Local Interest, LLC v. PetSmart LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
LOCAL INTEREST, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
PETSMART LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00256-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) filed by
Defendant PetSmart LLC (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 31). In the Motion, Defendant moves for
judgment on the pleadings that the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) fails to state a claim for
patent infringement. (Id. at 1). Specifically, Defendant argues that the patents-in-suit claim patent
ineligible subject matter. (Id.). Plaintiff Local Interest, LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the Motion.
(See Dkt. No. 35). Having considered the Motion and its related briefing, and for the reasons
stated herein, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 05, 2025, Plaintiff filed the FAC. (Dkt. No. 22). In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant infringes two (2) of its patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,532,899 (the “’899 Patent”) and U.S.
Patent No. 8,774,834 (the “’834 Patent”) (together the “Asserted Patents”). (Id. ¶ 1).
The Asserted Patents share the same specification and generally relate to “inventive
components that improve upon the function and operation of location-based services in a wireless
network.” (Id. ¶¶ 32, 88). Claim 4 of the ’899 Patent recites:
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
4. A method for providing wireless telecommunication services to
mobile devices, the method comprising:
receiving a command from a user’s mobile device to locate points
of interest near to a location of the user’s mobile device, wherein each of
the points of interest are associated with one of two or more different and
user-identified point of interest categories;
automatically determining the location of the user’s mobile device;
based at least in part on the determined location, automatically
providing to the user’s mobile device a list of points of interest, wherein the
list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest for at
least some of the different and user-identified point of interest categories,
and wherein the list of points of interest represent points of interest that are
geographically closest to the location of the user’s mobile device;
receiving input from the user’s mobile device; and
providing a next-closer list of points of interest, wherein the next-
closer list substantially simultaneously presents at least one point of interest
for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest
categories that are geographically next closest to the location of the user’s
mobile device than points of interest in the list of points of interest.
(Dkt. No. 22-3, at 12:36–60). Similarly, claim 1 of the ’899 Patent recites:
1. A method for providing wireless telecommunication services, the
method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device, a request to identify points of
interest near a location of the mobile device, wherein the request comprises
a plurality of letters;
determining the location of the mobile device;
determining a point of interest having a name comprising a first
portion, the first portion comprising the plurality of letters;
transmitting the name of the point of interest to the mobile device;
receiving, from the mobile device, an indication of a selection of the name
of the point of interest; determining point of interest data associated with
the point of interest; and
transmitting the point of interest data associated with the point of
interest to the mobile device.
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
(Dkt. No. 22-5, at 11:45–63). These patents therefore disclose “method[s] that allow[] users to
locate groups or sets of businesses, points of interests [(“POI’s”)] or other locations and manage
this information in a user-friendly environment.” (Dkt. No. 22-3, at 2:17–21).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
(a) Judgment on the Pleadings
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but
early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(c). A Rule 12(c) motion “is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in
dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings
and any judicially noticed facts.” Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,
313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone Props., Ltd., 914 F.2d
74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990)).
In ruling on a motion under Rule 12(c), the Court may consider the pleadings themselves,
and any exhibits thereto or matters incorporated by reference therein, as long as all the material
allegations of fact are undisputed and only questions of law remain to be decided by the court. See
Voest–Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China, 142 F.3d 887, 891 n.4 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding
that documents attached to the pleadings “thereby [become] part of [the] pleadings”). The pleading
standard for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Doe
v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). Thus, the ultimate question for the court in
deciding a Rule 12(c) motion is whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
complaint states a valid claim for relief. See Hughes v. Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th
Cir. 2001); St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 440 n.8 (5th Cir. 2000).
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
(b) Patent eligibility
Anyone who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” may obtain a patent. 35
U.S.C. § 101. Since patent protection does not extend to claims that monopolize the “building
blocks of human ingenuity,” claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas are not patent eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216-17 (2014). The
Supreme Court instructs courts to distinguish between claims that set forth patent-ineligible subject
matter and those that “integrate the building blocks into something more.” Id.
The Court determines whether patent claims cover ineligible subject matter using a two-
step analytical framework set out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Alice. 573 U.S.
208. At the first step, the Court evaluates whether the claims are directed to ineligible subject
matter, such as an abstract idea. Id. at 217. To do so, the Court looks to the claims’ “character as
a whole.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Although all
claims embody abstract ideas and other ineligible subject matter at some level, the Court’s task is
to examine “whether the claims [] focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely
invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In cases like this, the Court is to “consider the claim as a whole
. . . in light of the specification . . . [and] whether the focus of the claims is on a specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., 965 F.3d
1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up)).
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
If the challenged claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, the Court then “consider[s] the
elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether
the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent eligible application.” Alice,
573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66,
78-79 (2012)). This step is satisfied when the claim limitations “involve more than performance
of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’”
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347-
48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 225). The Federal Circuit has explained that
“[w]hile the ultimate determination of eligibility under § 101 is a question of law, like many legal
questions, there can be subsidiary fact questions which must be resolved en route to the ultimate
legal determination.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128
(Fed. Cir. 2018). As such, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements
is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question
of fact” that must be “proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d
1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
III. ANALYSIS
The parties dispute several points, including: (1) whether claim construction is necessary;
(2) whether claim 4 of the ’899 Patent and claim 1 of the ’834 Patent (the “Asserted Claims”) are
representative; (3) whether the Asserted Claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter
under Alice Step 1; and (4) whether the Asserted Claims have an inventive concept under Alice
Step 2. However, the Court need not address each of these issues because, even when accepting
Defendants’ positions on claim construction, representativeness, and Alice Step 1, factual disputes
under Alice Step 2 preclude judgment on the pleadings.
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
(a) The ’899 Patent
Defendant argues that “[t]here is no inventive concept” in claim 4 of the ’899 Patent. (Dkt.
No. 31, at 10). Defendant asserts that the claim recites no more than “typical” and “generic”
components. (Id.). As evidence, Defendant points to the claim’s recitation of a “mobile unit.”
(Id.). Defendant contends that the term broadly encompasses “any computer” and is required to
generically communicate with either a landline phone or data network, which are also
conventional. (Id.). Additionally, Defendant contends that the FAC has not introduced sufficient
facts to save claim 4. (Id. at 12). Defendant insists that the FAC points to the specification for
support, not the claim itself. (Id.).
Plaintiff responds that factual disputes preclude the Motion. (Dkt. No. 35, at 6). Plaintiff
points to claim 4’s recitation of “receiving a command to locate POIs near the device’s location,
determining that location, and providing a list that ‘substantially simultaneously presents at least
one point of interest for at least some of the different and user-identified point of interest
categories.’” (Id. at 7). According to Plaintiff, retrieving results across categories of POIs in one
step is “something not taught or possible in conventional systems.” (Id. (citations omitted)).
The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Plaintiff has pointed to a “specific and concrete advance
in geolocation technology:” a reduction in the number of steps required to retrieve POIs. Geoscope
Techs. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, 2025 WL 1276235, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2025) (citation omitted).
Indeed, the ’899 Patent provides that the systems and methods described therein “allow a user to
automatically identify in one action or few steps, the locations of a user-specified set of locations.”
(Dkt. No. 22-3, at 2:23–27). The patent further teaches that “stor[ing] POI set information in” a
database facilitates the “skip[ping]” of certain steps in the geolocation process. (Id. at 9:19–35;
see also id. at 10:58–64 (“some processes or blocks may be deleted”)). At this stage of the
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
proceedings, the Court must accept these facts as true and view them in the light most favorable
to Plaintiff. See Guidry v. American Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007).
Moreover, claim 4 captures this advancement. Specifically, the claim recites, inter alia:
“A method for providing wireless telecommunication services . . .
comprising . . . receiving a command from a user’s mobile device to locate
[POIs] . . . wherein each of the [POIs] are associated with one of two or
more different and user-identified point of interest categories . . . [and]
based at least in part on the determined location, automatically providing
to the user’s mobile device a list of points of interest.”
(Dkt. No. 22-7 ¶ 48 (emphasis in original)). Thus, a factual inquiry remains as to whether these
ordered combination of claim elements are routine, conventional, and well understood.”
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED with respect to the ’899
Patent. While the ’899 Patent is directed to an abstract concept at Alice Step 1, the underlying
factual issues to be resolved at Alice Step 2 preclude a grant under Rule 12(c) at this time and
under these circumstances.
(b) The ’834 Patent
Defendant argues that claim 1 of the ’834 Patent lacks an inventive concept for the same
reasons as claim 4 of the ’899 Patent. (See Dkt. No. 37, at 8 (“The ’834 Patent relies on the same
generic equipment as the ’899 Patent”); Id. (“The expert testimony regarding the ’834 Patent is a
precise mirror of the discussion of the ’899 Patent”)).
Plaintiff argues in response that the “claims of the ’834 Patent disclose an inventive
concept.” (Dkt. No. 35, at 24). Plaintiff reasons that claim 1 recites a “particular configuration of
a mobile device, location server, POI and user databases, and a logic-driven UI” that was not
routine or generic. (Id. at 23–24). Further, Plaintiff contends that this configuration “provide[s]
technical improvements in mobile-location based services.” (Id. at 24).
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Again, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. There is still an outstanding fact question as to
whether the ordered combination of elements recited by claim 1 are routine, conventional, and
well-understood. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368. As above, Plaintiff has alleged that claim 1 of
the ’834 Patent—which is a continuation application of the ’899 Patent—recites a method that
improves geolocation services by reducing the number of steps required to search POIs. The ’834
Patent confirms that a “request compris[ing] a plurality of letters” as recited by claim 1 facilitates
this improvement. (See Dkt. No. 22-3, at FIG. 4). At this stage of the proceedings, the Court must
accept these facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Guidry, 512
F.3d at 180. For the same reasons as addressed above regarding the ’899 Patent, the outstanding
fact question renders judgment on the pleadings improper here. See id. at 181.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED as to the ’834 Patent.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is
DENIED.
So Ordered this
Feb 19, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-00256-JRG Document 56 Filed 02/20/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>