and the underlying district court/PTAB proceedings.

Key lead found. Now let me pull the attorney blocks from the opinions, docket sheets, and PTAB records.

Now let me pin down the full counsel blocks — CAFC opinion, district court docket, and the local/Utah counsel.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff/Appellant Side (Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 24-1488)

Bottom line: The plaintiff/appellant side is represented by Haynes and Boone, LLP (appellate/PTAB lead) and, in the underlying D. Utah case, by Kirkland & Ellis LLP as national trial counsel plus Utah local counsel. The single attorney identified in the published Federal Circuit opinion as counsel for Eagle View is Debra Janece ("Debbie") McComas of Haynes and Boone.

Important framing: "Plaintiff" differs by layer. In the appeal, the plaintiff is Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (appellant). In the underlying district case (D. Utah No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO), the plaintiffs are Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. The PTAB real parties in interest are both entities, "subsidiaries of Eagle View Technology Corporation" (IPR2022-01009 FWD, Paper 4/§ I.C).

---

A. Federal Circuit — No. 24-1488 (and consolidated No. 24-1549)

Confidence note: The only attorney the published opinion reporting service attributes to Eagle View in No. 24-1488 specifically is McComas. The other Haynes and Boone names are documented from (i) the PTAB records in the two IPRs that produced the appealed final written decisions (IPR2022-01009 for the '961 patent, IPR2022-01090 for the '436 patent) and (ii) the judgment in the companion consolidated appeal No. 24-1763 (Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry Int'l Corp., IPR2022-00735). I could not open the 24-1488 brief signature block directly, so treat the full 24-1488 appellate roster as high-confidence but not docket-verified. The appeals were consolidated by order dated Mar. 19, 2024 (Fed. Cir. order, Dkt. 10).

No in-house counsel for EagleView appears in any public filing I could retrieve.

---

B. District Court — D. Utah No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies + Pictometry International)

National/trial counsel — Kirkland & Ellis LLP (confirmed from the docket)

The complaint was filed May 4, 2021 with pro hac vice notices issued to these attorneys "for Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Pictometry International" (Justia docket, filings 6, 7, 8):

Local / additional Utah and firm counsel — secondary source only, unverified

A PatSnap case summary lists the plaintiff-side firm roster as Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Adam R. Alper, Brian M. Buroker); Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Manning Curtis Bradshaw & Bednar PLLC; Parsons Behle & Latimer; and Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (PatSnap summary). The Justia docket's "Represented By" list for the case is truncated in search results but appears to include first-name/initial entries (e.g., "Jess M.," "Trevor J.," likely Utah-firm local counsel). I could not map individual Salt Lake City local counsel to named attorneys from a primary source in this session — that gap should be closed against the PACER docket sheet and the Dkt. 146 scheduling-order signature blocks.

⚠️ Explicit contradiction to flag

PatSnap attributes Brent O. Hatch (Hatch Law Group PC) and Nicholas P. Groombridge (Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone LLP) to the defendant's (Nearmap's) side, and the 24-1763 appellant block confirms Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone represented Nearmap. However, a "Brent O." entry surfaces in the Justia docket's represented-by listing. I therefore do not place Brent O. Hatch on the plaintiff side — on the available evidence he is Nearmap's local counsel, and the PatSnap German-language variant lumps "Brent O. Hatch, Nicholas P. Groombridge et al." into the defense roster. Anyone relying on this should verify against the docket.

---

C. What is sealed / not publicly available

• PACER was not directly accessible in this session. All docket-level assertions come from RECAP/Justia, Docket Alarm, and CourtListener mirrors.
• The Federal Circuit docket's formal "counsel of record" entries were not retrievable; McComas's attribution comes from the opinion's counsel line via Bloomberg Law's IP Law Daily, not from the CAFC docket itself.
• The May 2026 global settlement was on confidential terms and did not produce a public counsel listing (Law360).
• No in-house attorney for EagleView (or its parent Eagle View Technology Corporation) appears in any retrieved filing.
• Counsel may have changed between the 2021 complaint and the Aug. 25, 2025 stay — the Kirkland PHV entries above are from case initiation; later-appearing firms (Gibson Dunn, Reichman Jorgensen, Shearman) likely reflect a substitution or expansion of the trial team that I could not date.

D. Practical takeaway

For any Federal Circuit correspondence on No. 24-1488, the correct service target is Debra J. McComas, Haynes and Boone LLP, 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219, with the broader Haynes and Boone EagleView team (Webb, Bowser, Oliver, Erickson, Vu) as the substantive bench. For the stayed Utah action, the historic lead trial contacts are Adam R. Alper and Leslie M. Schmidt (Kirkland & Ellis), with McComas/Webb also acting as EagleView's PTAB counsel of record in IPR2022-01009 and IPR2022-01090.

I'll research counsel of record across both layers of this case — the Federal Circuit appeal (24-1488) and the underlying D. Utah action — plus the PTAB IPRs where Nearmap was petitioner.

Strong leads. Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit appellee counsel, the local counsel, and the Fish & Richardson / Paul Weiss roles.

Scope note

"Defendant(s)" here means Nearmap US, Inc. (the sole appellee at the Federal Circuit) plus the two additional Nearmap entities named in the Utah action, Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd. and Nearmap Ltd. (as they appear in the D. Utah caption). Because the appeal (24-1488) is an appeal from the PTAB, not from the district court, there are three distinct counsel rosters: (1) the Federal Circuit appellee team, (2) the D. Utah trial team, and (3) the Fish & Richardson PTAB petitioner team. They overlap substantially but not identically. I could not pull live PACER/CM-ECF dockets in this session, so rosters below are reconstructed from filed signature blocks, court orders, and the Federal Circuit's own counsel listings — each is sourced individually, and gaps are flagged rather than filled.

---

1. Federal Circuit — counsel of record for Appellee Nearmap US, Inc. (No. 24-1488)

The Vitallaw/IP Law Daily counsel line for the Feb. 3, 2026 opinion identifies LaurenAnn (Lauren A.) Degnan, Fish & Richardson PC as Nearmap's attorney of record (Vitallaw, Fed. Cir.: Obviousness affirmed in aerial roof measuring dispute, Feb. 3, 2026).

• Lauren A. Degnan — principal/appellate counsel. Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C. (1000 Maine Ave. SW, Suite 1000). Degnan is the firm's principal counsel on the parallel Nearmap appeal Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry Int'l Corp., No. 24-1763, where the court's Rule 36 judgment lists her as arguing counsel and identifies the rest of the Nearmap team: "Also represented by BENJAMIN JOSEPH CHRISTOFF, CHRISTOPHER DRYER, WALTER KARL RENNER; J. STEVEN BAUGHMAN, MEGAN FREELAND RAYMOND, Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP, Washington, DC; MICHAEL F. MILEA, New York, NY" (CAFC Rule 36 judgment, 24-1763, Feb. 3, 2026). Degnan also appears as principal counsel for Fish & Richardson in other Federal Circuit work (e.g., an Apple appellee appearance), and the firm's D.C. office address confirms her contact block in the PTAB filings (PTAB professional-involvement filing).
  • Caveat: the "also represented by" line above is quoted from the 24-1763 judgment, not the 24-1488 opinion. I found no separate published counsel line for 24-1488 beyond Degnan. Because the court consolidated 24-1488 and 24-1549 for briefing (one set of briefs for both) by its March 19, 2024 order (Fed. Cir. Dkt. 10, 24-1488/24-1549), the same Fish & Richardson + Groombridge Wu roster very likely carried 24-1488/24-1549 as well — but treat that as inference, not a documented appearance.

Practical read: Nearmap's Federal Circuit team = Fish & Richardson (D.C.) as lead appellate counsel, with Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP (D.C./New York) as co-appellate counsel carrying the trial-side relationship, and Hatch Law Group as the Utah local-counsel anchor (see below).

---

2. D. Utah — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO

The most reliable primary document I located is a July 1, 2025 Nearmap filing whose signature block names the full defense roster (Dkt. 479, motion to seal portions of the Markman hearing transcript):

"Attorneys for Nearmap US, Inc., Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd, and Nearmap Ltd"

Local counsel

• Brent O. Hatch — e-filing/signing attorney for the Nearmap defendants; Hatch Law Group PC, Salt Lake City, Utah. Hatch's name appears in the case's earliest docket entries (the Justia/UniCourt docket shows a "Brent O." among the represented-by counsel at the May 4, 2021 filing) and again on the 2025 signature block, indicating continuous Utah local-counsel coverage (Dkt. 479; Justia docket); PatSnap's case profile lists "Hatch Law Group PC" among defendant counsel (PatSnap). Note: I could not retrieve Hatch's Utah bar number or firm address from the excerpted signature block — the filing shows only the name.

Lead / national trial counsel (of counsel), Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
Listed in Dkt. 479 as "Of Counsel," New York office (565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900):

• Nicholas Groombridge — name partner; longtime Fish & Richardson patent-trial star before co-founding Groombridge Wu; a very senior first-chair in competitor patent cases.
• Jennifer H. Wu — name partner; former federal appellate/patent litigator and former PTO official.
• Jenny C. Wu, Jennifer Rea Deneault, Allison Penfield, Scott E. Miller — associates/counsel on the Nearmap team.
• Michael Milea (New York) — also appeared on the parallel Federal Circuit appeal (24-1763 team list above).
• Kyle N. Bersani — admitted pro hac vice by order dated June 14, 2023 (Dkt. 314, granting Dkt. 296) (Dkt. 314).
• J. Steven Baughman and Megan Freeland Raymond (Washington, D.C.) — Groombridge Wu partners who appear on the Nearmap appellate team; Baughman is a former Federal Circuit/DOJ appellate specialist.

Sourcing caution: Dkt. 479 is captioned as a motion to seal the Markman transcript, which is the type of filing often made jointly by the parties. The Docket Alarm text extract I retrieved shows the Nearmap designation ("Attorneys for Nearmap US, Inc., Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd, and Nearmap Ltd") attached to the Groombridge Wu "Of Counsel" block, so I am treating it as a Nearmap pleading — but if the motion was in fact joint, the block should be read as one side's counsel only, and the opposing side's signature block (Parsons Behle/Gibson Dunn for EagleView) appears in a separate filing, Dkt. 466.

Second defense firm — Fish & Richardson P.C.
PatSnap's counsel table lists Fish & Richardson, P.C. among defendant counsel in the Utah action, alongside Groombridge Wu and Hatch Law Group (PatSnap). This is consistent with Fish & Richardson having been Nearmap's IPR counsel (see §3) and running the appellate side. I did not locate a Fish & Richardson signature block on a D. Utah filing during this session, so its trial-stage role (co-counsel vs. PTAB-only) is not independently confirmed.

Third listed firm — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (UNVERIFIED)
PatSnap also lists Paul, Weiss among Nearmap's defendant counsel (PatSnap). I found no corroborating filing, order, or press item, and no named Paul Weiss attorney. Given the case's patent-misuse and antitrust-tinged counterclaims (Nearmap's amended answer added a patent-misuse defense premised on EagleView's Verisk settlement, which the court allowed over EagleView's futility objection — Dkt. 267, Mar. 15, 2023), a Paul Weiss role on antitrust/misuse issues is plausible but I cannot confirm it. Treat as unverified.

In-house counsel: No Nearmap in-house attorney is identified in any filing I reviewed. Patent-owner/appellant-side counsel (Gibson Dunn, Kirkland, Parsons Behle) are not relevant here and are listed only for contrast in the earlier sections.

---

3. PTAB — Nearmap as Petitioner

• IPR2022-01009 (the '961 patent — the appeal at issue) and IPR2022-01090 (the '436 patent): Petitioner counsel identified in the GreyB IPVerse docket summary as "Renner, Walter et al." — i.e., W. Karl Renner, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C. (IPVerse, IPR2022-01009). The Federal Circuit's 24-1763 team list confirms Renner, Degnan, Dryer, and Christoff (Fish & Richardson) as Nearmap's PTAB-to-appeal team, alongside Groombridge Wu (CAFC Rule 36 judgment, 24-1763).
  • Note on the other side of the "v.": the GreyB listing's "Respondent Counsel | Howard, Kyle et al." is EagleView's IPR counsel (Kyle Howard, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg) — not Nearmap's.
• Other Nearmap-filed IPRs in this campaign: IPR2022-00734/00735 (Director review remanded IPR2022-00734 to the Board — Finnegan summary) and IPR2024-00716 / IPR2024-00729 (the '648 and '657 patents, institution denied). A public expert CV in a Fish & Richardson matter lists "Nearmap US Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp. (IPR2022-00735)" as a Fish & Richardson case, corroborating Fish as the PTAB petitioner firm across the campaign (PTAB filing).

---

4. Summary table — counsel of record for the Nearmap defendants

---

5. Explicit gaps and contradictions to flag

1. Counsel has rotated over the life of the case. The earliest 2021 docket entries show only Utah local counsel and out-of-state plaintiff attorneys; the Groombridge Wu team (with Bersani's 2023 pro hac vice admission) and the Fish & Richardson appellate/PTAB team are documented later. A definitive "counsel of record" list would need the CM-ECF attorney list from PACER, which I could not access.
2. Sealed/limited filings. Substantial portions of this docket are sealed — the court granted sealing of infringement contentions, Nearmap interrogatory responses, internal emails, and business analyses (Dkt. 311, June 9, 2023; Dkt. 447). Signature blocks on sealed briefs are therefore not visible, which is the most likely reason some attorneys who appeared are missing from this roster.
3. Metadata conflict (already noted in the prior section, restated for counsel purposes): the case metadata lists only the '961 patent for 24-1488, but the appeal was consolidated with 24-1549 (IPR2022-01090 / the '436 patent) by the court's March 19, 2024 order. That matters for counsel identification because one set of briefs — and therefore one defense counsel team — covered both patents.
4. Paul Weiss is uncorroborated. I am not asserting any Paul Weiss attorney appeared; the only source is a secondary aggregator.
5. No in-house counsel identified. Nearmap Ltd/Nearmap US in-house legal personnel do not appear in any public filing I reviewed.

If you need a certified list, the authoritative step is a PACER pull of the attorney/participant list for D. Utah 2:21-cv-00283 and the docket entries/appearances in Fed. Cir. 24-1488 and consolidated 24-1549 — the latter would resolve whether the Groombridge Wu/Fish roster carried 24-1488 itself or only the companion Pictometry appeal, which is the one inference in this memo I could not fully close.