Activemap Files a New Round of Eastern District of Texas Suits Over Retail Store Locator Maps.

The suits

The October 6 complaints include Activemap LLC v. Warby Parker Retail, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00905; Activemap LLC v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, No. 2:26-cv-00901; Activemap LLC v. Academy, Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00906; Activemap LLC v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00893; Activemap LLC v. Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00895; and Activemap LLC v. Five Below, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00894. Dockets also show same-day Activemap patent suits against Target Corporation (No. 2:26-cv-00903), Tractor Supply Company (No. 2:26-cv-00907), and PetSmart LLC (No. 2:26-cv-00899), and six more Activemap cases opened that day whose case type is not yet listed: Best Buy Stores, L.P. (No. 2:26-cv-00892), Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (No. 2:26-cv-00896), Penney OpCo LLC (No. 2:26-cv-00897), lululemon usa inc. (No. 2:26-cv-00898), Sephora USA, Inc. (No. 2:26-cv-00900), and Walgreen Co. (No. 2:26-cv-00904). This article describes only the six complaints named above. The six complaints named above each assert the same three patents and the same claims against the defendant's store locator website.

In the Warby Parker complaint, Activemap says it is a New York limited liability company based in Brooklyn, that its technology has resulted in 30 licenses, and that it has twice taken related European patents to court in Germany. It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) on a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas. All three patents are titled Interactive Electronically Presented Map.

The asserted claims

Claim 2 of the '464 patent covers a method in which at least one computer causes a display device to show, at the same time, a first portion of a map centered at first x and y coordinates, information on that map portion about items in the area it represents, and user-selectable information outside the map portion that responds to a query. When a user selects information outside the map, the display shows, instead of the first map portion, a second map portion centered at a different x coordinate, y coordinate, or both, with item information, query-responsive selectable information, and additional information about the selection. A second, different selection repeats that step with another map portion.

Claim 1 of the '943 patent covers a computer-implemented method that, in response to a request, presents a first display with a portion of a geographical area, item information at two or more locations on it, and selectable information identifying at least a first and a second item. Selecting the first item produces a second display that includes additional information about that item, and selecting the second item from the second display produces another display showing a partially different portion of the area with additional information about the second item. Claim 1 of the '782 patent covers a similar method that starts from a query identifying a category of items in a geographic area and re-centers the area representation at a different x coordinate, y coordinate, or both after each selection.

Notice, knowledge, and relief

The Warby Parker complaint alleges that the defendant "made, used, sold, offered to sell, and/or imported" the accused products "during the enforceable term" of each patent, and that damages are "in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of first infringement to the expiration" of each patent. Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration date of April 30, 2022 for all three. Under 35 U.S.C. 286, no recovery may be had for infringement committed more than six years before the complaint is filed, so for these complaints the damages period begins no earlier than October 6, 2020. The complaint pleads compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. 287, by actual notice or marking, or, alternatively, that the notice provisions do not apply because the patents are directed to methods or the patentee never made or sold a patented article. For knowledge, it alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant "has a policy or practice against investigating third party patent rights, and its willful blindness qualifies for requisite knowledge" of each patent. The prayer asks for a declaration of infringement, damages, treble damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 for willful infringement, and costs, fees, expenses, and interest.

Earlier suits on the same patents

Activemap asserted the same three patents in earlier Eastern District of Texas suits, including Activemap LLC v. Lucky OpCo LLC, No. 2:26-cv-00161, filed February 27, 2026. That complaint asserted claim 1 of the '464 patent rather than claim 2, and alleged that the defendant "did and continues to" make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the accused products. On July 21, 2026, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III consolidated cases from that round "for pretrial issues only, with the exception of venue," with Activemap LLC v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00160, as the lead case.

What to watch next

Watch for answers or motions to dismiss in the new cases, including any challenge to the marking or willful blindness allegations, and for any consolidation order. Any of the cases can end at any time by license, settlement, or dismissal.