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

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the IPR and the parallel district court litigation.

I have strong initial leads. Let me dig into the IPR's procedural history, the Federal Circuit appeal, and the district court docket specifics.

Let me verify the July 2024 remand decision outcome, the appeal posture, and the patent's ownership/title.

Case Overview — EagleView v. Nearmap (D. Utah) and the Parallel IPR on U.S. Patent 9,135,737

Parties: two direct competitors, not an NPE campaign. The underlying infringement action is EagleView Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd, and Nearmap Pty Ltd, No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah). Both sides are operating companies in the aerial imagery / "property intelligence" space rather than non-practicing entities. EagleView, headquartered in Rochester, New York, describes itself as a geospatial intelligence ("GeoAI") company that has built proprietary property-imaging technology over 25+ years, holds 300+ patents, and has generated a 3.5-billion-image library covering roughly 96% of the U.S. population; Pictometry International Corp. is its affiliate/co-plaintiff (the two appear jointly in litigation dating to at least the 2015 New Jersey action against Xactware). Nearmap is an Australia-founded global aerial imagery and property-intelligence provider whose U.S. arm (Nearmap US, Inc.) is the named defendant in both the Utah case and the IPR; Nearmap has publicly characterized EagleView's claims as "fundamentally meritless" and emphasized that its U.S. business was unaffected (Nearmap press statement, Apr. 1, 2022). The dispute is therefore best understood as a market-share/competitor fight over roof-measurement IP in the insurance and property sectors, not a patent-assertion-entity play.

Accused technology and the patents at issue. EagleView alleged that Nearmap's U.S. aerial imagery and roof/property measurement offerings — including integrations that let third parties consume Nearmap aerial data for roof and solar design (one source specifically points to the Nearmap–OpenSolar integration; treat as single-sourced) — infringe EagleView/Pictometry patents covering the capture, processing, reconstruction and analysis of oblique and overhead aerial imagery. The asserted set grew over time: the court's March 2025 claim-construction order refers to 13 asserted patents, while a startup-era summary of the case lists eight (U.S. Patents 8,209,152; 8,543,518; 8,542,880; 8,590,518; 8,670,961; 9,134,568... as reported by PatSnap — I could not independently verify that list). The patent at the center of the PTAB proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 9,135,737 B2 (application 14/450,108; Tech Center 2100; pre-AIA, so pre-AIA § 103 applies), is owned by Eagle View Technologies. Its challenged claims (1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 25, 26, 34) are directed to a computer-implemented roof estimate report system: simultaneously displaying multiple aerial images of the same roof taken from different angles; overlaying corresponding line drawings of roof features on a first and second image; propagating a user's edit of the line drawing in one image to the line drawing in the other; and generating/outputting a roof estimate report containing numerical slope, area and edge-length values for planar roof sections for use in repairing or constructing the roof. In short, a multi-view editing user interface that produces a measurable roof report. (I did not verify the patent's formal title from a primary source, so I describe the claims rather than guess the title.)

Procedural posture, venue and why it matters. The Utah case was filed in 2021 and is assigned to District Judge Ted Stewart (Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg); Judge Stewart has handled the substantive motions, including denying Nearmap's § 101 motions to dismiss the '152 and '737 patents (Doc. 50, Nov. 15, 2021) and, later, the § 101 challenge to the '648 patent (Doc. 416). Claim construction on eight disputed terms was set for a May 7, 2025 hearing (Doc. 463). On August 25, 2025, Judge Stewart stayed all proceedings and administratively closed the case, ordering the parties to notify the court within five days of the completion of the PTO and Federal Circuit proceedings — the classic IPR-driven stay. The venue matters less for local reasons than for docket control: the court elected to let the PTAB and Federal Circuit resolve validity first, which effectively parked the merits for over a year. In the PTAB track, Nearmap filed three IPRs in spring 2022 against EagleView/Pictometry patents then in suit (Nearmap press statement, Apr. 1, 2022); IPR2022-00734 was filed March 21, 2022, instituted November 1, 2022, and tried on Heller/Quam (and Heller/Quam/Deaton) obviousness grounds with expert testimony from Dr. David Forsyth (Petitioner, Fish & Richardson) against Eagle View (Patent Owner, Haynes and Boone, later substituted). The Board's December 4, 2023 Final Written Decision found no challenged claims unpatentable, holding EagleView's objective indicia "decisive" — an outcome partly echoing the earlier IPR2016-00592 (Xactware) result on the same patent, which the Board noted had been affirmed on appeal. The Director then granted review (Dec. 21, 2023) and on February 20, 2024 vacated and remanded (Paper 43), holding the Board failed to resolve a materially disputed claim construction and failed to conduct a full Graham-factor analysis — a decision now cited by other petitioners as Director Review authority. On remand, the Board (Baer, Giannetti, Cass) issued a new decision on July 15, 2024 (Paper 51): it adopted Nearmap's constructions (report contents are printed matter entitled to no patentable weight, consistent with IPR2016-00592; broad reading of "transmitting roof measurement information") and rejected EagleView's commercial-success evidence for lack of nexus — commentary flags this as a notable printed-matter/objective-indicia warning. That proceeding terminated July 15, 2024, and was appealed as Federal Circuit No. 2024-2330, styled with Eagle View Technologies as appellant (which implies at least some claims were held unpatentable on remand — a point I could not confirm from a primary decision text). Oral argument was held April 6, 2026, and on June 25, 2026 the Federal Circuit granted the PTO's motion to remand (nonprecedential order), returning the matter to the Board. Separately, the parties announced on May 28–29, 2026 that they had settled the Utah litigation, with "all pending disputes between the companies ... resolved" on confidential terms — a development that sits somewhat uneasily with the metadata status of "vacated and remanded; pending," so the current Board-level status should be treated as unsettled on the public record. Why the case is notable: (1) it is a rare Director Review that vacated a Board win for the patent owner and became a citation for the proposition that claim-construction and Graham-factor failures require remand; (2) it tests whether a prior Federal Circuit affirmance insulates a patent owner from a second, better-constructed obviousness challenge; (3) it illustrates the printed-matter doctrine being used to strip objective indicia of value; and (4) in market terms, it shows how valuable — and how litigated — automated roof-measurement claims are to insurers and property-data vendors, with EagleView's portfolio being asserted repeatedly against competitors.

Sourcing and open questions. Reliable: docket numbers, judge, parties, claim-construction and stay posture, the IPR timeline (USPTO papers/PDFs, Finnegan's analysis of Paper 43, Banner Witcoff's PTAB Highlights on Paper 51), counsel of record, and the CAFC orders. Less certain / unverified: the formal title of the '737 patent; whether all ten challenged claims were held unpatentable in the July 2024 remand decision (inferred from the appeal caption); the reason for the June 2026 CAFC remand; the docket numbers of the two companion 2022 IPRs; the specific accused Nearmap product names and the OpenSolar link; the precise asserted-patent count at filing; and any Utah-specific venue rationale.

I'll research this case across PTAB, district court, and Federal Circuit sources.

I have solid initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the PTAB docket, the Federal Circuit appeal, and the district court docket.

Excellent detail. Now let me pin down the district court docket and the parallel IPRs and appeals.

Framing: two intertwined tracks

The caption you gave (Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00734) is the PTAB inter partes review track. The "patent infringement litigation" proper is the parallel district court case, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp. v. Nearmap US, Inc., Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd & Nearmap Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO (D. Utah) — Judge Ted Stewart, with Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg. The '737 patent (U.S. 9,135,737, "Concurrent display systems and methods for aerial roof estimation," issued 2015-09-15) is asserted in the district court case and is the sole subject of IPR2022-00734. I cover both, chronologically, and flag where the record is incomplete.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-05-04 — Complaint filed (D. Utah, 2:21-cv-00283). EagleView (with Pictometry) sued Nearmap on a portfolio of aerial-imagery/roof-measurement patents — reported as eight patents initially (incl. the '737, '961, '436, '152, '880, '568, '518, '152 family), later expanding. Accused products: Nearmap MapBrowser and Nearmap on OpenSolar, later adding Nearmap's "Roof Geometry" technology acquired from Primitive LLC d/b/a Pushpin. Damages sought included lost profits and, at minimum, a reasonable royalty. Source: PatSnap case profile; D. Utah orders (Docs. 93, 298).
• 2021-11-15 — Nearmap's first §101 motion to dismiss DENIED (Doc. 50). Nearmap moved to dismiss the claims of the '152 and '737 patents as directed to abstract ideas. The court held the claims recite "specific computerized steps using specific inputs and outputs to achieve specific goals in roof modeling technology," analogizing to McRO v. Bandai Namco, and denied the motion. This is the key early win for EagleView on the '737. Justia PDF, Doc. 50
• Counterclaims. Nearmap's answer/invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims are the expected posture, but I could not verify the pleading dates or contents from available sources.

2. Early discovery fights with damages/scope significance

• 2022-07-05 — Hearing on Nearmap's motion to compel Xactware settlement documents; order granting in part (Doc. 93). Nearmap sought the settlement agreement and "integration agreement" from EagleView's earlier Xactware/Verisk patent case (D.N.J. 1:15-cv-07025) plus negotiation documents, to attack EagleView's lost-profits/royalty case. The court granted production of the integration agreement and negotiation documents as relevant to damages; moot as to the settlement agreement (already produced). This is significant because it tied the Xactware case's outcome (EagleView judgment + settlement pending appeal) to the Utah damages theory. Justia PDF, Doc. 93
• 2022-07/08 — Infringement-contention supplementation and second interrogatory set over the "Roof Geometry Technology" and products of "similar functionality."
• 2022-10-31 — Hearing; 2023-05-18 — Order denying EagleView's motion to compel (Doc. 298). The court denied EagleView's bid to compel interrogatory responses about unidentified products with "similar functionality" to the accused products, holding it inconsistent with D. Utah Local Patent Rules 2.3/3.1 (which require claim charts per accused instrumentality); the request as to the Roof Geometry tool was denied without prejudice. Strategic effect: the accused-product universe stayed cabined to named products. CourtListener PDF, Doc. 298

3. Amendment of the complaint and a second §101 motion

• 2023-03-14 — Order granting in part EagleView's motion for leave to amend (Doc. 267). The court rejected Nearmap's futility argument as to the proposed Count 13.
• 2023-03-28 — First Amended Complaint filed, adding Count 13 on U.S. 10,671,648 (the '648 patent) and identifying accused products as (1) Nearmap on OpenSolar, (2) MapBrowser, (3) the Pushpin roof geometry technology, and (4) "other Nearmap products that contain or are produced using similar functionality."
• ~2024-03 — Nearmap's second §101 motion to dismiss (Count 13 / '648 patent), Doc. 416. The opinion confirms the court treated the motion on its merits (not as reconsideration) and discussed Alice step one at length — noting that "methods of data storage, recognition, compilation, analysis, monitoring, and retrieval" are "directed to abstract ideas." The disposition is not evident from the snippet I retrieved; I could not confirm whether the court granted or denied. Treat this as unresolved. Justia PDF, Doc. 416

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2024-03-31 — Order granting in part the parties' joint motion to set a claim construction hearing (Doc. 463). The court found a hearing "materially helpful" on eight disputed terms: "roof report/roof estimate report"; "aerial image(s)/aerial images file(s)"; "oblique image(s)"; "calibrating, calibrate, calibrated, using calibration information"; "three-dimensional model/3D model"; "primary oblique image including overlapping data"; "the [first and second/plurality of] aerial images . . . taken independent[ly] of each other"; and "oblique aerial image(s)." The order set a three-hour Markman hearing for 2025-05-07, with Nearmap to argue first term-by-term, and a written technology tutorial under LPR 4.5. (Note: the order text as retrieved says the hearing was set more than a year out, for May 2025.)
• I found no Markman ruling order. Given the 2025-08-25 stay, it is likely the hearing occurred (or was continued/obviated) without a merits construction opinion, but I could not confirm. Flagging as a gap.

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings

(a) The '737 patent — IPR2022-00734 (the case in your metadata). Petitioner: Nearmap US (Fish & Richardson — Walter K. Renner, Thomas Rozylowicz, Daniel D. Smith, et al.). Patent Owner: Eagle View (Haynes and Boone — Kyle Howard, Gregory Webb, Jonathan Bowser). Panel: Baer, Giannetti, Cass.

• 2022-03-21 — Petition filed. Challenged claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 25, 26, 34 on two §103 grounds: (i) Heller + Quam; (ii) Heller + Quam + Deaton (pre-AIA §103; Dr. David Forsyth declaration).
• 2022-11-01 — Institution (Paper 10).
• 2023-10-27 — Final Written Decision (Paper 39): no challenged claims unpatentable. The Board declined to reach the merits of the prior-art grounds and held EagleView's objective indicia of nonobviousness (commercial success, industry praise, presumed nexus) "decisive." Public version: Paper 41 (2023-12-04).
• 2023-11-27 — Nearmap request for Director Review (Paper 40).
• 2023-12-21 — Director Review granted (Paper 42). USPTO order
• 2024-02-20 — Director decision (Paper 43) VACATING the FWD and REMANDING. The Director held the Board failed to resolve the disputed claim construction (whether "generating and outputting a roof estimate report…" is printed matter entitled to no patentable weight) and failed to conduct a full Graham-factor analysis with explained weighting, citing Volvo Penta v. Brunswick, 81 F.4th 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Fox Factory v. SRAM, 944 F.3d 1366. The Board was ordered to state its construction and give "a full analysis sufficient to satisfy all Graham factors." USPTO Director decision; Finnegan analysis, 2024-06-18
• 2024-02-23 — Order on conduct of the remand proceeding (Paper 44); 2024-04-01 — order granting substitution of Patent Owner counsel (Paper 49).
• 2024-07-15 — New FWD on remand: ALL challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. Law360: "PTAB Tears Down Roof Measurement Patent On Remand" (2024-07-17). Banner & Witcoff copy of the remand FWD
• 2024 — Eagle View appeals → Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2330 (Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc.).
• 2026-04-06 — Oral argument held (CAFC oral-argument audio posted for 2024-2330). CAFC
• 2026-06-25 — Federal Circuit grants the USPTO's motion to remand (nonprecedential, per curiam), In re Eagle View Technologies, Inc., No. 24-2330. CourtListener order This matches your metadata status of "vacated and remanded; pending." The stated reason for the remand is not in the order text I retrieved, and I could not verify whether it relates to Director-review issues or the settlement.

(b) Earlier challenge to the same '737 patent — Xactware. Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00592 (filed 2016-11-30). In its FWD (Paper 50, 2017-08-25), the Board construed "generating and outputting a roof estimate report" as printed matter entitled to no patentable weight, and found no claims unpatentable on secondary considerations. Nearmap relied on that same printed-matter construction in IPR2022-00734, and the Board noted the Federal Circuit had affirmed the earlier decision. That earlier parallel PTAB proceeding is the direct reason the '737 survived — and the reason the Director found the 2023 FWD's reasoning inadequate.

(c) Other asserted patents. Nearmap filed additional IPRs against other asserted patents:

• IPR2024-00716 ('648 patent, claims 1–2, 4–6, 9–13, 15) and IPR2024-00729 ('657 patent, claims 1–5, 14, 19–21, 26–27): both institution denials (announced ~2024-11-13 by Haynes Boone, which represented EagleView). Haynes Boone/WIPR
• IPRs on the '961 and '436 patents (Nearmap as petitioner; asserted in the Utah case): Board found the challenged claims obvious; Eagle View appealed; Fed. Cir. No. 24-1488, affirmed 2026-02-03 (opinion by Judge Chen), rejecting Eagle View's claim-construction argument that "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" require accuracy beyond estimation, and finding substantial evidence for the obviousness findings. IPWatchdog, 2026-02-03; VitalLaw summary (attorneys: Debra J. McComas, Haynes and Boone, for EagleView; LaurenAnn Degnan, Fish & Richardson, for Nearmap). I was unable to confirm the underlying IPR numbers for the '961/'436 proceedings.

6. Stay, settlement, and present posture

• 2025-08-25 — District court STAYS the case and administratively closes it (Judge Stewart). Order: "all proceedings in the case are stayed and the Clerk's Office shall administratively close the case," with the parties to notify the court within five days of completion of the pending PTO and Federal Circuit proceedings and request a lift of the stay. The stay resolved no merits issue — infringement and validity remained open on the eight-plus asserted patents. Patsnap summary quoting the PACER order in 2:21-cv-00283
• 2026-05-29 — Global settlement announced. EagleView's press release states the companies settled the Utah district court litigation that began in 2021, resolving "all pending disputes" between them, with terms confidential; quotes from EagleView CEO Piers Dormeyer and Nearmap CEO Andy Watt. EagleView press release (page retrieved in Spanish translation) — I could not retrieve the English original or a court filing (e.g., a stipulated dismissal) confirming entry of dismissal on the Utah docket.
• 2026-06-25 — CAFC remand in No. 24-2330 (see above). Net posture: the district court case is stayed/administratively closed and reportedly settled; the IPR2022-00734 appeal has been remanded to the PTAB, so as your metadata states the IPR remains "vacated and remanded; pending." It is unclear from public sources whether the settlement disposes of the IPR or whether the Board will still complete remand proceedings — a point worth watching.

7. Bottom line

• No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion, and no merits judgment ever issued in the infringement case. The case was filed 2021-05-04, litigated through §101 motions (Nearmap lost on the '737/'152 in 2021-11-15), damages-focused discovery, an amendment adding the '648 patent, and claim-construction briefing, then stayed on 2025-08-25 and settled 2026-05-29.
• The dispositive-looking development on the '737 was administrative: Nearmap's IPR2022-00734, where the Board's 2023-10-27 no-unpatentability FWD was vacated on Director review (2024-02-20) and replaced by a 2024-07-15 FWD invalidating all challenged claims, now remanded by the Federal Circuit (2026-06-25).
• Conversely, EagleView obtained a Federal Circuit affirmance of validity losses on the '961/'436 patents on 2026-02-03 (No. 24-1488) and defeated institution in IPR2024-00716/-00729.

Verification caveats: I could not directly access the Utah PACER docket in this session, so docket numbers beyond Docs. 50, 93, 267, 298, 416 and 463, the near-term discovery/venue sub-motions, the counterclaims, the outcome of the '648 §101 motion, whether a Markman ruling issued, and the reason for the June 2026 CAFC remand are either unverified or unresolved. Counsel lists for the district court (law-firm rosters appear in AI-generated case profiles) should be treated as low-confidence except for the PTAB counsel confirmed in the USPTO orders (Fish & Richardson for Nearmap; Haynes and Boone for EagleView).

I'll research the counsel of record for this matter. Note upfront: IPR2022-00734 is an AIA post-grant proceeding at the PTAB, so the "plaintiff"-side party is the petitioner, Nearmap US, Inc. (Eagle View is the patent owner/respondent). Let me search.

Good initial data. Let me dig deeper into current counsel of record, the parallel district court case (where roles flip), and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Bottom line

Two different proceedings are in play, and the "plaintiff" label depends on which one you mean. The case metadata you gave (IPR2022‑00734, PTAB) is an AIA inter partes review, where the party on the "plaintiff/challenger" side is the petitioner, Nearmap US, Inc. In the co‑pending Utah infringement suit the roles are reversed (Eagle View/Pictometry are plaintiffs, Nearmap is the defendant). Below I give the counsel for Nearmap in each, flagging exactly what is documented and what is not.

⚠️ Sourcing note: I could not reach PACER or PAIR directly from here. The PTAB counsel identifications below come from public USPTO/PTAB papers (which list "Counsel for Petitioner" in the caption) and from secondary docket aggregators. Where I could not independently verify something (e.g., an individual attorney's office location), I say so rather than guess.

---

1. PTAB — IPR2022-00734 (Nearmap US, Inc., Petitioner)

Counsel of record appears in the caption block of the Board's and Director's papers, e.g. the Director Review order (Paper 42) and the Director Review decision vacating and remanding (Paper 43, Feb. 20, 2024), reproduced on uspto.gov:

• Firm-level point: All petitioner-side counsel are Fish & Richardson P.C. — a national IP boutique whose Post-Grant Practice Group is the relevant team. Fish is the same firm that represented Nearmap in the parallel Utah litigation (see below), which is common for coordinated PTAB/district-court campaigns.
• Local counsel: Not applicable at the PTAB — no local-counsel requirement, and none appears in the caption.
• In-house counsel: None appears on the PTAB caption/papers I reviewed. Nearmap's in-house team may be directing strategy, but no Nearmap employee is listed as counsel of record in this IPR. If you need that, it would have to come from the parties' Rule 42.8(b)(3) mandatory notices (public on the PTAB docket via PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End system).

Contrast — Patent Owner side (for completeness): Eagle View/Pictometry is represented by Haynes and Boone, LLP — Kyle Howard (lead), with Gregory Webb and Jonathan R. Bowser as back-up — after substituting in for Marc Brockhaus and Ann Robl (Dunlap Codding, P.C.) via the Board's Aug. 1, 2022 order (Paper 5). Source: uspto.gov DR papers; Docket Alarm order text.

---

2. Related Utah infringement case (2:21-cv-00283, D. Utah) — where Nearmap is the defendant

Because your metadata labels Nearmap the plaintiff, here is the mirror-image set of counsel for Nearmap in the district court:

• Brent O. Hatch — Hatch Law Group, Salt Lake City, UT (local counsel).
• Roger A. Denning — Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA (pro hac vice; also appears in PTAB-adjacent litigation).
• Michael F. Milea, Allison C. Penfield, Kyle N. Bersani — Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone LLP, New York, NY (pro hac vice).
• Earlier appearances for Nearmap also included Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Nicholas P. Groombridge, Jennifer H. Wu, Jacob M. Berman, Jenny C. Wu) — the Groombridge/Wu team later moved to Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone.
• Sources: D. Utah opinions/orders indexed on CourtListener/Minerva (counsel blocks), Docket Alarm, PatSnap. The case was stayed Aug. 25, 2025 pending the PTO and Federal Circuit proceedings.

---

3. What I could not confirm

• No sealed filings or non-appearances to report on the PTAB side — the petitioner's counsel are publicly listed.
• Federal Circuit appeal No. 2024‑2330 (Eagle View v. Nearmap) — oral argument audio is posted on the CAFC site (Apr. 6, 2026) and a nonprecedential opinion issued Feb. 3, 2026 (addressing "calculate a pitch"/"determining a pitch" construction and the Littleworth/Middlebrook obviousness findings). I did not retrieve the appellee's brief signature block, so I cannot state with confidence who argued for Nearmap on appeal — most likely Fish & Richardson, but treat that as unverified.
• I did not verify individual office locations for Rozylowicz, Smith, Darno, Bisenius, Wang, Deutsch, or Klima; only Renner's D.C. address is confirmed from a signature block.

Recommended verification path: PTAB E2E docket for IPR2022‑00734, Papers 2 (Petition), 42/43 (Director Review), and 51 (July 15, 2024 Final Written Decision on remand), each of which carries the counsel caption; plus the Rule 42.8(b)(3) mandatory notices for any in-house identification.

I'll research the defense-side counsel. First, a framing note: in the PTAB matter (IPR2022‑00734), the party occupying the "defendant/respondent" seat is the patent owner, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (Nearmap is the petitioner). In the mirror‑image Utah infringement suit, the defendants are the Nearmap entities. I'll cover both, focusing on Eagle View's PTAB counsel. Let me search.

Good — the respondent/patent-owner counsel is emerging. Let me nail down the current caption, the April 2024 substitution, the appeal, and the mirrored district-court defendants.

Now let me verify the district-court defendants, the attorney bios, and disentangle the two Federal Circuit appeals.

Framing: who is the "defendant" here?

The matter cited in your metadata — IPR2022‑00734, Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. — is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district‑court infringement action. So the defense/respondent seat is occupied by the patent owner, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (petitioner is Nearmap). I cover that side first, since it is the piece not already addressed in the prior section. I then update the mirror‑image D. Utah defendants (the Nearmap entities), whose counsel was summarized previously.

⚠️ Mapping note / possible metadata tension: the Board's papers are internally inconsistent about the patent‑owner entity. The Director Review papers in ‑734 caption the Patent Owner as "Eagle View Technologies, Inc.", while the Aug. 1, 2022 substitution order (covering the companion IPRs ‑733/‑734/‑735) captions the patent owner as "Pictometry International Corp." The Utah case confirms they are affiliates sued/defended jointly ("Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp." as plaintiffs). Treat "Eagle View / Pictometry" as the same defense‑side interest group in this campaign.

---

1. PTAB — IPR2022‑00734: Patent Owner / Respondent (Eagle View Technologies, Inc.)

Counsel appears in the caption of the Board's and Director's papers (e.g., Paper 42, Order Granting Director Review, and the Director Review decision vacating and remanding, Paper 43) and in the July 15, 2024 Final Written Decision on remand. All from USPTO.gov filings and the Docket Alarm order text.

Extended team (from Haynes Boone's Oct. 15, 2024 press release — not all appear on the ‑734 PTAB caption): Partners Debbie (Debra Janece) McComas and Jonathan Bowser, and associates Angela Oliver, Adam Erickson, Laura Vu. McComas is independently corroborated as EagleView's Federal Circuit counsel (see § 4); Laura Vu appears as arguing counsel on the CAFC's April 2026 scheduled‑cases page for No. 2024‑2330.

Earlier counsel (withdrawn)

Both were withdrawn by the Board's Aug. 1, 2022 order (Paper 8 in ‑734; the same order issued in ‑733/‑735), which conditionally granted substitution effective upon filing a power of attorney and updated 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) mandatory notices naming Howard/Webb/Bowser. Source: order PDF hosted on Docket Alarm / uspto.gov.

Later substitution: Docket Alarm indexes IPR2022‑00734, Paper 49 — "Order Granting Patent Owner's Motion to Withdraw and Substitute of Counsel" (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2024). I could not retrieve the text or the identity of the attorneys added/removed in that order; it is a possible further change to the caption. This is a documented gap, not a guessed fact.

• No local counsel (not required at the PTAB) and no in‑house attorney appears on the ‑734 caption/papers I reviewed. Any EagleView in‑house identification would have to come from the Rule 42.8(b)(3) mandatory notices, and I could not open them.
• No sealed‑filing issue on the patent‑owner side: these are public papers.

---

2. The other "defendants" — D. Utah, No. 2:21‑cv‑00283 (Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc.)

Because your metadata labels the Nearmap side "plaintiff," here is the corresponding defendant identification in the co‑pending Utah case, consolidated with new details found this pass (the prior section covered the counsel; these are the additions):

Named defendants (per the operative complaint as amended Mar. 28, 2023, Doc. 274, and the July 1, 2025 signature block):

1. Nearmap US, Inc.
2. Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd. (added by amended complaint)
3. Nearmap Ltd. (styled "Nearmap Pty Ltd" in one caption)

Counsel for the Nearmap defendants (from the July 1, 2025 motion‑to‑seal signature block, Dkt. 479):

• Brent O. Hatch — Hatch Law Group, PC, Salt Lake City, UT — local counsel; also separately filed the appearance for the two newly added Australian defendants.
• Roger A. Denning — Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA — pro hac vice.
• Of counsel (Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone LLP, New York, NY): Nicholas Groombridge, Jennifer H. Wu, Jenny C. Wu, Jennifer Rea Deneault, Michael Milea, Allison Penfield, and a "Scott E. ___" (surname truncated in the source snippet — not verified). The earlier Minerva/CourtListener counsel block (June 9, 2023) also lists Jacob M. Wu and Scott E. [·] under Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, reflecting the Groombridge/Wu team's move to Groombridge Wu Baughman & Stone.
• This aligns with the prior section's list; the new items are Jennifer Rea Deneault, the Scott E. entry, and confirmation of Hatch Law Group for the two Australian entities.

Context on the opposing (EagleView) district‑court side, for completeness only: EagleView/Pictometry's Utah plaintiffs' counsel admitted pro hac vice in 2021 were Adam R. Alper, Brandon H. Brown, Natalie Flechsig, Michael W. De Vries, Leslie M. Schmidt, and Gianni Cutri (Dkts. 21–26) — a lineup consistent with Kirkland & Ellis LLP. I did not verify current firm affiliation or whether they remain on the case, so treat firm attribution as inferred, not confirmed.

---

3. Firm profile — Haynes and Boone, LLP (patent‑owner side)

Haynes and Boone is a full‑service AmLaw firm (Dallas HQ) with a substantial PTAB practice; its EagleView engagement spans the ‑733/‑734/‑735 IPR cluster (patents 8,542,880 / 9,135,737 / 8,593,518), the later Nearmap IPRs against 10,671,648 and 9,182,657, and the related Federal Circuit appeals. I did not retrieve individual Haynes Boone attorney bios (search budget exhausted), so I cannot state Howard's/Webb's/Bowser's office cities or lateral history from a firm page — flagging that rather than guessing.

---

4. Related Federal Circuit proceedings (appellate "defense" role)

• No. 2024‑2330, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. — EagleView is the appellant (UniCourt shows the notice filed Mar. 8, 2024; appellant attorney: Jonathan R. Bowser, Haynes Boone; appellee attorney: Walter Karl Renner, Fish & Richardson). Oral argument audio was posted Apr. 6, 2026 (CAFC site). The CAFC April 2026 scheduled‑cases page lists it as "PTO Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. [argued]," with arguing counsel captured only partially in my snippet ("Laura Vu, Jennifer H.") — treat the full arguing lineup as unverified.
• No. 2024‑1488, Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc. — VitalLaw (Feb. 3, 2026) reports a Federal Circuit obviousness‑affirmed decision in the aerial roof‑measuring dispute, listing Debra Janece McComas (Haynes and Boone) for EagleView and LaurenAnn Degnan (Fish & Richardson) for Nearmap.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag: the prior section attributed the Feb. 3, 2026 nonprecedential opinion (pitch claim construction; Littleworth/Middlebrook) to No. 2024‑2330. My search instead ties a Feb. 3, 2026 opinion to No. 2024‑1488, and shows 2024‑2330 was not argued until Apr. 6, 2026 — after Feb. 3, 2026, so a Feb. 3, 2026 opinion in 24‑2330 is chronologically implausible. The most likely explanation is two parallel appeals (one from ‑734, one from a companion IPR), with the prior section merging them. This should be reconciled against the CAFC docket before being relied on.

---

5. What I could not confirm / verification path

• Paper 49 (Apr. 1, 2024) contents — which Haynes Boone attorneys it added/removed — not retrieved.
• Current (as of Sept. 2026) counsel status: I could not open PTAB E2E or PACER, so the § 1 table reflects the last publicly posted caption (DR papers, Paper 42/43; July 15, 2024 remand FWD).
• Office locations for Howard, Webb, and Bowser; the truncated "Scott E." surname; the full CAFC arguing‑counsel lineup for 24‑2330.
• EagleView in‑house counsel — none identified in any reviewed paper.

Recommended verification: PTAB E2E docket for IPR2022‑00734 — Papers 8 (Aug. 1, 2022 substitution), 42/43 (Director Review), 49 (Apr. 1, 2024 substitution), 51 (July 15, 2024 remand FWD) for the operative caption, plus the Rule 42.8(b)(3) mandatory notices; the CAFC docket for Nos. 2024‑2330 and 2024‑1488 for the appellate appearances; and Dkt. 479‑type signature blocks in D. Utah 2:21‑cv‑00283 for the Nearmap‑entity defense team.