Never-Search v. Apple: All Six Golf Mapping Patents Invalidated at Pleading Stage
Never-Search, Inc. filed suit against Apple Computer, Inc. in the Northern District of California asserting six golf mapping patents. In just 242 days, Judge Rita F. Lin granted Apple’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding every asserted patent directed at patent-ineligible subject matter — ending the case before discovery.
Six § 101 Invalidity Rulings End Golf Mapping Suit Against Apple
Never-Search, Inc. filed this infringement action on July 1, 2024 in the Northern District of California, asserting six patents — US7388519B2, US8219318B2, US9177330B2, US9599479B2, US10509810B2, and US11372903B2 — against Apple Computer, Inc. in connection with golf mapping products and functionality. The patents span application dates ranging from the mid-2000s through 2020, suggesting a portfolio built across multiple technology generations in the golf navigation and mapping space.
The case terminated on February 28, 2025, with Judge Rita F. Lin granting Apple’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on all claims. The court held that all six asserted patents are directed at patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, rendering them invalid. Leave to amend was denied outright on the grounds that amendment would be futile — a significant finding that forecloses any attempt by Never-Search to replead its claims. Judgment was entered in Apple’s favour.
Resolution in 242 days without discovery suggests Apple mounted a successful early § 101 challenge, a strategy that has become increasingly common in software and mapping-related patent disputes post-Alice. The futility finding is particularly notable: it signals the court viewed the patent-eligibility defects as structural and incurable, not merely a pleading deficiency. The public record does not indicate whether Never-Search will appeal, but the with-prejudice dismissal raises the bar considerably for any further challenge.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 242 days
242 days — resolved at pleading stage, well before trial
Motion to dismiss granted: what § 101 invalidity means for both parties
All six patents invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at pleading stage
Apple successfully challenged patent eligibility via a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the asserted claims are directed at abstract ideas without an inventive concept. The court agreed for all six patents, applying the two-step Alice/Mayo framework. This is a pre-discovery resolution — no claim construction, no expert reports, no trial required.
§ 101 — abstract matterNever-Search loses all claims; amendment barred as futile
The with-prejudice dismissal and denial of leave to amend extinguishes Never-Search’s ability to relitigate these claims in this forum. A futility finding means the court concluded no revised pleading could cure the § 101 defects — consistent with a structural invalidity ruling rather than a drafting failure. Never-Search’s enforcement strategy for this patent portfolio appears severely curtailed.
Enforcement foreclosedApple wins on all counts — judgment entered in its favour
Apple obtained a complete defence victory without reaching the merits of infringement. Judgment was entered by the court in Apple’s favour, and the case was closed. This outcome eliminates the asserted patent portfolio as a near-term litigation threat, and the invalidity holdings — though not precedential on their own — may inform related proceedings if Never-Search pursues parallel litigation.
Full defence victoryGolf mapping and navigation IP faces heightened § 101 scrutiny
This ruling suggests that golf mapping and location-based sports navigation patents framed as software-implemented methods face a high risk of § 101 invalidation at the pleading stage. Companies in adjacent spaces — sports analytics, GPS-based course management, AR golf applications — should assess whether their own portfolios or third-party assertions carry similar abstract-idea risk. Early claim construction and eligibility audits are advisable.
Sports mapping patent riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Never-Search, Inc. | Company | Golf mapping patent assertion entity — holder of US7388519B2 and five related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple Computer, Inc. | Company | Apple Computer, Inc. — global consumer electronics and software companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Abanoub Henry | Attorney | Counsel for Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason McManis | Attorney | Counsel for Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mateo Zavaletta Fowler | Attorney | Counsel for Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Killingsworth | Attorney | Counsel for Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sujeeth Rajavolu | Attorney | Counsel for Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Weining Bai | Attorney | Counsel for Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | MZF Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Never-Search, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew J. Danford | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Li-Tsung Alyssa Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Liv Leila Herriot | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Daniel Selwyn | Attorney | Counsel for Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmerhale | Law Firm | Representing Apple Computer, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rita F. Lin | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s verdict language is unambiguous: all six patents were found directed at patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101, rendering them invalid on their face. The simultaneous invalidity of patents spanning nearly two decades of filings (2004–2020) suggests the abstract-idea taint was inherent to the claimed inventions rather than a function of claim drafting. The denial of leave to amend on futility grounds removes the typical safety valve available to plaintiffs after a 12(b)(6) dismissal, making this a terminal outcome at the district court level barring a successful appeal.
Six Golf Mapping Patents — US7388519B2 through US11372903B2
The six asserted patents — US7388519B2 (filed 2004), US8219318B2 (filed 2008), US9177330B2 (filed 2014), US9599479B2 (filed 2015), US10509810B2 (filed 2017), and US11372903B2 (filed 2020) — collectively cover golf course mapping, navigation, and location-based guidance technologies. The portfolio spans approximately 16 years of patent filings, suggesting incremental or continuation-based claim strategies in the golf navigation domain. All six ultimately failed the § 101 abstract-idea test.
From a strategic standpoint, this portfolio’s breadth across multiple application generations made it a potentially significant enforcement tool against GPS-enabled golf applications. Apple’s products — including Apple Maps, Apple Watch golf features, and third-party golf apps distributed via the App Store — were the apparent commercial targets. The court’s § 101 rulings effectively devalue the entire portfolio and may affect parallel or follow-on assertion strategies by Never-Search against other technology defendants.
Should you run an FTO against the Never-Search golf mapping patent portfolio?
Any company developing GPS-based golf course navigation, augmented reality golf applications, sports location services, or mapping tools integrated into wearable devices should assess exposure to this patent family. Although all six patents have been held invalid in this proceeding, the invalidity is a district court determination — not a final IPR or Federal Circuit ruling — and a future plaintiff with similar claims or related continuation patents could still assert analogous rights.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of the Never-Search portfolio, identify any continuation or related applications still in prosecution, and surface comparable § 101 risk across the broader golf and sports navigation patent landscape. This is especially relevant for teams building course management, GPS caddie, or shot-tracking features into consumer hardware or mobile platforms.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9177330B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Golf Mapping & Sports Navigation Patent Cases in N.D. California
Explore patent infringement cases involving golf mapping, sports navigation, and location-based technology software patents litigated in N.D. California federal courts.
What this case signals for the golf mapping and sports tech IP landscape
A pre-discovery § 101 sweep of six patents is a significant data point for anyone asserting or defending mapping-related software IP.
§ 101 motions to dismiss remain a powerful early weapon in software patent suits
Apple’s clean sweep at the pleading stage — invalidating six patents simultaneously — demonstrates that a well-constructed Alice/Mayo argument can resolve a case before meaningful litigation costs accrue. Defendants facing software mapping and navigation claims should assess § 101 exposure as the first line of defence, particularly in the N.D. California.
Patent portfolios built on abstract golf mapping methods carry high invalidation risk
All six asserted patents, spanning filings from 2004 to 2020, failed the § 101 test. This multi-generation failure suggests the underlying inventive concept — rather than claim drafting vintage — was the core issue. IP counsel reviewing golf technology, sports navigation, or location-aware software portfolios should audit claims against post-Alice eligibility standards proactively.
Never-Search v Apple — key questions answered
Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California granted Apple’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on February 28, 2025, holding that all six asserted golf mapping patents — US7388519B2, US8219318B2, US9177330B2, US9599479B2, US10509810B2, and US11372903B2 — are directed at patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Judgment was entered for Apple and the case was closed.
The court found all six patents directed at abstract ideas, applying the Alice/Mayo two-step framework. Although the specific reasoning appears in the order referenced as ‘previously stated,’ the ruling covers patents from multiple application generations (2004–2020), suggesting the abstract-idea defect was structural rather than a drafting issue. Leave to amend was denied as futile.
A with-prejudice dismissal means Never-Search cannot refile the same claims in the same court. The additional denial of leave to amend — on futility grounds — means the court found no amended pleading could cure the § 101 defects. This effectively ends enforcement of these six patents in this forum, though an appeal to the Federal Circuit remains a theoretical option.
Never-Search was represented by Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing PLLC and MZF Law Firm PLLC, with counsel including Abanoub Henry, Jason McManis, and Michael Killingsworth among others. Apple was represented by WilmerHale (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP), with counsel including Mark Daniel Selwyn and Andrew J. Danford.
The ruling is a district court decision and is not formally binding precedent. However, it constitutes persuasive authority in related proceedings and signals judicial receptiveness to § 101 challenges against software-implemented golf navigation claims. Other defendants facing similar assertions from Never-Search or comparable patent holders should consider early § 101 motions as a primary defence strategy.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.