Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 962
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`NORTHSTAR SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VOLKSWAGEN AG,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`NORTHSTAR SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00486-JRG (Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00496-JRG (Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 963
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION – THE COMPLAINT REMAINS DEFICIENT AND
`SHOULD BE DISMISSED AGAIN FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ...................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND – NORTHSTAR’S CONTINUED REFUSAL TO
`OBSERVE THIS COURT’S PLEADING STANDARDS .................................................2
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) – The Iqbal/Twombly Pleading Standard as Applied to
`Infringement Allegations Requires More Than Conclusory Statements .................3
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT – NORTHSTAR FAILED TO CORRECT ITS DEFICIENT
`INFRINGEMENT PLEADINGS FOR ASSERTED SOFTWARE CLAIMS ....................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`NorthStar Failed to Provide Sufficient Claim-Specific Infringement
`Pleadings for Asserted Software Claims..................................................................4
`
`NorthStar’s Amended Complaint Recites the Same Conclusory Statements
`as the Original Complaint ........................................................................................7
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION – NORTHSTAR’S REFUSAL TO CORRECT ITS
`PLEADINGS WARRANTS DISMISSAL ........................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 964
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...........................................................................................................1, 3, 5
`
`Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-CV-00300-JRG, 2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018) ............................2, 6
`
`Chemetron Corp. v. Bus. Funds, Inc.,
`682 F.2d 1149 (5th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................14
`
`Effectively Illuminated Pathways LLC v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North
`America, Inc.,
`2011 WL 13223466 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2011) .........................................................................6
`
`Enniss Family Realty I, LLC v. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc.,
`916 F. Supp. 2d 702, 717 (S.D. Miss. 2013)............................................................................14
`
`Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.,
`565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Qwikcash, LLC v. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 4:19-cv-876-SDJ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215341 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17,
`2020) ..........................................................................................................................................4
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Echostar Corp.,
`No. 6:17-cv-00084 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018) ......................................................................1, 14
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley,
`721 F.Supp.2d 538 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 10, 2010) ...........................................................................7
`
`Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Tex.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1955, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83897 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2016) ...........................4
`
`Semcon Ip Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00437-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) ...................................................1, 14
`
`Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co.,
`234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................14
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 965
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Compare of NorthStar’s Amended Complaint, Dkt. 74, versus NorthStar’s
`Original Complaint, -486 case, Dkt. 1
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 966
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO
`LOCAL RULE 7(a)(1)
`
`
`
`1) Whether the Court should dismiss this patent case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`12(b)(6) because Plaintiff NorthStar Systems LLC’s Amended Complaint again fails to allege
`facts or details supporting any theory of infringement for its software-based claim terms.
`
`2) Whether NorthStar should be permitted to amend its Amended Complaint yet again, nine
`months after the case began, where NorthStar refuses to respond to the Court’s direction
`regarding deficiencies in NorthStar’s original Complaint.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 967
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION – THE COMPLAINT REMAINS DEFICIENT AND
`SHOULD BE DISMISSED AGAIN FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`The Court already dismissed Plaintiff NorthStar Systems LLC’s (“NorthStar”) original
`
`Complaint against Defendant Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMW”) under Rule 12(b)(6) for
`
`failure to state a claim, finding “NorthStar’s factual allegations of infringement are thin” and that
`
`“[t]here should be more than the claim language presented this way.” Dkt. 71 at 5. Despite the
`
`Court granting NorthStar a second try, NorthStar fails to address its deficient pleadings and again
`
`fails to properly plead a cause of action under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
`
`When a party is not diligent, like NorthStar here, and when an amendment is so late it would cause
`
`prejudice to the other party, the complaint should be dismissed. Realtime Data LLC v. Echostar
`
`Corp., No. 6:17-cv-00084 at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018); Semcon Ip Inc. v. Huawei Device USA
`
`Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00437-JRG-RSP, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017). Thus, in response to
`
`NorthStar’s continued insufficient pleadings, BMW moves again under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss
`
`the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it
`
`lacks the required specificity for pleading a cause of action.
`
`For direct infringement, the Court agreed that NorthStar’s original Complaint did “little
`
`more than parrot the claim language,” and found “[t]here should be more than the claim language
`
`presented this way.” Dkt. 71 at 5. On amendment, however, NorthStar did not heed the Court’s
`
`suggestion and left its claim-specific infringement pleadings untouched in its Amended Complaint.
`
`See Ex. 1.1 Further yet, NorthStar’s claim-specific infringement pleadings directed towards the
`
`unspecified and nebulous accused “BMW navigation system”—an indefinite moniker not limited
`
`by a finite specified product, referring to any number of systems available in thousands of
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1 is a comparison between NorthStar’s original Complaint and its Amended Complaint, showing the few
`changes made in response to the Court’s prior Order. NorthStar only added (identical) new single-sentence paragraphs
`26, 38, 52, 63, 73, and added sentences to paragraphs 28, 41, 55, 66, 76.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 968
`
`vehicles—invoked the higher Chapterhouse degree of pleading standard for intangible software
`
`claims, which NorthStar likewise failed to satisfy (yet again). Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:18-cv-00300-JRG, 2018 WL 6981828 at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018). An example of the
`
`exponential number of unnamed products involved is exemplified by NorthStar’s patent claims
`
`requiring “a mobile communication device,” Dkt. 74 at ¶¶ 62, 72, and yet not accusing BMW AG
`
`of making or using any cellphones. Similarly, NorthStar accuses BMW of using “a social
`
`network,” Dkt. 74 at ¶ 22, and yet cannot provide any examples and does not accuse BMW of
`
`operating a social network. Nor could NorthStar plausibly raise these allegations. NorthStar thus
`
`failed to address the deficient pleadings which fail to provide sufficient factual allegations to draw
`
`a reasonable inference of direct infringement and should be dismissed once more. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because NorthStar had its opportunity and declined to take advantage
`
`of it, and NorthStar has not sought to further amend, NorthStar’s Amended Complaint should be
`
`dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND – NORTHSTAR’S CONTINUED REFUSAL
`TO OBSERVE THIS COURT’S PLEADING STANDARDS
`
`NorthStar filed the original Complaint in this case on December 27, 2022. Dkt. 1, -496
`
`case. BMW filed a motion to dismiss based in part on NorthStar’s failure to state a claim under
`
`Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. 26. The Court granted the motion to dismiss because of NorthStar’s failure to
`
`state a claim on September 5, 2023. Dkt. 71. The Court also granted leave for NorthStar to amend,
`
`pointing to particular deficiencies in NorthStar’s Complaint. See id., 4-7. NorthStar filed an
`
`Amended Complaint on September 12, 2023. Dkt. 73. NorthStar only amended its original
`
`Complaint to add five sentences, the same sentence accusing BMW of testing and/or
`
`troubleshooting the Accused Products for each of the respective five Asserted Patents. See Ex. 1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 969
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) – The Iqbal/Twombly Pleading Standard as Applied to
`Infringement Allegations Requires More Than Conclusory Statements
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain “enough
`
`facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`
`544, 570 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
`
`conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`This “plausibility” standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
`
`unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s
`
`liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility’ of ‘entitlement to relief.’”
`
`Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
`
`The complaint must contain enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation
`
`that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiff’s claim. Lormand v. US
`
`Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 255–57 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, if a patent-infringement
`
`complaint contains “factual allegations [that] are actually inconsistent with and contradict
`
`infringement,” the complaint fails “to state a plausible claim.” Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`
`4 F.4th 1342, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT – NORTHSTAR FAILED TO CORRECT ITS DEFICIENT
`INFRINGEMENT PLEADINGS FOR ASSERTED SOFTWARE CLAIMS
`
`Although the Court pointedly explained the flaws of NorthStar’s claim-specific pleadings
`
`and its original Complaint, NorthStar failed to address them in its Amended Complaint,
`
`necessitating yet another dismissal. NorthStar’s only amendment to the original Complaint, adding
`
`the same five sentence accusing BMW of testing and/or troubleshooting the Accused Products for
`
`each of the respective five Asserted Patents, failed to cure NorthStar’s claim-specific deficient
`
`pleadings. Further, NorthStar’s continued allegation of infringement of a nebulous “BMW
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 970
`
`navigation” software system, invoked the heightened pleading standard for software claims
`
`(particularly ones that accuse large ranges of functionality), yet NorthStar refused to meet this
`
`elevated pleading standard. Additionally, NorthStar’s asserted method claims recite an abstract
`
`idea without any inventive concept. NorthStar failed to cure the deficient pleadings.
`
`In short, in a race to burden BMW with costly litigation and discovery of an indefinite
`
`“BMW navigation system,” NorthStar refuses to satisfy its threshold pleading standards time, after
`
`time—the Amended Complaint remains deficient and NorthStar’s case should be dismissed, again.
`
`A.
`
`NorthStar Failed to Provide Sufficient Claim-Specific Infringement
`Pleadings for Asserted Software Claims
`
`NorthStar still failed to provide any citations, references, mappings, or any kind of analysis
`
`for its Asserted Patents and associated claim-specific mapped pleadings in its Amended
`
`Complaint. Dkt. 74. In fact, NorthStar failed to amend its claim-specific infringement pleadings,
`
`resting on its conclusory parroting claim 1 of the Asserted Patents with no factual bases at all. See
`
`Dkt. 74 ¶¶ 19-76. However, “a plaintiff cannot assert a plausible claim for infringement under the
`
`Iqbal/Twombly standard by re-citing the claim elements and merely concluding that the accused
`
`product has those elements.” Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1353; see, also., Qwikcash, LLC v. Blackhawk
`
`Network Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-876-SDJ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215341, *7-8 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Nov. 17, 2020); Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Tex., No. 2:15-cv-1955, 2016 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 83897, *12 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2016).
`
`The Court in fact previously acknowledged these deficient claim-specific pleadings, noting
`
`NorthStar’s failure to properly plead its claim-specific infringement theories, finding that
`
`“NorthStar’s factual allegations of infringement are thin.” Dkt. 71 at 5. In fact, the pleadings are
`
`worse, as none of NorthStar’s mappings rely on any factual allegations at all. The Court has already
`
`found that NorthStar’s pleadings do “little more than parrot the claim language,” and found
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 971
`
`“[t]here should be more than the claim language presented this way.” Dkt. 71 at 5. The Federal
`
`Circuit has found that this lack of factual allegation warrants dismissal. Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1353
`
`(“a plaintiff cannot assert a plausible claim for infringement under the Iqbal/Twombly standard by
`
`reciting the claim elements and merely concluding that the accused product has those elements.
`
`There must be some factual allegations that, when taken as true, articulate why it is plausible that
`
`the accused product infringes the patent claim.”). There are no factual allegations to be taken as
`
`true for the Asserted Patents, and thus NorthStar’s claims should be dismissed.
`
`NorthStar’s inability to explain how the accused products meet any limitation of the claims
`
`means that NorthStar has not identified the accused products with specificity. There is no
`
`indication in the Amended Complaint of which products infringe versus which do not. NorthStar
`
`uses the term “BMW’s navigation system,” or the same with capital letters, but this is only a
`
`generic term with no bounds to the number or names of products it captures. Instead, “navigation
`
`system” is a generic phrase that describes hundreds or thousands of software functions. Different
`
`vehicles have different navigation systems, and yet NorthStar fails to state how a single vehicle’s
`
`navigation system (of hundreds of thousands of vehicles) meets a single limitation of any claim of
`
`the Asserted Patents. Thus, BMW respectfully submits there are hundreds of unnamed systems
`
`involved, including systems external to the vehicles such as cellphones and third-party operating
`
`systems and functionality (e.g., Apple® iOS, Apple® Maps, Android™ platform, Google Maps™,
`
`etc.). See Dkt. 74 at ¶ 62 (the ’416 patent asserted claim requiring “a mobile communication
`
`device” that receives information from “a cellular tower”); id. at ¶ 72 (the ’432 patent asserted
`
`claim requiring “a mobile communication device” and “accessing the database to obtain
`
`information regarding the communication options available along the route); id. at ¶ 22 (the ’297
`
`patent asserted claim requiring coupling to “a social network” and “a mapping service”); id. at ¶
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 972
`
`35 (the ’297 patent asserted claim coupling to “a mapping service”); id. at ¶ 51 (the ’527 patent
`
`asserted claim requiring retrieving “mapping-media content”). NorthStar has failed to
`
`appropriately map a single claim to the Accused Product and does not distinguish accused products
`
`or software from any other, including the many third-party products required by the claims like
`
`mapping services, cellphones, cell towers, wireless communication option databases, and social
`
`networks. Accordingly, NorthStar has not met its burden, and these pleadings should be dismissed.
`
`Furthermore, specificity is required in software cases because the allegations are meant to
`
`inform defendants what they must defend. Effectively Illuminated Pathways LLC v. Aston Martin
`
`Lagonda of North America, Inc., 2011 WL 13223466, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2011) (“[c]ases
`
`involving more nebulous, less tangible inventions such as computer software methods require a
`
`greater degree of specificity to put the defendant on notice.”). NorthStar’s claims are even similar
`
`to the claims in Chapterhouse where more specificity was required. Like Chapterhouse, the claims
`
`in this case cover software. Compare Chapterhouse, 2018 WL 6981828 at *3 (the claimed system
`
`requiring “a database for storing,” a “generator,” that performs basic functions like “generating,”
`
`“transmitting,” “receiving,” and “initiating”) with the ’432 patent (asserted claim 1 reciting a
`
`method of “storing in a database,” “determining whether to switch,” “accessing the database,” and
`
`“obtaining updated information.”); see also, e.g., the Asserted Patents. Also, like Chapterhouse,
`
`this case involves complicated technology—the Asserted Patents have dozens of elements each.
`
`Id. And NorthStar’s claims are directed to intangible software elements, including those of a
`
`navigation system, the systems, processors, and components that make up the navigation system,
`
`and the methods performed within those systems. Accordingly, a heightened pleading standard
`
`should be required. Yet, despite the software claims, which the Court and NorthStar acknowledges,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 973
`
`Dkt. 71 at 4-5, NorthStar has provided no factual basis that would define which systems are
`
`accused.
`
`Additionally, NorthStar’s indirect infringement allegations fail because NorthStar’s direct
`
`infringement allegations should be dismissed. Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, 721
`
`F.Supp.2d 538, 544 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 10, 2010).
`
`B.
`
`NorthStar’s Amended Complaint Recites the Same Conclusory
`Statements as the Original Complaint
`
`Like its original Complaint, NorthStar’s Amended Complaint pleads merely conclusory
`
`statements. In fact, NorthStar did not revise any of its claim-specific mappings to the accused
`
`devices in its amendment. Exactly as in its original Complaint, the only allegations pleaded in
`
`support of direct infringement are rote paragraphs that parrot the asserted claim language, followed
`
`by repetition of that same claim language broken down by element—with no factual allegations,
`
`merely unexplained or annotated screen captures untethered to claim language or any specific
`
`accused product. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 22-24, 35-37, 48-51, 62, 72; see Ex. 1
`
`NorthStar alleges that BMW AG infringes “at least claim 1,” of each the Asserted Patents
`
`without citing to a single factual allegation. NorthStar favors a mere parroting of the claim
`
`language over substance. In the tables below, identical portions of the asserted claim language and
`
`NorthStar’s Complaint are in underline. Importantly, these are the exact same tables that were
`
`included in BMW AG’s earlier-filed motion to dismiss, with only paragraph numbers to the
`
`amended complaint updated—proving that NorthStar made no meaningful amendment to the
`
`direct infringement allegations in its Amended Complaint.
`
`’432 Patent Claim 1
`
`A method of selecting which of a plurality of
`wireless communication options will be used
`
`Amended Complaint Allegations
`(Amended Complaint, ¶ 72)
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs a
`method of selecting which of a plurality of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 974
`
`by a mobile communication device,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) storing in a database information
`indicative of coverage areas for the wireless
`communication options along a route that the
`mobile communication device will be
`traversing, including storing boundary
`locations of the coverage areas for the
`wireless communication options along the
`route where the boundary locations stored are
`limited to boundary locations that are on
`streets of the route;
`
`(b) determining at the mobile communication
`device where on the route that the mobile
`communication device is at as it traverses the
`route;
`
`(c) accessing the database to obtain
`information regarding the communication
`options available alone the route;
`
`(d) determining whether to switch from a first
`one of the wireless communication options
`presently being used to a second one of the
`wireless communication options when the
`mobile communication device approaches a
`boundary of a coverage area of one of the
`wireless communication options based on the
`wireless communication options available
`once the boundary is crossed and those that
`will be available further alone the route;
`
`(e) switching from the first one of the wireless
`communication options to the second one of
`the wireless communication options if the
`determination was made to switch to that
`second one of the wireless communication
`options; and
`
`wireless communication options will be used
`by a mobile communication device.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of storing in a database information
`indicative of coverage areas for the wireless
`communication options along a route that the
`mobile communication device will be
`traversing, including storing boundary
`locations of the coverage areas for the
`wireless communication options along the
`route where the boundary locations stored are
`limited to boundary locations that are on
`streets of the route.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of determining at the mobile
`communication device where on the route that
`the mobile communication device is at as it
`traverses the route.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of accessing the database to obtain
`information regarding the communication
`options available alone the route.
`
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of determining whether to switch from a
`first one of the wireless communication
`options presently being used to a second one
`of the wireless communication options when
`the mobile communication device approaches
`a boundary of a coverage area of one of the
`wireless communication options based on the
`wireless communication options available
`once the boundary is crossed and those that
`will be available further alone the route.
`
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of switching from the first one of the
`wireless communication options to the second
`one of the wireless communication options if
`the determination was made to switch to that
`second one of the wireless communication
`options.
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 975
`
`(f) obtaining updated information concerning
`the coverage areas of the wireless
`communication options and updating the
`database with the updated information,
`wherein one of the plurality of wireless
`communication options is not using any
`wireless communication, and wherein the step
`of obtaining updated information concerning
`the coverage areas of the wireless
`communication options includes obtaining
`this information from providers of the
`wireless communication options.
`
`
`
`’943 Patent Claim 1
`
`A method of displaying object vector
`indictors (“OVI”) referencing social-network
`map-objects (“MO”) on an electronic map,
`comprising;
`
`providing an electronic device with a map-
`display application that is coupled to a
`mapping service, a social network, and a
`display for displaying a selected area of the
`electronic map;
`
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of obtaining updated information
`concerning the coverage areas of the wireless
`communication options and updating the
`database with the updated information,
`wherein one of the plurality of wireless
`communication options is not using any
`wireless communication, and wherein the step
`of obtaining updated information concerning
`the coverage areas of the wireless
`communication options includes obtaining
`this information from providers of the
`wireless communication options.
`
`
`Amended Complaint Allegations
`(Complaint, ¶¶ 22-24)
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs a
`method of displaying object vector indictors
`referencing social-network map-objects on an
`electronic map.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of providing an electronic device with a
`map-display application that is coupled to a
`mapping service, a social network, and a
`display for displaying a selected area of the
`electronic map.
`
`authenticating to the social network
`
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of authenticating to the social network.
`
`obtaining from the social network the map-
`objects
`
`
`determining that coordinates of the map-
`objects not withing the selected area of the
`electronic map.
`
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of obtaining from the social network the
`map-objects
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of determining that coordinates of the
`map-objects not withing the selected area of
`the electronic map.
`
`computing distance and travel related
`information (e.g., arrival time) from a location
`within the selected area of the electronic map
`to the map-objects
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of computing distance and travel related
`information (e.g., arrival time) from a location
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 976
`
`
`
`computing a placement position of an object
`vector indicator referencing the map-objects
`on the map display application
`
`
`creating the object vector indicators
`containing distance and travel-related
`information
`
`
`displaying the object vector indicators on the
`display at the computed placement position
`
`
`receiving a user input selecting the object
`vector indicator
`
`
`displaying a secondary area of the electronic
`map, wherein the secondary area is a region
`of the electronic map centered approximately
`around the map-object
`
`
`displaying the MO approximately at the
`center of the secondary area.
`
`
`
`within the selected area of the electronic map
`to the map-objects.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of computing a placement position of an
`object vector indicator referencing the map-
`objects on the map display application
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of creating the object vector indicators
`containing distance and travel-related
`information
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of displaying the object vector indicators
`on the display at the computed placement
`position
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of receiving a user input selecting the
`object vector indicator
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs a
`method of displaying a secondary area of the
`electronic map, wherein the secondary area is
`a region of the electronic map centered
`approximately around the map-object
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of displaying the map-object
`approximately at the center of the secondary
`area.
`
`’297 Patent Claim 1
`
`A method for displaying object vector
`indicators (“OVI”) referencing map-objects
`(“MO”) on an electronic map, comprising:
`
`providing an electronic device having a map-
`display application that is coupled to a
`mapping service and a display for displaying
`a selected area of the electronic map;
`
`Amended Complaint Allegations
`(Complaint, ¶¶ 35-37)
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs a
`method for displaying object vector indicators
`referencing map objects on an electronic map.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of providing an electronic device having
`a map-display application that is coupled to a
`mapping service and a display for displaying
`a selected area of an electronic map.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 977
`
`determining that coordinates of the MO are
`not within the selected area of the electronic
`map;
`
`computing distance and travel-related
`information from a location within the
`selected area of the electronic map to the MO;
`
`computing a placement position of an OVI
`referencing the MO on the map-display
`application;
`
`creating the OVI containing the distance and
`travel-related information;
`
`displaying the OVI on the display at the
`computed placement position;
`
`receiving user input selecting the OVI;
`
`displaying a secondary area of the electronic
`map, wherein the secondary area is a region
`of the electronic map centered approximately
`around the MO; and
`
`displaying the map-object approximately at
`the center of the secondary area.
`
`
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of determining that coordinates of the
`map object are not in the selected area of the
`electronic map.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of computing distance and travel-related
`information (e.g., arrival time) from a location
`within the selected area of the electronic map
`to the map-object.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of computing a placement position of an
`object vector indicator referencing the map-
`object on the map-display application.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of the creating the object vector indicator
`containing the distance and travel-related
`information.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of displaying the object vector indicator
`on the display at the computed placement
`position.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of receiving user input selecting the
`object vector indicator.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of displaying a secondary area of the
`electronic map, wherein the secondary area is
`a region of the electronic map centered
`approximately around the map-object.
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of displaying the map-object
`approximately at the center of the secondary
`area.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 80 Filed 10/18/23 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 978
`
`’527 Patent Claim 1
`
`A method for displaying object vector
`indicators (“OVI”) and mapping-media
`content, referencing map-objects (“MO”) on
`an electronic map, comprising:
`
`Amended Complaint Allegations
`(Complaint, ¶¶ 48-51)
`[T]he BMW Navigation System performs a
`method for displaying object vector indictors
`and mapping-media content, referencing map-
`objects on an electronic map.
`
`obtaining a map-object from a mapping
`service;
`
`determining that coordinates of the map-
`object are not within a selected area of the
`electronic map;
`
`computing distance and travel-related
`information to the map-object;
`
`displaying an object vector indicator
`containing the distance and travel-related
`information;
`
`receiving user input selecting the OVI;
`
`retrieving mapping-media content associated
`with the selected OVI; and
`
`The BMW Navigation System performs the
`step of obtaining a