US 11937145

US patent 11937145, titled "Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices," has the following details:

• Assignee: Nearby Systems LLC
• Inventors: Gabriel Jakobson, Steven L. Rueben
• Filing Date: September 13, 2019
• Issue Date: March 19, 2024 (listed as Publication date, but for a granted patent, this is the issue date)
• Abstract: A method and apparatus for mapping addressable information (e.g., locations denoted by name or address, street addresses, landmarks, etc.) off of disparate applications on a mobile device, onto an existing map on the mobile device, are disclosed. An application on a mobile device may display addressable information (e.g., a website displaying a location name and/or address, an email containing an address, etc.). In response to a user's selecting the addressable information and invoking a mapping command, a map-display application (e.g., Google Maps®, Yahoo! Maps®, Windows Live Search Map®, MapQuest®, iPhone® maps, Waze® etc.) may be automatically presented (e.g., launches, become visible, displayed, etc.) displaying the addressable information in addition to at least one prior mapping content previously displayed by the map-display application.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent contains nine claims, with claim 1 being the sole independent claim.

• Claim 1: This claim describes a system for showing location-based content on a digital map on a mobile device. The system includes a mobile device with memory storing two non-browser applications and a processor to run the first one. A touch screen displays the first application's interface, which shows a map, an icon for a location on that map, and text related to the icon. A GPS device determines the mobile device's location. A mapping component within the first non-browser application communicates with an online mapping service. When a user touches the text on the screen, the mapping component sends a query to the online mapping service, including both the mobile device's current location and the location of the icon. In response to this query, the second non-browser application's user interface then displays a second map showing both the mobile device's location, the icon's location, and a route between them.

Litigation:

The patent family associated with US11937145 B2 is currently active and has a "Family has litigation" status. Multiple cases have been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, and there is also a "First worldwide family litigation filed" noted. However, a search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any specific cases mentioning patent 11937145 directly. Therefore, it is uncertain if this specific patent has been involved in any precedential CAFC decisions in 2026.

The patent family associated with US11937145B2 has a "Family has litigation" status, with multiple cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, and a "First worldwide family litigation filed" noted. While the previous summary indicated that CAFC 2026 dockets did not return direct mentions of patent 11937145, a fresh search on PACER, a primary source for federal court records, would be necessary to identify specific case details.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 11937145:

Based on the provided information, the patent family associated with US11937145 B2 is involved in litigation, with multiple cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court. However, specific details regarding the plaintiff(s), defendant(s), case numbers, filing dates, and outcomes or current statuses for these cases are not directly available in the provided text.

To obtain this specific information, one would typically need to search court dockets directly, for example, via PACER for federal cases. While the previous summary mentions litigation in the Texas Eastern District Court, it does not provide case-specific identifiers. The statement also mentions "First worldwide family litigation filed," but again, lacks specific details for this case. Therefore, without direct access to PACER or similar comprehensive litigation databases for specific case numbers and parties, a detailed list cannot be provided.

Disclaimer: Retrieving comprehensive and up-to-date litigation details often requires access to proprietary legal databases like PACER (for US federal courts), which typically requires a registered account and may involve fees per document. Without such access, a definitive and exhaustive list of all litigation cases with full details cannot be generated.

Proceedings overview

As of May 20, 2026, a search of the USPTO Open Data Portal and publicly available records indicates that there are no AIA trial proceedings (such as Inter Partes Reviews, Post-Grant Reviews, or Covered Business Method reviews) on file for US Patent 11937145. This means the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB, offering a different defensive posture than one that has survived or been invalidated by PTAB challenges.

Strategic summary

Currently, all nine claims of US11937145 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. There are no PTAB decisions that have either canceled or sustained any claims. Therefore, there is no estoppel landscape established by prior AIA trials under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which would typically bar petitioners and their privies from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised. This means all prior art grounds remain available for a potential future PTAB challenge.

The absence of PTAB activity for a patent, especially one that is currently involved in district court litigation (as indicated in the patent summary), can be a signal. It suggests that potential challengers may not have pursued this avenue, or that any challenges have not yet become public.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of PTAB activity on US11937145, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should consider the following:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search: Since no claims have been tested, all prior art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) are available for a potential IPR or other AIA trial. This search should specifically look for art not previously considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
• Evaluate for PTAB challenge: If strong prior art is found, consider filing an IPR petition. This would be a first PTAB challenge for this patent, and the claims would be evaluated on their merits without prior PTAB decisions to consider.
• Monitor for future filings: Keep an eye on the PTAB's docket for US11937145, as well as any related patents in the family, for new petitions that may be filed by other parties.

As there are no active or concluded PTAB proceedings, there are no specific FWDs or institution decisions to link to at this time.

Proceedings overview

As of May 20, 2026, a search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) databases and related litigation intelligence platforms indicates that there are no AIA trial proceedings (such as Inter Partes Reviews, Post-Grant Reviews, or Covered Business Method reviews) on file for US Patent 11937145. This means all nine claims of the patent remain untested by the PTAB.

Strategic summary

Currently, all nine claims of US11937145 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB. There are no PTAB decisions that have either canceled or sustained any claims. Therefore, there is no estoppel landscape established by prior AIA trials under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which would typically bar petitioners and their privies from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised. This means all prior art grounds remain available for a potential future PTAB challenge.

The patent family associated with US11937145 B2 is currently active and has a "Family has litigation" status, with multiple cases filed in the Texas Eastern District Court. Despite this district court activity, no corresponding PTAB challenges have been publicly filed against US11937145. For instance, in a case involving Nearby Systems LLC (the patent owner) and Cinemark USA concerning location technology patents, the dispute ended in a settlement on March 1, 2024, without any inter partes review petitions being filed. Similarly, a patent infringement action by Nearby Systems LLC against Little Caesar Enterprises concluded on February 19, 2026, also without a substantive ruling on patent validity or infringement, and no IPRs were explicitly noted. This pattern suggests that defendants in these cases may have assessed negotiated settlements as more economically rational than pursuing a multi-front PTAB challenge in addition to district court litigation.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of PTAB activity on US11937145, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should consider the following:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search: Since no claims have been tested, all prior art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) are available for a potential IPR or other AIA trial. This search should specifically look for art not previously considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
• Evaluate for PTAB challenge: If strong prior art is found, consider filing an IPR petition. This would be a first PTAB challenge for this patent, and the claims would be evaluated on their merits without prior PTAB decisions to consider.
• Monitor for future filings: Keep an eye on the PTAB's docket for US11937145, as well as any related patents in the family, for new petitions that may be filed by other parties.

As there are no active or concluded PTAB proceedings, there are no specific FWDs or institution decisions to link to at this time.

Inventors

• Gabriel Jakobson: Employer at time of original priority application filing (October 12, 2007) is not specified in the patent or assignment records. The assignment record indicates he assigned his inventor's interest, suggesting he was an independent inventor or his employer did not claim the invention by default.
• Steven L. Rueben: Employer at time of original priority application filing (October 12, 2007) is not specified in the patent or assignment records. He, like Jakobson, assigned his inventor's interest, suggesting independent inventor status or non-employer claim.

There are no unusual patterns, such as inventors departing the original assignee, discernible from the provided information.

Original assignee

The patent application US16/570,298, which led to US11937145, was filed by Nearby Systems LLC. However, the underlying rights were transferred from the inventors to Empire IP LLC in 2012, and then from Empire IP LLC to Nearby Systems LLC in 2022, prior to the patent's issuance. Therefore, Nearby Systems LLC is listed as the assignee on the issued patent.

Nearby Systems LLC is identified as a patent assertion entity whose business model focuses on licensing and enforcing patents related to proximity-aware systems, rather than shipping products embodying the claims. The entity is active and has been involved in extensive patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting location-based technology patents against various companies with mobile applications.

Assignment timeline

• 2012-04-10 (executed) / recorded 2012-04-12 — Reel 028292/0970

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: STEVEN L. RUEBEN AND GABRIEL JAKOBSON (INVENTORS)
  • Assignee: EMPIRE IP LLC
  • Correspondent: ROBERT S. CHUNG, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP. 200 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10166.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor's rights to an intellectual property holding company.

• 2022-05-13 (executed) / recorded 2022-05-16 — Reel 059436/0474

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: EMPIRE IP LLC
  • Assignee: NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN S. ARTZ, ARTZ & ARTZ, P.C. 28333 Telegraph Road, Ste 210, Southfield, MI 48034.
  • Context: Transfer from one intellectual property holding company to another, immediately preceding assertion of the patent family.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11937145
    2007 : Priority application filed
    2012 : Inventors assign to Empire IP LLC
    2019 : Continuation application filed
    2022 : Empire IP LLC assigns to Nearby Systems LLC
    2024 : Patent issued to Nearby Systems LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The initial transfer of inventor rights was to "EMPIRE IP LLC" (Reel 028292/0970), a name consistent with a licensing-focused entity. Subsequently, Empire IP LLC transferred the application to "NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC" (Reel 059436/0474), which has been identified as a patent assertion entity and does not ship products.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Nearby Systems LLC is explicitly identified as a "patent assertion entity" by PatSnap Eureka and RPX.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. The assignment from the inventors to Empire IP LLC used Robert S. Chung of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. (Reel 028292/0970), while the assignment from Empire IP LLC to Nearby Systems LLC used John S. Artz of Artz & Artz, P.C. (Reel 059436/0474).
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is a 10-year gap between the two recorded assignments.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignment to Nearby Systems LLC was executed on 2022-05-13 and recorded on 2022-05-16 (Reel 059436/0474). The patent family associated with US11937145 began to be litigated as part of a campaign starting in June 2022. This transfer occurred within one month of the commencement of litigation for the patent family, indicating it was closely associated with enabling assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of bankruptcy proceedings affecting the patent ownership chain.
7. Privateering — Not present. The initial transfer was from inventors to an intellectual property holding company, not from an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate with any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The chain of ownership for US11937145 exhibits multiple strong signals of patent assertion entity behavior, including transfers to shell-like entities (Empire IP LLC, then to Nearby Systems LLC, Reel 028292/0970, Reel 059436/0474), the explicit identification of Nearby Systems LLC as a patent assertion entity, and a pre-litigation transfer of the patent rights to Nearby Systems LLC immediately prior to the commencement of a litigation campaign involving this patent family in June 2022.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US11937145: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11937145, I will search the USPTO database for the patent and then review its cited references.

Here's the breakdown of the prior art cited in US11937145B2, along with an assessment of which claims it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Patent Citations for US11937145B2:

The patent US11937145B2 cites numerous prior art documents. A comprehensive review of each would be extensive, but based on the patent's abstract and claims, I will focus on the most directly relevant types of prior art that address displaying map content from disparate applications on a single map on a mobile device.

To provide a precise analysis of which claims each cited prior art potentially anticipates, one would need to perform a detailed claim-by-claim comparison, analyzing every limitation of Claim 1 against the full disclosure of each prior art reference. Since the prompt asks for potential anticipation and a brief description, I will identify types of prior art likely to be relevant to the core concepts of US11937145B2's independent claim (Claim 1).

Most Relevant Prior Art (Illustrative Examples from the Description, not an exhaustive list of all citations):

While the full list of "Prior art documents" on the Google Patents page is extensive, the description of US11937145B2 itself mentions and distinguishes itself from existing mapping solutions. The patent states: "In the prior art, new mapping content may only be generated from within the mapping application. New mapping content origination outside of the mapping application, for example a location name selected in a separate application, may be automatically displayed on a new digital map, wherein the new digital map does not contain any other mappable information previously displayed." This statement highlights the key distinction the inventors perceive.

Therefore, the most relevant prior art would generally be those systems that handle:

1. Displaying map content on mobile devices.
2. Integrating location information from various sources.
3. Displaying multiple points of interest on a single map.

Given the patent's focus on combining "mappable data from disparate sources onto a single digital map in a mapping application on a hand-held electronic device," prior art that demonstrates any part of this functionality, even if not the full scope of Claim 1, would be relevant for potential anticipation.

Here are examples of the types of prior art that would be highly relevant, based on the description's own acknowledgment of the state of the art, and common knowledge of the field around the priority date (October 12, 2007):

• General Mobile Mapping Applications (e.g., Google Maps®, Yahoo! Maps®, Windows Live Search Maps®, MapQuest®, iOS®-based maps, Waze® prior to the priority date):

  • Full Citation: Specific patent documents for these services would need to be retrieved from the patent's cited references. For instance, any patents related to the core functionality of early mobile mapping applications.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Dates prior to October 12, 2007.
  • Brief Description: These applications displayed digital maps, allowed users to search for addresses or landmarks, and typically showed a single point of interest or a set of search results on a map. They often allowed for zooming and panning.
  • Potential Anticipation for Claim(s): These systems would generally anticipate the basic elements of a mobile device displaying a map and an icon/text for a location (parts of Claim 1 relating to "a mobile device storing a first non-browser application," "a touch screen... displaying a first map, an icon... and a text"). However, the patent specifically states that in the prior art, "new mapping content may only be generated from within the mapping application" and "would display on a separate map not containing any previous mapping information". Therefore, these general mapping applications would likely not anticipate the novelty claimed in the "transmits a query including the location of the mobile device and the location of the icon... displays in a second user interface of the second non-browser application a second map of the location of the mobile device, the location of the icon and a route between" aspects of Claim 1.

• Location-Based Services (LBS) on Mobile Devices (e.g., early GPS navigation systems, applications using cellular triangulation for location):

  • Full Citation: Specific patent documents detailing early LBS.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Dates prior to October 12, 2007.
  • Brief Description: These systems utilized GPS devices or network location data to determine the mobile device's position and often displayed it on a map. Some might offer basic routing.
  • Potential Anticipation for Claim(s): These systems would potentially anticipate the "a GPS device of the mobile device determining a location of the mobile device" element of Claim 1. Depending on their capabilities, they might also touch upon displaying the mobile device's location on a map. However, the unique "mashing" of content from disparate non-browser applications onto an existing map, especially with routing between dynamic points, would likely remain distinguishable.

• Systems allowing "mash-ups" of web content (e.g., early web 2.0 applications, APIs for combining data from different online sources):

  • Full Citation: Patents related to web-based data aggregation and display, particularly those involving geographic data.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Dates prior to October 12, 2007.
  • Brief Description: These systems enabled the combination of data from different online sources (e.g., real estate listings on a map). While often web-browser based, the underlying principles of integrating and displaying heterogeneous data could be relevant.
  • Potential Anticipation for Claim(s): While Claim 1 specifies "non-browser applications", the concept of "mashing" content from disparate sources has roots in web technologies. Any prior art showing a system that allowed selection of location data from one application and its display on a map with previously displayed content in another application (even if browser-based) could be highly relevant for anticipating the novelty of combining content. The key distinction in Claim 1 is the "non-browser" context and the generation of a route between the device's location and the icon's location on a second map in a second non-browser application.

A thorough anticipation analysis would require examining each specific patent cited by US11937145B2. Without a direct list of those specific references from the USPTO database, this analysis provides a general understanding of the types of prior art that would be considered most relevant given the claims and the patent's own description of the prior art.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 11937145 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider prior art available before the patent's priority date of October 12, 2007. The provided patent text explicitly lists US 2009/0100342 A1 as the publication of application US 11/974,258, from which the present patent claims priority, and thus its disclosure as of its priority date serves as relevant prior art.

A direct ancestor, US 2009/0100342 A1, published on April 16, 2009, is based on a continuation-in-part application filed on October 12, 2007 (US 11/974,258), making its disclosure effective prior art for US 11937145.

The abstract of US 2009/0100342 A1 discloses a method and apparatus for automatically creating or updating a digital map to include a new location in response to a user's selection of location information from a software application. This includes:

• Receiving location information from a software application.
• Identifying location references in the information.
• Converting location references to geographic coordinates.
• Plotting the new location on a digital map.
• Adjusting the map's zoom level to include the new location.

The patent further details that the software application can be an email program, web browser, or other content-displaying application, and that the map can be displayed on a mobile device or desktop. It also describes selecting text (e.g., an address) from a non-mapping application and using a context menu or drag-and-drop to send it to a mapping component for display on a map. Critically, it describes displaying the new location on the "same digital map" with "previously-displayed mapping content" or on a "new digital map".

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 1

Claim 1 of US 11937145 describes:

1. A memory of a mobile device storing a first non-browser application and a second non-browser application.
2. A processor executing the first non-browser application.
3. A touch screen displaying a first user interface of the first non-browser application, showing a first map, an icon for a location, and associated text.
4. A GPS device determining the mobile device's location.
5. A mapping component in the first non-browser application communicating with an online mapping service.
6. Upon touch of the text, the mapping component transmits a query including the mobile device's location and the icon's location to the online mapping service.
7. In response, the touch screen displays in a second user interface of the second non-browser application a second map of the mobile device's location, the icon's location, and a route between them.

Combination of US 2009/0100342 A1 and General Knowledge/Common Practice in 2007:

US 2009/0100342 A1 clearly teaches many elements of Claim 1:

• A mobile device with memory and a processor, capable of running multiple applications and displaying maps (implied by "portable electronic device, such a smart phone, personal digital assistant, etc.").
• A mapping component that can receive location information from other applications (both browser and non-browser, e.g., "email program, word processing application, instant messenger client, etc.") and plot it on a map.
• The ability to select text (location information) from one application and relay it to a mapping component (via drag-and-drop or context menu) for display on a digital map.
• The concept of displaying multiple points of interest on a single map.
• The adjustment of zoom level to ensure all mappable content is visible.

What '342 A1 doesn't explicitly state in combination with all aspects of Claim 1:

• The explicit distinction between a "first non-browser application" displaying a map with an icon and text, and a "second non-browser application" receiving the query result. While it discusses different applications sending data to a mapping component, the specific structure of two non-browser apps where the first already has a map/icon/text and the second then displays a route is not explicitly delineated.
• The explicit inclusion of the mobile device's current GPS location in the query transmitted upon touching the text, along with the icon's location, specifically for the purpose of generating a route between these two points in a second application. While '342 A1 mentions obtaining geographic coordinates and plotting them, and implies device location (e.g., for navigation), it doesn't explicitly tie the device's live GPS location to the query triggered by user interaction with an icon's text in another app, for the specific purpose of showing a route to that icon.

However, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in 2007 would have understood the following:

• Mobile devices with GPS capabilities: GPS devices were common in mobile phones and PDAs by 2007, and mapping applications routinely used the device's current GPS location to center maps or provide "current location" markers.
• Online mapping services offering routing: Services like Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps, and MapQuest were well-established by 2007 and commonly provided driving directions (routes) between two or more specified locations.
• Inter-application communication: Techniques for applications to communicate and share data (e.g., via APIs, intents, or clipboard operations) were known in mobile operating systems (e.g., early versions of iOS and Android, as well as Windows Mobile and Palm OS).

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of US 2009/0100342 A1 with common knowledge regarding mobile device capabilities and online mapping services for the following reasons:

1. Enhanced User Experience for Navigation: The primary motivation for combining a known location (from an icon/text) with the user's current GPS location and displaying a route is to facilitate navigation. If a user sees an interesting point on a map in one application (as disclosed in '342 A1), they would naturally desire to get directions to that point from their current location. Automatically transmitting both locations in a query and displaying a route would be an obvious and desirable enhancement to the "mashing mapping content" functionality taught by '342 A1.
2. Convenience and Efficiency: Requiring a user to manually input their current location into a mapping application after selecting a destination from another app ('342 A1) would be cumbersome. Automatically including the device's GPS location in the query streamline this process, making the mapping feature more convenient and efficient for the user.
3. Leveraging Existing Technologies: The components for this combination (GPS, online routing services, inter-application data transfer) were all independently known and mature by 2007. It would have been a straightforward engineering decision to integrate these existing functionalities with the content-mashing capabilities described in '342 A1 to provide a more complete and useful navigational experience. The abstract of US 2009/0100342 A1 itself identifies "navigation devices" as one example of devices that may utilize the invention.
4. Optimized Display for Routing: While '342 A1 focuses on displaying multiple points of interest, the specific requirement of Claim 1 to display a "second map" in a "second non-browser application" with a route is a natural extension. A dedicated mapping application (potentially a "second non-browser application") is typically better equipped to handle dynamic route calculations and display, rather than simply plotting points on an existing, potentially less specialized, map displayed in a "first non-browser application." This division of labor between applications is a common software design pattern.

Therefore, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine the functionality of "mashing mapping content" from disparate applications onto a map (as taught by US 2009/0100342 A1) with the common knowledge of GPS location services on mobile devices and online mapping services' routing capabilities. The motivation would be to provide a more practical, convenient, and feature-rich user experience for mobile navigation, specifically by automatically calculating and displaying a route from the user's current location to a newly selected point of interest.

The distinction of using a "second non-browser application" for the route display, when the "first non-browser application" already has a map, would be an obvious implementation choice to leverage existing, potentially specialized, mapping applications for routing tasks, or to separate concerns in software design.