The Federal Circuit has dealt another blow to GeoTag, Inc.’s online advertising and mapping campaign with an April 1, 2016 decision upholding a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement of the patent-in-suit (5,930,474) for Google (15-1140). The Federal Circuit also rejected GeoTag’s argument that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Google’s claims, finding jurisdiction proper, albeit under a rationale different from the one proffered by Judge Richard D. Andrews.

A district judge in Texas ruled in favor of Domino’s Pizza, the only remaining defendant in a GeoTag suit targeting websites with store locator features. GeoTag sued Domino’s in December 2010, along with more than 40 other restaurant chains, for alleged patent infringement. The patent-in-suit relates to a software interface that organizes information on the basis of geographic location and allows users to search a remote database (5,930,474). GeoTag’s complaint focused on features of defendants’ websites that allow customers to find locations of restaurants. As of September 2014, all defendants, with the exception of Domino’s, had settled or been dismissed from the case.

This week a redacted memorandum opinion was released in Google’s battle against GeoTag in Delaware District Court. Judge Richard Andrews has granted Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of a location-based search patent asserted by GeoTag against over 400 companies, many of which are Google customers. The patent-in-suit relates to a software interface that organizes information on the basis of geographic location and allows users to search a remote database (5,930,474). Since July 2010 GeoTag has filed more than 100 suits alleging infringement of ‘474, targeting web-based mapping services that find and display business locations and job openings. The defendants in these cases include technology and software companies, social networking sites, retail stores, and restaurants and range from mid-size businesses to Fortune 500 companies. In March 2011 Microsoft and Google sought a declaratory judgment that GeoTag’s ‘474 patent was invalid and was not infringed by their web mapping services. According to the complaint, many of Microsoft’s and Google’s customers requested indemnity and defense as a result of GeoTag’s myriad lawsuits. In response GeoTag filed counterclaims for infringement of ‘474, accusing Microsoft’s Bing services and careers feature and multiple Google products including AdWords.

Geotag [NPE] filed suit against Where 2 Get It, Seiko Epson and 15 others over a patent related to web pages that incorporate geographical searches. 3/14, District of Delaware, 2:2011cv00175. Microsoft and Google filed a complaint (March 1, 2011) seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement against GeoTag. GeoTag has filed suit against companies that use Google and Microsoft web mapping services. The complaint filed by Microsoft and Google alleges that, “The suits have placed a cloud on Plaintiffs’ web mapping services, have caused customers to seek relief from Plaintiffs, and have created a justifiable controversy between Plaintiffs and GeoTag.” The complaint also claims that in 2009, “M2 Global Ltd. paid GeoMas an aggregate consideration of nearly $119M for the ’474 Patent and some other intellectual property.” The patent has been assigned multiple times to entities, each with ties to John Veenstra, who was CEO of ZLand (the original assignee) and a co-inventor of the patent. On his website, Veenstra claims to have invented both factory-built housing and the fiberglass bathtub. In 2006, the Geotag patent was asserted against Idearc, a Verizon spin off. In 2007, the founder of Geomas reported that he’d raised $20M to enforce the patent. Friedman Suder Cooke approached RPX regarding potential sublicense rights for members in May 2010. GeoTag filed an S-1 for a public offering in November 2010. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1504463/000119312510258592/ds1.htm