Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Nearby Systems v. Kohl’s | Patent Lawsuit 2:26-cv-00259

Nearby Systems, LLC v. Kohl’s Corporation

2:26-cv-00259 E.D. Tex. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 29 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 10 Jun 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:26-cv-00259
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
29 Mar 2026 – 10 Jun 2026
Duration
73 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
The “Kohl’s App.”
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:26-cv-00259, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US11937145B2 Active App. US16/570298

Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices

A method and apparatus for mapping addressable information (e.g., locations denoted by name or address, street addresses, landmarks, etc.) off of disparate applications on a mobile device, onto an existing map on the mobile device, are disclosed. An application on a mobile device may display addressable information (e.g., a website displaying a location name and/or address, an email containing an address, etc.). In response to a user’s selecting the addressable information and invoking a mapping command, a map-display application (e.g., Google Maps®, Yahoo! Maps®, Windows Live Search Map®, MapQuest®, iPhone® maps, Waze® etc.) may be automatically presented (e.g., launches, become visible, displayed, etc.) displaying the addressable information in addition to at least one prior mapping content previously displayed by the map-display application.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
19 Mar 2024
Est. expiry
17 Oct 2028
Validity challenges
1 on record2022-004658 · Patentability · filed by Gabriel Jakobson
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W4/00G06F3/04847H04M1/72457H04W4/02H04W4/029G06F3/0482G09B29/00
Prosecution counsel
KASHA LAW LLC
Examiner
PAULA, CESAR B
US11937145B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US11937145B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US12185177B2 Active App. US18/436421

Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices

A method and apparatus for mapping addressable information (e.g., locations denoted by name or address, street addresses, landmarks, etc.) off of disparate applications on a mobile device, onto an existing map on the mobile device, are disclosed. An application on a mobile device may display addressable information (e.g., a website displaying a location name and/or address, an email containing an address, etc.). In response to a user’s selecting the addressable information and invoking a mapping command, a map-display application (e.g., Google Maps®, Yahoo! Maps®, Windows Live Search Map®, MapQuest®, iPhone® maps, Waze® etc.) may be automatically presented (e.g., launches, become visible, displayed, etc.) displaying the addressable information in addition to at least one prior mapping content previously displayed by the map-display application.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
31 Dec 2024
Est. expiry
12 Oct 2027
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W4/00G06F3/04847H04M1/72457H04W4/02H04W4/029G06F3/0482G09B29/00
Prosecution counsel
KASHA LAW LLC
Examiner
BASHORE, WILLIAM L
US12185177B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US12185177B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Nearby Systems LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 28.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned member case, No. 2:26-cv-00259-JRG-RSP is voluntarily dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned member case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Case 2:26-cv-00259 · E.D. Tex. · closed 10 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:26-cv-00259?

2:26-cv-00259 is a patent infringement action brought by Nearby Systems, LLC against Kohl’s Corporation, filed on 29 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 10 June 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 2:26-cv-00259?

US11937145B2 (“Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices”), assigned to NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC, currently active; US12185177B2 (“Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices”), assigned to NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC, currently active; US10469980B2 (“Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices”), assigned to NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC; US9532164B2 (“Mashing mapping content displayed on mobile devices”), assigned to NEARBY SYSTEMS LLC. The record also lists The “Kohl’s App.”.

How was case 2:26-cv-00259 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Nearby Systems LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 28.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned member case, No. 2:26-cv-00259-JRG-RSP is voluntarily dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned member case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 2:26-cv-00259 take?

73 calendar days, from filing on 29 Mar 2026 to closure on 10 June 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00259?

Carey Matthew Rozier, James Francis McDonough III, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt and Sujeeth Rajavolu are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Nearby Systems.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:26-cv-00259 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00259 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.