InfoGation Corp. v. HERE Global BV — Navigation Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
InfoGation Corporation brought a three-patent infringement action against HERE Global BV in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting HERE’s full suite of mapping, navigation, routing, and SDK products. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after 258 days, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Three navigation patents, one voluntary exit — with finality
InfoGation Corporation filed this patent infringement action on December 5, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the most experienced patent jurists in the country. InfoGation asserted three patents — US8406994B1, US6292743B1, and US10107628B2 — covering navigation routing, geocoding and search, and map rendering technologies against HERE Global BV’s broad portfolio of location intelligence products, including HERE Navigation, HERE Routing, HERE Geocoding & Search, HERE Map Rendering, HERE SDK, HERE Tour Planning, and the HERE WeGo application.
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on August 20, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning InfoGation filed the dismissal unilaterally before HERE served an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was entered with prejudice — a critical distinction — permanently extinguishing InfoGation’s right to bring the same claims against HERE on these three patents. The court also directed the closure of consolidated Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-1020-JRG, suggesting this case was part of a broader multi-defendant campaign that has now fully concluded.
The 258-day timeline and with-prejudice designation, combined with no fee shifting, is consistent with a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — though the public record does not confirm this. The absence of any defendant law firm or agent on record suggests HERE may have resolved the matter privately before formal litigation posture was established. What remains unknown is whether any commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal or whether InfoGation simply chose to abandon the claims entirely.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 258 days
258 days — resolved before trial in E.D. Texas, a court known for fast-tracked patent dockets
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit — but permanent
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. InfoGation exercised this right but chose — or agreed — to make the dismissal with prejudice. That election converts what would otherwise be a cost-free procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring InfoGation from asserting the same three patents against HERE.
Permanent bar on re-filingWith-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future action on these patents against HERE
InfoGation’s decision to dismiss with prejudice means it surrendered its litigation rights against HERE on US8406994B1, US6292743B1, and US10107628B2. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which would preserve the option to refile — this outcome is functionally equivalent to a final judgment against the plaintiff on these specific claims. InfoGation retains the patents and may assert them against other defendants, but HERE is permanently shielded from these specific infringement claims.
Claims against HERE extinguishedHERE secures permanent resolution — no ongoing exposure on three patent families
HERE Global BV and HERE International BV exit this litigation with no finding of infringement, no damages award, and no injunction — and crucially, no risk of InfoGation re-filing on these patents. The each-party-bears-own-costs structure means HERE absorbed its own defence costs, which is typical of pre-answer resolutions. The closure of the consolidated lead case further confirms that HERE’s exposure across this campaign has been fully extinguished in the public docket.
Full exit, no liability foundNavigation IP licensing campaigns face diminishing returns when defendants hold firm
This outcome is consistent with a pattern seen in Eastern District of Texas navigation patent litigation: plaintiffs asserting mapping and routing IP against established platform vendors sometimes exit before substantive defence filings when the commercial calculus shifts. HERE’s product suite — spanning SDK, geocoding, routing, and consumer navigation — remains unencumbered by this action. Other navigation and location-intelligence vendors facing similar assertions from InfoGation should monitor whether the remaining patent portfolio is pursued elsewhere.
Navigation IP campaign concludedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InfoGation, Corp. | Company | Navigation technology licensor — holder of US8406994B1, US6292743B1, and US10107628B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Here Global BV | Individual | HERE Global BV — global location intelligence and mapping platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for InfoGation, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing InfoGation, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts InfoGation’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and enters dismissal with prejudice — the strongest form of voluntary exit available to a plaintiff. The explicit with-prejudice designation, combined with the mutual cost-bearing provision and the simultaneous closure of the consolidated lead case, suggests this was a coordinated conclusion rather than a unilateral abandonment. No infringement finding was made, and no validity determination was reached on any of the three asserted patents, leaving those questions open for future proceedings against other parties.
US8406994B1, US6292743B1 & US10107628B2 — Navigation, Geocoding & Map Rendering
The three asserted patents span foundational layers of modern location intelligence. US8406994B1 (application no. 12/614406) covers navigation routing and guidance — the core of turn-by-turn systems. US6292743B1 (application no. 09/227331) is an earlier-generation geocoding and search patent, suggesting deep priority roots that could complicate invalidity arguments. US10107628B2 (application no. 12/186524) addresses map rendering, a technology embedded in virtually every consumer and enterprise mapping interface today.
Together, these three patents cover the full navigation stack — from address resolution and route calculation to rendered map display — making them relevant to any company operating a mapping API, navigation SDK, fleet management platform, or location-aware application. The breadth of HERE’s accused products (seven distinct services named in the complaint) indicates InfoGation’s theory of infringement was expansive. For competitors in the location-intelligence space, the survival of these patents as enforceable assets post-dismissal represents a continued landscape risk.
Should your navigation or mapping product be cleared against these three patents?
Any company building or licensing geocoding APIs, navigation SDKs, routing engines, or map rendering pipelines should assess its exposure to US8406994B1, US6292743B1, and US10107628B2. InfoGation’s willingness to assert all three patents simultaneously against HERE’s full product suite — and to do so in E.D. Texas — signals an active enforcement posture. The with-prejudice dismissal against HERE does not retire these patents; it frees InfoGation to pursue other targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical architecture against the claim scope of all three InfoGation patents, identify relevant prior art that may inform invalidity positions, and surface any related continuation or divisional applications that could extend the risk horizon. Given the age spread across these patent families, a layered FTO covering both independent and dependent claims is advisable before launching or expanding any navigation or location-services product.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8406994B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar navigation and mapping patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving navigation routing, geocoding, and map rendering patents litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the navigation and location-tech IP landscape
A three-patent campaign against a major mapping platform ends in permanent dismissal — here is what that means for IP strategy in location intelligence.
With-prejudice exits signal resolution, not abandonment — monitor for licensing
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice and each party bears its own costs, the most commercially plausible explanation is a private resolution — a licence, covenant not to sue, or structured settlement. Companies in the navigation and location-services space should treat this outcome as a signal that InfoGation’s patent portfolio may have commercial licensing value that HERE chose to resolve quietly.
InfoGation’s three patents remain live against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal only bars claims against HERE. US8406994B1, US6292743B1, and US10107628B2 remain enforceable assets. Navigation platform providers, SDK vendors, and geocoding API operators not party to this action remain exposed to potential assertion. An FTO review against all three patents is warranted for any company deploying comparable location-intelligence technology.
InfoGation v Here — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. InfoGation filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the court accepted it as a dismissal with prejudice, permanently barring InfoGation from re-asserting the same patent claims against HERE Global BV and HERE International BV.
InfoGation asserted three patents: US8406994B1 (navigation routing, application 12/614406), US6292743B1 (geocoding and location search, application 09/227331), and US10107628B2 (map rendering, application 12/186524). All three relate to core technologies in modern location intelligence platforms.
InfoGation’s complaint named seven HERE products: HERE Geocoding & Search, HERE Map Rendering, HERE Navigation, HERE Routing, HERE SDK, HERE Tour Planning, and HERE WeGo. The breadth of accused products suggests InfoGation pursued a platform-level infringement theory rather than targeting a single feature.
The dismissal order specified that plaintiff InfoGation Corporation, defendant HERE Global BV, and defendant HERE International BV each bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee-shifting award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or any other provision.
The court directed the Clerk to close Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-1020-JRG simultaneously with the member case, noting that no parties or claims remained consolidated therein. This suggests the InfoGation v. HERE action was part of a multi-defendant litigation campaign, all of which has now been resolved or dismissed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.