US 7565155

I'll research this patent across the sources you specified, then synthesize with the authoritative patent text provided.

US Patent 7,565,155 — Analyst Summary

Sourcing note: The patent text supplied in your message is authoritative and I have preferred it over search results where they conflict. Search results are used only for docket/status information, and I flag below where I could not confirm something authoritatively.

1. Bibliographic Data (from the patent document itself)

Ownership chain (from the record): Networks In Motion → TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (2011 merger/name change) → Bluestone Ventures Inc. (assignment recorded July 29, 2015). Security interests were recorded by Silicon Valley Bank (2010) and later released (2015); a Citibank security interest was recorded in 2018 against the broader Comtech/TeleCommunication Systems entity group.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"The preferred embodiments of the present invention are directed to methods and systems for dynamic route estimation and prediction using discrete sampled location updates from various mobile devices for the purpose of providing a graphical representation of a mobile device's route along a known network path of map data. The embodiments also provide supplemental route metrics, such as traveled distance, elapsed time, etc., and the capability to assign destination points for the purpose of providing the ability to modify location update points in an application, such as a route planner, and/or to store the dynamically generated route based on various preferences for later retrieval."

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Disclosure

The patent addresses a specific prior-art shortcoming: conventional AVL/fleet-tracking systems displayed a "breadcrumb trail" of discrete GPS fixes connected by straight lines, which does not show what roads the device actually traveled. The invention routes between the discrete fixes over a real road network.

Core concepts disclosed:

• Dynamic estimated routing: Two or more location updates are received; a route is computed between them over map data. A route is calculated on arrival of each new update, so at least two updates are needed (spec reference to FIG. 6 and FIG. 7).
• Snap-to-map: Because GPS fixes (≈2–15 m error) and map geometry (≈2–50 m error) are both imprecise, the fix is "snapped" to the nearest road segment using an expanding error-radius circle test (FIG. 4A, points 416/415/418/417).
• Predictive routing: Between updates, the device's position is predicted forward using metrics such as speed, heading, vehicle type, road speed limits, one-way restrictions, and turn restrictions. Where a destination is unknown, the prediction is drawn in all possible directions; at a fork (FIG. 9), all branches are drawn and the untaken branches are erased once the next update arrives. FIG. 10 extends this to an origin/destination pair.
• Route preferences: Driving speeds by road class, optimization goal (fastest vs. shortest), and road avoidance preferences (highways/arterials/tolls) are used to shape the route.
• Route-planning / editing: Location points (by default "via" points) can be re-designated as origin, stop, or destination (FIGS. 18–21), added to a route planner, edited, and saved locally or on a server (FIGS. 22–24).
• Multiple transfer architectures (five disclosed): (1) local-only display; (2) peer-to-peer; (3) peer-to-server-to-peer via a server with XML router, position-device gateway, database and web server; (4) peer-to-local storage transfer (e.g., floppy/Bluetooth/infrared) then peer-to-peer; (5) local capture followed by later upload to an online server.
• Multi-vehicle comparison / dispatch: Estimated routes are computed from many mobile "satellite" devices to a "central" point (a static address or another mobile device), then ranked by metrics such as distance, time, and fuel usage (FIGS. 25–26). The patent criticizes line-of-sight distance ranking used in the prior art.

4. Independent Claims — ⚠️ Explicit Uncertainty

I cannot give you a verbatim, authoritative recitation of the independent claims. The patent text supplied in your message is truncated inside the "DETAILED DESCRIPTION" (the extract ends mid-sentence in the description of the five routing architectures) and does not include the claims section. I did not retrieve a claims listing from a primary source (USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Public Search) in this session.

To avoid fabricating claim language, I am stating only what the specification's "Summary of the Invention" supports as the subject matter of the claims — not the claims themselves:

1. A dynamic estimated-route method/system — receiving discrete location updates from a mobile positioning device; correlating (snapping) each to the nearest point/segment of a map-data network; computing a route between successive points in real time using map data and a set of route preferences; and displaying the route on a map.
2. A predictive-routing method/system — predicting the device's position and partial route between location updates using aiding metrics (speed, heading, road speed limit, turn restrictions, vehicle type), optionally constrained by a known destination.
3. A route-editing/route-planner method/system — assigning destination-point types (origin, via, stop, destination) to received location updates and permitting modification of the location history prior to route computation.
4. A multi-point comparison/dispatch method/system — computing estimated routes from multiple mobile "satellite" points to a central point and ordering them by metrics (time, distance, fuel, etc.), with the central point optionally being a stationary address or a mobile device.
5. A route-saving/persistence method/system — storing the estimated route and/or selected range of location history with its route preferences locally or on a server for later retrieval.

Recommendation: for litigation-grade work, pull the claims directly from USPTO Patent Public Search or the printed patent (cols. 19+ in the granted document, and US 2005/0075119 A1 for the pre-grant publication). Note in particular that the descendant patents in this family (e.g., US 10,551,208, US 9,746,341, US 10,274,337) have materially different claim language, so claim text must not be carried across within the family.

5. Docket / Enforcement Findings

a) Family-level litigation flag. The patent record itself shows a "Family has litigation" flag with a Darts-IP family link (family 34395939), confirming that this patent family has been litigated at some point. The record does not attribute a specific suit to 7,565,155.

b) Pending 2026 district-court activity in the family. I located:

• Bluestone Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00569 (W.D. Tex.), filed December 12, 2025, Judge David Counts, referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland.
  • The complaint's asserted patents, as reflected in the docket analysis, appear to be the '208 patent, the '341 patent, and the '337 patent — i.e., later continuations in the same family, with claim language quoted from the '208 patent at "Claim 1 at 19:39-53" and specification cites at 15:18-25, 2:26-43, 2:44-3:10, 4:55-5:12.
  • Docket activity through April 2026 includes an answer, a Rule 26(f) report, a scheduling order (Apr. 22, 2026), and a case transfer order (Apr. 23, 2026), plus a sealed motion (Apr. 24, 2026). The receiving district was not confirmed from the sources retrieved.
  • I could not confirm from the sources retrieved that U.S. 7,565,155 itself is asserted in this case. Treat a statement that the '155 patent is in suit as unverified.
• Sources: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72028521/bluestone-ventures-inc-v-google-llc/ ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2025cv00569/1172879830 ; https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1172879830-bluestone-ventures-v-google ; https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879830/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879830.1.0.pdf

c) CAFC 2026 dockets for 7,565,155 — none found. My searches returned no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 appeal involving patent 7,565,155. The 2026 appeal activity surfaced by the search was unrelated: Headwater Research LLC v. Cellco Partnership (Verizon), USCA No. 26-1884, E.D. Tex. No. 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP (appeal filed 2026, docketed and then deactivated), and older Blue Spike LLC v. Google matters (CAFC No. 16-1054). Neither involves 7,565,155.

d) ⚠️ Identifier-collision warning. A search for "7565155" also returns JP Patent No. 7565155 B2 (Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; "液状皮膚洗浄剤組成物," a liquid skin-cleansing composition; filed Nov. 8, 2019, registered Oct. 2, 2024). This is an unrelated Japanese patent sharing the numeric string, not a family member, and not a counterpart of US 7,565,155. Do not conflate them.

6. Bottom Line

• US 7,565,155 is a 2003-filed / 2009-issued patent to Networks In Motion, now held by Bluestone Ventures Inc., and it is expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (anticipated expiration Apr. 10, 2023). It is a foundational family member covering dynamic estimated + predictive routing from discrete GPS updates over map data, including snap-to-map matching.
• The bibliographic, title, assignee, inventor, filing, issue, and abstract data above are authoritative (taken from the patent document).
• The independent claim recitations are NOT authoritative in this report — the claims section was not present in the supplied extract. Verify against USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter before relying on them.
• No CAFC 2026 docket for 7,565,155 was found. The identifiable 2026 family litigation is Bluestone Ventures v. Google (W.D. Tex., filed Dec. 12, 2025, transferred Apr. 23, 2026), which appears to assert later family members, not necessarily the '155 patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7565155.

Let me search more specifically on patent litigation databases and for the assignees.

Let me search more targeted queries for litigation specifically naming this patent.

Summary of findings

I was unable to identify any U.S. litigation whose complaint specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,565,155. Below is what I could and could not confirm from the sources searched, with the limits of those findings stated explicitly.

What the sources did show

1. Google Patents reports litigation in the patent's family, but does not name a case.
   The authoritative Google Patents record for US 7,565,155 states "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed," linking to a Darts-IP family record (family=34395939). This is a family-level flag — it indicates that some member of the worldwide patent family has been litigated, but it does not identify the case, the court, the parties, or the patent asserted, and it does not by itself establish that the '155 patent was asserted. I could not open/verify the underlying Darts-IP record within the sources available.

2. Related cases exist in the same technology/entity space, but they do NOT assert the '155 patent. These surfaced in searches and are worth distinguishing so they are not mistaken for '155 litigation:

• Vehicle IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., D. Del. No. 1:09-cv-01007, filed Dec. 31, 2009. Defendants included Networks In Motion Inc. and TeleCommunication Systems Inc. (the '155 patent's original assignee and its successor). This case asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,374,177 (the "'377 patent"), not the '155 patent. It was resolved in the defendants' favor (summary judgment of non-infringement, affirmed on appeal; see Vehicle IP, LLC v. Cellco Partnership, No. 17-2511 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
• TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. v. Sybase 365, Inc., E.D. Va. Nos. 2:09-cv-00387 / 3:09-cv-00487, and related matters — concerned SMS/inter-carrier messaging patents ('748, '425, '811, '990), not the '155 patent.
• TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. v. Cobra Electronics Corp., D. Md. No. 1:2013-cv-02174 (filed July 26, 2013) — a TCS patent case; the patents asserted are not identified as the '155 patent in the sources reviewed.
• TeleCommunication Systems Inc. v. Airbus DS Communications Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. No. 2:14-cv-01103 — unrelated to the '155 patent on the record reviewed.

1. Ownership trail (context for possible assertions, per the Google Patents record): original assignee Networks In Motion Inc.; assigned to TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (2011); assigned to Bluestone Ventures Inc. (July 2015); current assignee listed as Bluestone Ventures Inc. The patent's legal status is listed as "Expired – Fee Related," and the anticipated expiration is given as April 10, 2023. No litigation was surfaced that ties to this ownership transition.

Bottom line

• No case specifically asserting U.S. 7,565,155 was located in the searches performed (covering Google Patents, Unified Patents litigation portal hits, PACER/docket aggregators, Stanford NPE database, and general web searches).
• Search limitation (stated explicitly): "No results found" here means no case was discovered in the sources and queries available — it is not proof that no such suit exists. Because Google Patents affirmatively flags litigation in this patent's family, at least one case somewhere in the family exists, but I could not identify it or confirm it involved the '155 patent. If you need a definitive answer, the reliable next steps are: (a) open the Darts-IP family record at patents.darts-ip.com (family 34395939) for the worldwide litigation list; and (b) run a patent-number search in Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or Unified Patents' litigation database, and a PACER full-text search restricted to exactly "7,565,155" so that similar numbers (e.g., the Japanese JP 7565155, or the '377/'748/'425 patents above) are excluded.

I did not find, and therefore am not asserting, any specific plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or outcome for a suit on the '155 patent itself.

I'll verify the structured ODP data with targeted web searches for any AIA trial proceedings, then assemble the analysis.

PTAB Proceedings on US 7,565,155 — Senior PTAB Practitioner Analysis

Data provenance note up front. The canonical source for this task is the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block, which reflects the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) AIA trial API. That block reports no AIA trial proceedings for US 7,565,155 as of the most recent ingest. I ran independent web searches to look for older or recently-filed proceedings the ODP might not have indexed (Google Patents family/litigation data, PTAB petition documents, litigation aggregators, NPE databases) and found none naming the '155 patent. I therefore report zero proceedings, and I explicitly flag the limits of that finding rather than manufacturing a docket.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,565,155: 0 — zero IPRs, zero PGRs, zero CBMs; no institution grants, no denials, no final written decisions, no settlements, and no Federal Circuit appeals arising from a PTAB trial on this patent. The defensive posture this creates is not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "the claims are canceled." It is a third posture: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB at all — but it is also expired (anticipated expiration 2023-04-10; status "Expired – Fee Related"), and Bluestone Ventures is asserting its younger continuations, not the '155 itself. A defendant facing an '155-based demand therefore has an unusually clean slate (no prior petitioner estoppel attaches to anyone, and every prior-art ground remains available) while also having a strong laches/expiry/damages-window argument.

No proceedings to itemize

The requested per-proceeding template cannot be filled for this patent without fabrication. I am stating that plainly:

• No IPR####-##### number for the '155 patent exists in the ODP data or in the sources I searched.
• No PGR####-##### — and as a matter of law, PGR is unavailable anyway: the '155 was granted 2009-07-21, so the § 321 nine-month post-grant window closed in 2010. PGR could never have been filed against it.
• No CBM####-##### — CBM was the only AIA vehicle that could reach § 101/§ 112 for this kind of pre-AIA telematics patent, but the CBM transitional program has sunset (no petitions after 2020-09-16), and the patent has since expired. Note also that this patent's subject matter (route generation for GPS/navigation) is precisely the type that the Federal Circuit narrowed out of CBM eligibility in Unwired Planet LLC v. Google Inc. — claims directed to a wireless device's location information were held not to be "covered business method" claims absent a claim element expressly reciting a financial activity. Any retrospective theory that "someone should have CBM'd this" would have faced that same eligibility fight.
• No reexamination located either (ex parte or inter partes) — flagged as an absence of evidence, not proof of absence. Reexams are not AIA trials and would not appear in the ODP AIA-trial count regardless.

Where to verify independently (canonical sources):

• USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS public search: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations
• USPTO ODP AIA trial API (the source of the structured block): https://developer.uspto.gov/api-catalog
• CourtListener (for any appeal that might have originated from a PTAB trial on this patent): https://www.courtlistener.com
• Google Patents family record (the "Family has litigation" flag): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7565155/en

Cross-family activity that actually matters (and is NOT '155 proceedings)

This is the part a defendant should not skip. The absence of PTAB activity on the '155 is best explained by the fact that enforcement has shifted to the '155's continuation family, several of which are 2016–2022-vintage claims that Bluestone asserts instead:

Discrepancy flag (per instructions to surface contradictions): The "Litigation summary" section above states that No. case specifically asserting the '155 was located and that the Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag is family-level only. Everything I found is consistent with that. I am not aware of any contradiction to flag, but I want to be explicit that the Darts-IP family flag (family 34395939) is a worldwide family flag and could be satisfied by litigation on the '077, the '341/'337, or another member — not necessarily the '155. I could not open the underlying Darts-IP record to confirm which member was litigated.

Strategic summary

Claim-status picture. No claim of US 7,565,155 has been canceled, confirmed, or otherwise adjudicated by the PTAB. There is no FWD to link and no claim-level disposition to quote — I will not manufacture one. The only status facts supported by the record are: granted 2009-07-21; legal status "Expired – Fee Related"; anticipated expiration 2023-04-10. Because the patent is expired, the patent owner cannot amend claims in any hypothetical IPR (amendment practice requires live claims), and there is no prospective injunctive or ongoing-royalty exposure. Any residual damages theory would be limited by the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback and would have to fit inside the 2020–2023 tail of the patent term; that window narrows with every passing month. (This is my analysis of the record, not a legal conclusion — treat it as a diligence prompt, not advice.)

Estoppel landscape — the good news is total. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever instituted against the '155, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to nobody. There is no petitioner, no real party in interest, and no privy who is barred from raising any § 102/§ 103 ground. For a defendant being asserted today, this means: (a) every prior-art ground that would have been available in an IPR is still available, in the PTAB and in district court; (b) you are not fighting against an adverse PTAB record that would be entitled to deference in a parallel stay motion; and (c) if you do file an IPR, you would be the first petitioner and would face no § 315(b) one-year bar problem unless and until you have been served with a complaint on this patent — the clock starts on service, so docket-check the exact date of service if a demand ripens into a suit.

Pattern signals — notably absent. The same petitioner has not filed multiple IPRs on this patent (nobody has filed any). The patent owner has not pursued PTAB appeals aggressively on the '155 (there are none to pursue). There is no defensive-aggregator IPR in the chain for the '155 — although Unified Patents did run a Patroll prior-art contest on family member US 9,921,077, which tells you the defensive community has already built invalidity material against the family that would likely be portable to the '155's overlapping disclosure. The '155 specification is also cited as prior art by later third parties (e.g., Telogis's US 9,958,272 lists "7,565,155 B2 … Sheha et al." in its references), which tells you the '155 is itself part of the published prior-art landscape for predictive/estimated routing — a reciprocal fact you can use if the family's later claims are the ones actually asserted.

Why zero IPRs is itself the signal. Well-asserted, live patents attract IPRs; a patent with no PTAB history after ~17 years of enforceability and a litigation-active owner strongly suggests the market concluded the '155 was not worth challenging — most plausibly because (i) it expired on 2023-04-10 and (ii) the owner monetizes the younger continuations ('077, '341, '337) instead. The absence of proceedings is therefore not evidence that the '155 is bulletproof; it is evidence that the ammunition was aimed at its children.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the zero count directly in the canonical feeds before you rely on it. Run a patent-number-restricted search in USPTO PTAB E2E/PTACTS (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations) and in the ODP AIA API (https://developer.uspto.gov/api-catalog) restricted to exactly 7,565,155 (not 7565155, which collides with JP 7565155 — a Kobayashi Pharmaceutical skin-cleanser patent — and with unrelated non-US records that surfaced in searches). Also run a Docket Navigator / Lex Machina / PACER full-text search on "7,565,155". I could not do PACER full-text or Darts-IP access in this session, so treat the zero count as high-confidence-but-not-certified.

2. If you are a defendant and the demand letter cites the '155: there is no FWD to link and nothing is canceled, so your posture is not "the claims are dead." Instead: (a) demand the asserted claim chart and the exact claims; (b) press the expiration (2023-04-10) and the § 286 damages window; (c) if a suit is filed, calendar your § 315(b) one-year IPR deadline from the service date — you would be the first petitioner, with no estoppel against you; and (d) consider whether the assertion is actually about a continuation ('077 / '341 / '337), in which case redirect your invalidity effort to that patent's claims, its file history, and the Unified Patents Patroll material on the '077.

3. If a suit on the '155 is filed, the trial-stage milestones are standard: institution decision due within 6 months of the petition's filing; final written decision within 12 months of institution (extendable up to 6 months for good cause under § 316(a)(11)). There is nothing currently pending, so no hearing dates, no FWD due dates, and no Director Review activity exist to track.

4. Monitor the Google case (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00569) for a stay-and-IPR pattern. If Google petitions on the asserted '341/'337 continuations, that will generate the first PTAB art and claim-construction record over this disclosure family — which you could then borrow if the '155 or a sibling is later asserted against you. Watch Google Patents' "Family has litigation" flag and the Darts-IP family record (family 34395939) for any newly filed member litigation.

Bottom line, stated without embellishment: there are no AIA trial proceedings on US 7,565,155. I did not invent a proceeding number, a panel, a ground, an institution decision, or an FWD, because none exists in the sources available to me. The actionable facts are the patent's expiry, the total absence of § 315(e)(2) estoppel (which leaves all prior-art grounds open), and the fact that the current enforcement campaign runs through the '155's continuation family — not the '155 itself.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7,565,155. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search more specifically for the assignment records and the NPE entities involved.

US 7,565,155 — Ownership-Chain Reconstruction

Data-provenance warning (read before relying on this): I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) or its legacy mirror within this research session, so I do not have reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or the correspondent-of-record names for the individual recordings. Those are the exact fields you asked me to capture, and I will not invent them. What I can present is the legal-events record mirrored on Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US7565155/en#legalEvents), which is derived from the USPTO assignment dataset and reliably gives the recording dates, conveyance types, assignors, and assignees — but not the reel/frame or correspondent strings. Every date below is therefore a recording date as displayed, not a verified execution date. Treat the reel/frame and correspondent call-outs as open items requiring a direct Assignment Center pull on patent number 7565155.

Inventors

All four named inventors are themselves the assignors on the first recorded conveyance ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)," recorded 2003-12-05, assignee Networks In Motion). That is the normal founder/employee→company assignment, not a red flag.

Unusual-pattern check: I cannot confirm or refute inventor-departure timing — no source retrieved shows when any inventor left NIM/TCS. So I am not asserting the "all inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale predicate. It is undetermined.

Original assignee

Networks In Motion, Inc. (NIM).

• Business: mobile navigation / location-based-services software — the "Map Messenger™" application is named in the specification itself (FIG. 23 discussion: "the Map Messenger™ program 2309"), and NIM built carrier navigation products (e.g., the platform behind Verizon Wireless's early on-device navigation). The patent's own FIG. 23 UI is a product screenshot, which is direct evidence that NIM shipped a product embodying the disclosure.
• Status: acquired. NIM was absorbed into TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (TCS); the assignment record shows a "MERGER AND CHANGE OF NAME" and a "CHANGE OF NAME" both recorded 2011-04-12 in favor of TCS. The 2010-01-29 Silicon Valley Bank security agreement naming both NIM and TCS entities corroborates the acquisition timeline. TCS itself was later folded into the Comtech group of companies. NIM as a standalone entity no longer exists.
• Product-embodiment relevance: NIM/TCS was a genuine operating company shipping navigation software — this is not a paper assignee.

Assignment timeline

Reel/frame and correspondent fields could not be retrieved (see provenance warning). Recording dates below are from the Google Patents legal-events mirror of the USPTO assignment dataset.

• Recorded 2003-12-05 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Yarlagadda, Arun; Petilli, Stephen; Sheha, Angie; Sheha, Michael A. (the four inventors)
  • Assignee: Networks In Motion (Networks In Motion, Inc.)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED — flag for Assignment Center pull.
  • Context: Founders'/employees' initial transfer of rights to the operating company, contemporaneous with filing (app. 10/410,740 filed 2003-04-10).

• Recorded 2010-01-29 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Longhorn Acquisition, LLC; Networks In Motion, Inc.; Quasar Acquisition, LLC; Solvern Innovations, Inc.; TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Silicon Valley Bank, Agent
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — collateral pledge of the NIM/TCS patent group to SVB, spanning multiple TCS acquisition vehicles.

• Recorded 2011-04-12 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Networks In Motion Inc.
  • Assignee: TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Internal reorg / name change only — no change in economic ownership.

• Recorded 2011-04-12 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignor: Networks Motion, Inc. (spelling as recorded in the source — likely "Networks In Motion")
  • Assignee: TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Internal reorg — merger of the NIM entity into TCS (post-acquisition integration).

• Recorded 2015-07-20 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Silicon Valley Bank, Agent
  • Assignee: Networks In Motion, Inc.; TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.; Solvern Innovations, Inc.; NextGen Communications, Inc.; MicroData GIS, Inc.; MicroData, LLC; Olive Acquisition, LLC
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization unwind — release of the SVB security interest across the TCS family. Note: this occurs 9 days before the Bluestone assignment below.

• Recorded 2015-07-29 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of interest
  • Assignor: TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Bluestone Ventures Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED — this is the single most important face to pull; see Signal 3/4 notes.
  • Context: Transfer-out from the operating company to a third party — the chain leaves the NIM/TCS operating family here. Only 9 days after the SVB release (cleanup-then-transfer sequence).

• Recorded 2016-03-03 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Silicon Valley Bank
  • Assignee: Networks In Motion, Inc.; Solvem [sic] Innovations, Inc.; Quasar Acquisition, LLC; Longhorn Acquisition, LLC; TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Second securitization unwind — a further, companion SVB release against additional TCS vehicles (recorded after the Bluestone transfer).

• Recorded 2018-11-16 — Reel/frame NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Angels Acquisition Corp.; Armer Communications Engineering Services, Inc.; ComTech AeroAstro, Inc.; ComTech Antenna Systems, Inc.; … ; MicroData GIS, Inc.; MicroData, LLC; Networks In Motion, Inc.; NextGen Communications, Inc.; …; TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.; Tiernan Radyne ComStream, Inc. (broad Comtech/TCS entity group)
  • Assignee: Citibank, N.A.
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization — portfolio-wide collateral pledge by the Comtech/TCS group. This encumbers the Comtech/TCS estate, not Bluestone (which by then already held the patent).

Note on the missing-in-action conveyance: There is no recorded assignment back from Bluestone Ventures Inc. in the dataset. Bluestone Ventures Inc. is the current assignee of record. The patent also shows no maintenance-fee payment after grant, producing the "Expired – Fee Related" status with anticipated expiration 2023-04-10.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7565155
    2003 : Filed by Networks In Motion
         : Inventors assign rights to NIM
    2010 : SVB security agreement recorded
    2011 : TCS merger and change of name recorded
    2015 : SVB security release recorded
         : Assigned to Bluestone Ventures Inc
    2016 : Second SVB release recorded
    2018 : Citibank security interest recorded
    2023 : Patent expires for unpaid maintenance fees
    2025 : Bluestone sues Google on family patents

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — UNCLEAR (evidence incomplete).
The patent did leave the operating family: recorded 2015-07-29, TCS → Bluestone Ventures Inc. The assignee name carries the "Ventures" suffix and Bluestone later appears solely as a litigation plaintiff (see Signal 2), with no product evidence surfaced. However, per your rule, the name suffix alone is not a finding, and I did not retrieve Bluestone's assignment-face address, registered-agent service, or formation jurisdiction. Unclear pending the 2015-07-29 assignment face and Bluestone's corporate registration.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT as to the enumerated lists; PRESENT as an active plaintiff.
Bluestone Ventures Inc. does not match any entity on your enumerated NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities), and it did not surface on the RPX/Unified high-frequency-plaintiff directories in the results retrieved. But Bluestone is a current, active patent plaintiff: Bluestone Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00569 (W.D. Tex.), filed 2025-12-12 (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1172879830-bluestone-ventures-v-google). Per the previously generated sections and the complaint analysis, the asserted patents appear to be '208, '341, '337 — later continuations in this same family — and the complaint cites the '155-family specification directly. I could not confirm the '155 patent itself is asserted.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (primary fields missing).
The assignment correspondents are exactly the data I could not retrieve. One related data point: the litigation filer of record on the Bluestone complaint is Raymond W. Mort, III, The Mort Law Firm, PLLC (Waco, TX), a recurring patent-plaintiff attorney. This is litigation counsel, not the assignment correspondent — do not conflate them, and a single appearance is not the recurrence signal you defined. Action item: pull the correspondent field on every reel/frame in the chain above and compare; also compare against the correspondents on the sibling patents ('208/'341/'337/'790 etc.) to test whether one filing attorney ran the whole 2015 TCS-divestiture batch.

4. Cascading transfers — PARTIAL / WEAK PRESENT.
The chain is not a rapid multi-LLC daisy-chain, but there is a tight two-step in 2015: SVB security release recorded 2015-07-20 immediately followed by the TCS → Bluestone Ventures assignment recorded 2015-07-29 — nine days apart. That is the classic release-the-lien-then-transfer cleanup sequence, and a second release followed on 2016-03-03. I did not, however, see multiple chained LLCs sharing a correspondent or address within the chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (for this patent).
The Bluestone transfer (2015) predates the identified litigation (filed 2025-12-12) by roughly ten years — far outside the 6-month window. And the '155 patent is expired. So the transfer was not arranged on the eve of asserting this patent.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT on the evidence retrieved.
The several "Release by Secured Party" events (2015-07-20, 2016-03-03) reflect consensual SVB security releases, not a Chapter 7/11 sale. I found no bankruptcy proceeding involving NIM or TCS. The 2018 Citibank security interest is a going-concern securitization of the Comtech/TCS group, not a liquidation.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR.
TCS transferred the family out to Bluestone in 2015; a decade later Bluestone (not TCS) is the plaintiff. There is no evidence in hand that TCS retained a royalty interest, funded the suit, or is otherwise asserting on TCS's behalf. Standard privateering proof (SEC disclosure, license-back, funding agreement) is absent from the sources retrieved.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Bluestone Ventures Inc., an asserting entity.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Why: The chain leaves the operating company and terminates at Bluestone Ventures Inc., which is not a product company on the evidence in hand and which is currently an active patent plaintiff — Bluestone Ventures, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00569 (W.D. Tex., filed 2025-12-12) — asserting later continuations of this same family (the '208/'341/'337 patents; the '155 patent itself is expired and unconfirmed as asserted). The 2015 hand-off shows a release-then-transfer sequence (SVB release recorded 2015-07-20; TCS → Bluestone assignment recorded 2015-07-29), which is the cleanup pattern that commonly precedes an assertion campaign. I stop short of "high confidence" because the decisive evidence is not yet in hand: I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondent-of-record from the Assignment Center, and Bluestone's address/registered-agent/product status is unverified — so I cannot demonstrate the recurring-attorney and shell-address predicates that would upgrade this to high confidence.

Verification links / next steps:

• USPTO Assignment Center — search patent no. 7565155: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy UI: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)
• Google Patents legal events (source of the dates above): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7565155/en#legalEvents
• Pull the correspondent + reel/frame on the 2015-07-29 TCS→Bluestone face specifically, then compare correspondents across sibling family members ('208 / '341 / '337 / '790 / '077) to test the repeat-correspondent signal.

Open contradictions to flag: (a) the source spells the 2011 merger assignor as "Networks Motion, Inc." and the 2016 release assignee as "Solvem Innovations, Inc." — both appear to be typos for "Networks In Motion" and "Solvern Innovations"; I have not auto-corrected them, per instruction. (b) The previously generated litigation section noted the '155 patent itself is not confirmed as asserted; nothing in this ownership reconstruction contradicts that.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 7,565,155. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig for the specific cited references and the citation list.

Let me pull the actual citation list from the patent's own front page / Justia.

Scope, sourcing, and an important limitation up front

I have to be direct about a limitation that materially affects this task:

I was not able to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" list for US 7,565,155 in this session, and the patent text supplied in the prompt does not include it (the extract is truncated inside the DETAILED DESCRIPTION, just as it omits the claims). Per the operating rules — "If you do not know something with high confidence, say so explicitly rather than fabricating" — I am not going to invent a citation table, reference numbers, or §102 mappings. A fabricated prior-art list would be worse than an empty one for any litigation- or prosecution-grade purpose.

What follows is (a) what I did confirm, (b) the specific traps in the searches for this number, (c) why a §102 claim map cannot honestly be produced from what is on hand, and (d) a precise, reproducible plan to obtain the authoritative citation list.

1. What is confirmed (authoritative, from the patent document)

• US 7,565,155 B2 — "Method and system for dynamic estimation and predictive route generation"; App. No. US 10/410,740; filed 2003‑04‑10; priority 2002‑04‑10 (prov. 60/371,941); granted 2009‑07‑21.
• Pre-grant publication of the same application: US 2005/0075119 A1 (published 2005‑04‑07). This is not prior art to '155 — it is '155's own earlier publication.
• Assignee chain: Networks In Motion → TeleCommunication Systems → Bluestone Ventures Inc.; status Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2023‑04‑10).

Critical consequence for §102: any reference offered as anticipating prior art must predate the 2002‑04‑10 priority date (or qualify under §102(e) with an earlier effective filing). The 2003 filing date is not the cut-off.

2. Identifier discipline — two collisions the search exposed

Per the strict rule (interpret IDs literally, prioritize search results):

1. JP 7565155 B2 (Kobayashi Pharmaceutical, liquid skin-cleansing composition; registered 2024) shares the numeric string and is unrelated. (Already flagged in the earlier section; it recurred and must be excluded.)
2. Forward-vs-backward citation confusion. Several search hits showed the string 7565155 | July 21, 2009 | Sheha et al. — but these were entries in other patents' reference lists that cite '155 (e.g., US 9,560,479; US 9,945,686; US 9,798,325). Those are forward citations (later art relying on '155) and are, by definition, not prior art against '155. Likewise, the "Patent Citations (49)" table my search surfaced (US 4,939,662 / US 5,086,394 / US 5,750,939 …) belongs to a different family/location‑sharing patent, not to '155. Do not mistake these lists for '155's "References Cited."

3. What the '155 patent itself identifies as the prior art it improves on

The specification (which is authoritative here) frames the pre-existing art as:

• AVL / fleet-tracking "breadcrumb trail" systems — a GPS receiver + wireless modem sending discrete location fixes at intervals, displayed as straight-line-connected points with chronological numbering or heading arrows. The patent states this "does not provide … how the mobile device traveled along the underlying routable network infrastructure … from point to point."
• Line-of-sight (LOS) distance ranking for dispatch — the patent expressly says route-based ranking "significantly improv[es] the sorting calculation … when compared to Line-Of-Sight (LOS) distance calculations which are currently used in the prior art."
• Conventional routing/mapping software generally (GIS, personal navigation, telematics).

These are the classes of art the examiner/applicant would have cited. But naming the class ≠ naming the specific reference or its number, and I will not bridge that gap by guessing.

4. Why a §102(claim) mapping cannot be produced right now

Two independent gaps:

1. No claims text. As flagged in the earlier section, the claims were not in the supplied extract, and I did not pull them from a primary source. Mapping references to "claims" is impossible without the claim language.
2. No reference list. I did not retrieve '155's U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents / Other Publications lists.

Both are retrievable; neither was captured in the sources/queries available this session.

5. Reproducible plan to obtain the exact cited references (do this to complete the task)

Run these, and the analyst can then fill the citation table with verified entries:

1. Google Patents — https://patents.google.com/patent/US7565155B2/en → scroll to "Patent Citations" (applicant/examiner-cited references) and "Non-Patent Citations." This is the single fastest source; its underlying data is USPTO-derived. (My search returned only the CPC/abstract portion of this page, not the citation table.)
2. USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter for App. No. 10/410,740 → the "References Cited" and, better, the "Patent Application Information Retrieval" file wrapper / "IFW" for the examiner's PTO‑892 (Notice of References Cited), which segregates the examiner's citations from the applicant's IDS — important, because examiner-cited art carries more weight for §102 analysis.
3. Justia Patents (patents.justia.com/patent/7565155) → its "References Cited" table (U.S. patent documents + other publications).
4. Espacenet INPADOC → the "Cited documents" / "Citing documents" split (backward vs forward — keep only backward/cited).
5. Cross-check each hit for an effective date strictly before 2002‑04‑10 before using it under §102.

Once that list is in hand, the mapping is mechanical: for each reference, state (i) full citation + publication/filing/priority dates, (ii) 2–3 sentence technical description, and (iii) the claim(s) it could anticipate, keyed to the actual claim numbers — with the §102(e)/§102(b) posture noted per reference.

6. Bottom line

• US 7,565,155 is confirmed and is correctly identified; I did not return results for similar numbers.
• I could not produce the cited-references list or a §102 claim map without fabricating, because the patent's "References Cited" section (and its claims) were not present in my sources this session.
• Two identifier traps were confirmed and must be excluded: JP 7565155 B2 (unrelated) and forward citations to '155 in later patents (not prior art).
• The patent's own specification identifies the relevant prior-art classes it improves on: discrete-point breadcrumb/AVL tracking and line-of-sight dispatch ranking.
• Next step: pull the "Patent Citations"/"References Cited" tables for the '155 patent from Google Patents, Justia, or (best) the USPTO file wrapper PTO‑892, filter to references effective before April 10, 2002, and then map to the granted claims.

If you can supply the claims text and/or the front-page "References Cited" list, or authorize me to retrieve them, I will complete the citation-by-citation §102 analysis immediately.

I'll research the prior-art landscape before attempting any § 103 analysis. First, let me flag a threshold problem and then gather references.

I have good candidate references surfacing. Let me verify a few key ones and try to pull the actual reference list on the '155 patent's face.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,565,155 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Current date used for this analysis: April 26, 2026 (per your task header).

A. Threshold caveats (read first — two of these are contradictions with the record)

1. ⚠️ There is no "Prior Art section" in the material supplied for this page. You directed me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." The authoritative Google Patents extract supplied in the earlier turn does not contain a Prior Art section — there is no "Citations," "References Cited," "Patent Citations," "Non-Patent Citations," or "Cited By" listing. The extract terminates mid-sentence in the Detailed Description (§ "The various primary architectures for rou…"), before any claims and before any citation listing. My independent searches for the '155 face-page reference list also failed to return it (the Google Patents snippet returns only CPC/abstract term counts, not the citation table).

Consequence: I cannot verify what the examiner actually cited, and I cannot anchor the analysis to the patent's own prior-art-of-record. The reference set below is my own reconstruction from independent searches. Everything is labeled with its sourcing status.

2. ⚠️ No claims were supplied — this is a hard limit on a § 103 analysis. As flagged in the previous two sections (Patent summary § 4; Litigation summary), the supplied text lacks the claims, and I did not retrieve them from USPTO Patent Public Search. A § 103 analysis is a claim-by-claim exercise (Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, and PHOSITA level). I am therefore performing the analysis against the disclosed subject matter / claim concepts enumerated in the earlier "Patent summary" § 4, not against claim text. Every mapping below is expressly provisional.

3. ⚠️ Date inconsistency between my system context and your header. Your task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026"; my operating context states today is 2026-09-30. Flagging per the standing instruction. This does not affect the priority-date analysis (which keys to April 10, 2002), but it affects any statement about "pending" 2026 litigation.

4. Practical posture. The patent is expired (fee-related, anticipated expiration Apr. 10, 2023). Obviousness would therefore be litigated as an invalidity defense under § 282 in the family litigation (the Bluestone Ventures matters identified earlier), not in an IPR seeking to cancel live claims. For an expired patent, claim construction is still conducted, but there is no injunction exposure.

B. The priority-date gate (this determines what even counts as prior art)

C. Reference set used (with sourcing status)

PHOSITA (provisional): a navigation/GIS engineer as of April 2002 with several years' experience in (a) GPS/dead-reckoning positioning and map-matching, (b) shortest-path/route-optimization algorithms over link-node map databases, and (c) wireless telematics/AVL client-server data transport.

D. Grounds of obviousness (provisional; framed against disclosed subject matter)

Ground 1 — The core "dynamic estimated route" concept (claim concept #1)

[1] + [2]/[3] + [11]

• [1] already discloses locating a vehicle on the nearest stored road segment and then "calculate route to destination."
• [2] and [3] supply the map-matching/snap-to step with error tolerances, and [11]'s Lezniak NPL expressly applies "dead reckoning/map correlation" for automatic vehicle tracking — i.e., rendering the vehicle's path along the road network rather than as raw telemetry points.
• Motivation to combine: the patent's own specification concedes that AVL/fleet-tracking, "breadcrumb" telemetry, and map-matching "are well known to people skilled in the art." Where the only difference from the breadcrumb art is drawing the connecting path along road links instead of straight lines, that is the established function of the map-matching art, applied to the established function of the tracking art. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."

Ground 2 — Predictive routing between updates, incl. "all possible directions" rendering (claim concept #2)

[4] + [5] + [7] (optionally [1]/[6])

• [4] predicts the vehicle's position forward by filtering and maps the prediction to the nearest weighted road segment; [5] predicts position forward precisely to bridge computation latency; [7] "forward-looking origin selection" is predictive routing to a future position.
• The "draw every branch at a fork and erase the branches not taken when the next fix arrives" visualization is a predictable rendering consequence of computing candidate routes from a known position to the next decision nodes: once you have (i) prediction between fixes and (ii) route computation on a link-node graph, drawing all topological successors of the current node and pruning on the next fix is the natural presentation. KSR ("design incentives… market forces"; "a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions").
• Motivation: both [4] and [5] are expressly aimed at the perceived deficiency the '155 addresses (stale/absent display between fixes), which is an explicit, articulable reason to combine.

Ground 3 — Route preferences / optimization goals / avoidance (claim concept #1, preference limitation)

[8] (US 5,878,368) + [13]

• User-definable cost values and cost-based optimization ("fastest," "shortest," avoid highways/tolls) were standard, and [13] documents a commercial system selecting the "shortest route." This limitation is very likely obvious, and if these were the only distinguishing features, the claim would be weak.

Ground 4 — Multi-vehicle comparison / dispatch ranking by route metrics (claim concept #4)

[1]+[3] (map-matched routing) + automated-vehicle-dispatch art

• The advance over the art is substituting network route distance/time for line-of-sight (LOS) distance when ranking candidate vehicles to a central point. The patent itself frames the distinction as LOS vs. route-based ranking.
• Motivation: the dispatch art's whole objective was to minimize response time; once map-matching and route optimization exist (Grounds 1–3), computing each vehicle's route to the pickup is the predictable use of a known technique for its known purpose. This is the KSR "improve one device in the same way" rationale. Fuel-cost ranking is a straightforward cost-function variant of [8].
• ⚠️ I did not verify the specific dispatch references in this session (my four parallel verification searches were cut off at the step limit). The 1980s–90s "automatic vehicle dispatching" art is real and extensive, but I decline to cite case numbers or dates for it that I could not confirm. Verify before relying on this Ground.

Ground 5 — Route planner / re-designating "via" points; saving route + history (claim concepts #3 & #5)

[8] (US 5,922,041 simulator/recorder) + [1] + [9]

• Trip recording, waypoint-based route planning with origin/via/stop/destination point types, POI annotation, and saving/retrieving routes are each known; combining them with the discrete-fix history of the AVL art is a collocation of known functions, and KSR treats mere aggregation of known elements by known methods as obvious absent a functional interaction.

E. Where the strongest non-obviousness arguments lie

1. The fork-branch prediction-and-prune visualization (Ground 2). This is the most specific and least-commoditized concept. If any claim requires rendering all topological successors with time-stepped partial routes and then erasing the untaken legs, an examiner/defendant must show that specific rendering behavior in the art, not merely forward prediction.
2. "Snapped" endpoints used for the route calculation rather than only for display. [1]–[3] snap for display/navigation; if a claim recites snapping as a precondition of the route computation between two tracked fixes, the mapping to [1] needs to be tight.
3. Real-time incremental legs without recomputation. The '155 states only the new leg need be computed (FIG. 14 / ¶ re: "the original estimated route 1201 does not need to be recalculated"). Incremental routing is arguably an inherent/obvious optimization, but it is a candidate feature for a nexus argument.

F. Secondary considerations / rebuttal landscape

• No teaching away. The prior-art references are directed to the same problem (keeping a displayed vehicle position/path accurate and continuous), so there is no critical teaching-away. The patent's criticism of "breadcrumb" trails is a statement about the problem, not a disavowal of the map-matching art.
• § 103 via the patent's own admissions. The specification repeatedly states that mapping software, AVL, LBS, fleet tracking, GPS telemetry, and map matching are "well known to people skilled in the art." Those are admissions usable as prior-art evidence of the general knowledge level (In re Nomiya; MPEP 2144).
• Objective indicia are weak on this record. Commercial success / licensing by successor entities, and the existence of family litigation (flagged on the Google Patents record; the 2025–26 Bluestone Ventures v. Google matter appears to assert later continuations, not the '155 — see earlier Litigation summary § d), do not establish a nexus to any particular claim of the '155, which is required (In re GPAC).
• Good-faith weakness in my own record: the strongest references ([3], [4], [5], [7], [8]) came from my searches, not from the patent's own citation list. If the examiner never cited [3] or [4], a defendant relying on them faces a "new art" framing (helpful to the patentee rhetorically, though not legally dispositive).

G. What is required to make this analysis defensible

1. Obtain the actual claims (USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter, or US 2005/0075119 A1). Redo the mapping claim-element-by-element. Do not carry claim text across from US 10,551,208 / 9,746,341 / 10,274,337 — those are materially different (flagged in the earlier Patent summary § 4).
2. Obtain the '155 face-page citation list ("References Cited" / "Cited By"). Where the examiner already cited art, obviousness is far easier because the reference is "of record."
3. Verify every ⚠️-marked reference in the table above ([15], [16], and the dispatch art in Ground 4) before use.
4. Confirm effective filing dates for [4] (US 6,615,135) and [16] (Knockeart) to establish § 102(e) eligibility.
5. Run a proper claim chart once claims are in hand; expect Grounds 1, 3 and 5 to be the workhorses, Ground 2 to be the contested ground, and Ground 4 to depend entirely on the dispatch art I could not verify.

Bottom line: On the disclosed subject matter, the broadest concepts (dynamic route between discrete fixes, snap-to, route preferences, route planner/saving) are, on the references I could verify, highly vulnerable to § 103 challenges built on [1]+[2] or [3] plus the tracking/map-correlation art ([11], [13]). The predictive, all-branch, time-stepped rendering of Ground 2, and any claim tying "snapping" specifically to the route computation, are the features most likely to survive — but I cannot tell you whether any claim actually recites them, because the claims were never supplied. That gap must be closed before this analysis is relied upon.