Push Data LLC vs. Citibank: Settlement Ends Geographic Browser Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Push Data LLC v. Citibank, N.A. |
| Case Number | 4:23-cv-01117 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Dec 2023 – Aug 2024 245 days |
| Outcome | Settlement — Mutual Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Citibank’s products or services incorporating geographical web browser functionality |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity whose IP portfolio targets location-based and data distribution technologies, focusing on licensing and enforcing patent rights.
🛡️ Defendant
A subsidiary of Citigroup Inc., a major global financial institution with extensive digital infrastructure and location-based customer services.
Patents at Issue
This case centered on three United States patents covering geographical web browser methods, apparatus, and systems — technology increasingly relevant as financial institutions integrate location-aware digital platforms into customer-facing products.
- • US7292844B2 — Geographical web browser technology
- • US7058395B2 — Methods related to geographical web browsing
- • US7212811B2 — Apparatus and systems for geographical web browsing
Developing location-aware services?
Check if your geospatial technology might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On August 20, 2024, after 245 days from filing, the Court entered an order of dismissal with prejudice as to both Push Data LLC’s infringement claims against Citibank and Citibank’s counterclaims. The dismissal was by mutual agreement of the parties, with each party agreeing to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Key Legal Issues
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for its patent-plaintiff-friendly environment. The swift 245-day resolution, without public disclosure of damages or injunctive relief, suggests a negotiated settlement before substantial litigation expenditures. No judicial findings on validity, infringement, or claim scope entered the public record, which strategically preserved the patents’ claim scope for potential future assertions.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in geographical web browser and location-aware technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in geospatial patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for location tech
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Geographical web browser methods & systems
3 Core Patents
Covering location-aware web tech
Design-Around Options
Potentially available for some claim aspects
✅ Key Takeaways
Eastern District of Texas filings by NPEs continue to generate early settlement outcomes, reinforcing the venue’s strategic value for patent plaintiffs.
Search related case law →Mutual dismissal with prejudice and fee-neutral terms signal confidential licensing resolution, avoiding “exceptional case” determinations.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
Three patents: US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — all covering geographical web browser methods, apparatus, and systems.
The parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute and jointly requested dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims, with each party bearing its own legal costs.
Without claim construction rulings, the patents’ claim scope remains judicially untested, potentially preserving their utility for future assertion campaigns against other defendants in the geospatial technology space.
Companies can protect themselves by conducting freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis before finalizing product features, documenting design and development evolution thoroughly, considering design-around strategies for high-risk elements, and filing their own patents early in the product development cycle. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO tools help R&D and IP teams identify potentially blocking patents before products go to market.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Case Locator — Case No. 4:23-cv-01117, Eastern District of Texas
- Google Patents — US7292844B2
- Google Patents — US7058395B2
- Google Patents — US7212811B2
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.