Kioba Processing v. Compass, Inc. — Real Estate Mapping Patent Infringement Action
Kioba Processing, LLC filed suit against real estate technology company Compass, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of US8056017B2, a patent covering a real estate value map computer system. The case was filed in November 2023 and closed within approximately 82 days, suggesting a swift early resolution.
Swift closure in the real estate proptech patent space
On 9 November 2023, Kioba Processing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Compass, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00760). The asserted patent, US8056017B2 — filed under application number US12/367340 — covers a real estate value map computer system, a technology directly relevant to the kind of interactive property search and mapping interfaces that characterise modern real estate platforms like Compass.
The case was closed on 30 January 2024, approximately 82 days after it was filed. The public record does not specify a basis of termination, meaning the precise mechanism of closure — whether dismissal, settlement, or another disposition — is not confirmed from available data. Plaintiff counsel came from Daignault Iyer LLP, a firm known for patent assertion work, while Compass retained a two-firm defence team: George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton, LLP and Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, LLP.
The brevity of the litigation is notable. Cases of this type in the Western District of Texas typically proceed well beyond 82 days before reaching any substantive ruling, suggesting early resolution — possibly through negotiated settlement or voluntary dismissal — before significant motion practice. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any licensing agreement was reached or whether Compass successfully challenged the asserted claims at an early procedural stage.
Filing to filing in 82 days
Case duration — closed within approximately 82 days of filing
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kioba Processing, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8056017B2 (real estate value map system)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Compass, Inc. | Company | Compass, Inc. — technology-driven residential real estate brokerage platform.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachary H. Ellis | Attorney | Counsel for Kioba Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | B. Russell Horton | Attorney | Counsel for Compass, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edgar Matias | Attorney | Counsel for Compass, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis A. Klapp , III | Attorney | Counsel for Compass, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael H. Fleck | Attorney | Counsel for Compass, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Kathleen Cardone | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
No formal verdict is recorded in the available public docket for this case. The matter closed approximately 82 days after filing without a public ruling on the merits. This is consistent with early-stage resolution — either voluntary dismissal or confidential settlement — before the court issued substantive decisions. Both parties retain their legal positions with respect to the asserted patent claims, and the absence of a merits ruling means US8056017B2 was neither invalidated nor confirmed infringed through this proceeding.
US8056017B2 — Real Estate Value Map Computer System
US8056017B2 protects a computer-implemented system for generating and displaying value maps in the real estate domain — technology that underlies interactive property valuation and geographic search interfaces. Filed under application number US12/367340, the patent’s claims sit at the intersection of data visualisation, geographic information systems, and property market analytics. This positions it squarely within the proptech software stack that powers consumer-facing real estate search platforms.
For companies operating real estate search, listing, or valuation platforms, this patent represents a meaningful risk vector. Kioba Processing’s decision to assert it against Compass — one of the most prominent technology-forward residential brokerages in the U.S. — suggests confidence in the patent’s claim scope relative to modern mapping interfaces. Any competitor offering interactive value overlays or map-based property search tools should treat this patent as a live enforcement asset warranting close monitoring.
Should your platform run an FTO analysis against US8056017B2?
Any product team building or maintaining a real estate platform with map-based property valuation, interactive value overlays, or geographic search features should evaluate exposure to US8056017B2. The patent’s assertion against Compass — a major, well-resourced defendant — signals that the patent holder is willing to pursue high-profile targets. Proptech companies, MLS technology vendors, and real estate data aggregators are all potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US8056017B2 against your product’s technical architecture, flagging specific claim elements that may require design-around or licensing consideration. Eureka’s claim monitoring alerts you if continuation patents or related applications extend the same family — critical intelligence for any product roadmap in the real estate value mapping space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8056017B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in real estate technology and mapping software
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the proptech IP landscape
A short-lived but deliberate assertion against a named-brand real estate platform carries signals worth reading carefully.
Proptech platforms face rising exposure from mapping patent assertions
The assertion of a real estate value map patent against a company of Compass’s profile suggests that interactive mapping and valuation interfaces are increasingly targeted by patent holders. Proptech product teams should audit their mapping stack — particularly any feature set involving dynamic property value overlays or geographic data visualisation — for potential claim overlap with issued patents in this space.
Western District of Texas remains a preferred venue for patent assertion
Filing in the Western District of Texas is a deliberate strategic choice. The district’s historically plaintiff-friendly procedural posture and experienced patent docket make it a consistent choice for assertion entities. Defendants headquartered outside Texas should factor in the cost and logistics of W.D. Tex. defence when assessing early settlement value — a dynamic that may have contributed to the rapid closure of this case.
Kioba v Compass — key questions answered
Kioba Processing asserted US8056017B2, a patent covering a real estate value map computer system, filed under application number US12/367340. The case was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The case closed approximately 82 days after filing on 30 January 2024, without a recorded verdict or stated basis of termination. This timeline is consistent with early settlement or voluntary dismissal, though the public record does not confirm the specific mechanism of resolution.
US8056017B2 is a U.S. patent covering a computer-implemented real estate value map system. It relates to the display and processing of property valuation data in a geographic/map interface — technology relevant to interactive property search and valuation platforms in the real estate sector.
Kioba Processing was represented by Daignault Iyer LLP (attorney Zachary H. Ellis). Compass was defended by two firms: George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton, LLP and Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, LLP, with attorneys B. Russell Horton, Edgar Matias, Louis A. Klapp III, and Michael H. Fleck.
No. The case closed without a merits ruling, meaning the validity of US8056017B2 was neither confirmed nor challenged through a court decision in this proceeding. The patent remains an active enforcement asset, and third parties in the real estate technology sector should treat it accordingly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.