Local Interest Sues Choice Hotels Over Its Mobile App on Two Expired Location-Search Patents.

The parties and the patents

The case is Local Interest, LLC v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00920 (E.D. Tex.), in the Marshall Division. The complaint describes Local Interest as a Texas company with a registered office in Austin and Choice Hotels as a Delaware corporation headquartered in North Bethesda, Maryland. Both patents are titled System for Providing Location-Based Services in a Wireless Network, Such as Locating Sets of Desired Locations. The '899 patent issued May 12, 2009 from an application filed November 8, 2004, and the '834 patent issued July 8, 2014 from an application filed November 30, 2012. The '899 patent's face shows a patent term adjustment of 639 days, which puts its expiration at August 9, 2026, two months before this complaint. The '834 patent claims priority to the same November 8, 2004 application with no adjustment, which puts its expiration at November 8, 2024.

What the patents cover

Claim 4 of the '899 patent covers a method in which a user's mobile device sends a command to locate nearby points of interest in two or more different, user-identified categories; the system automatically determines the device's location and returns a list that presents, at substantially the same time, at least one of the closest points of interest for at least some of those categories; and, on further input, it returns, based at least in part on the determined location, a next-closer list that substantially simultaneously presents at least one of the next closest points of interest for at least some of those categories.

Claim 1 of the '834 patent covers a method in which a mobile device sends a request to identify nearby points of interest that includes a plurality of letters; the system determines the device's location, finds a point of interest whose name has a first portion containing those letters, sends the name to the device, receives the user's selection of that name, and sends back data about that point of interest.

What the complaint alleges

The accused product is the Choice Hotels mobile application for iOS and Android, which the complaint says has more than 1 million downloads and about 50 thousand reviews on Google Play. It alleges direct infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of at least claim 4 of the '899 patent and at least claim 1 of the '834 patent, with the infringement evidence in exhibits. It pleads that Local Interest or its predecessors satisfied the statutory requirements to collect pre-filing damages, and that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. It does not plead willfulness, and its counts plead direct infringement only.

Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) based on Comfort Suites hotels in Plano and Tyler, Texas, and the complaint cites an earlier Eastern District of Texas case, Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-00780, in which Choice Hotels answered that it would not challenge venue.

Relief requested

Local Interest asks for a judgment of infringement, damages of at least a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284 with interest and costs, and fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 if the case is found exceptional. It does not ask for an injunction, and it demands a jury trial.

What it means

With both patents expired, the case is about past damages only. Under 35 U.S.C. 286, damages are limited to infringement within six years before the complaint, so the damages period runs from October 9, 2020 to November 8, 2024 for the '834 patent and to August 9, 2026 for the '899 patent. The eligibility question has already been litigated on these claims. In Local Interest, LLC v. PetSmart LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00256 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Gilstrap denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. 101 on claim 4 of the '899 patent and claim 1 of the '834 patent, finding that "[w]hile 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" (ECF No. 56 at 7), and denying the motion as to the '834 patent because of "an outstanding fact question as to whether the ordered combination of elements recited by claim 1 are routine, conventional, and well-understood" (id. at 8).

Court dockets show six other Local Interest suits in the Eastern District of Texas. The PetSmart case was dismissed on the parties' stipulation in July 2026, the case against Petco on Local Interest's voluntary dismissal in May 2026, and the case against Costco without prejudice on Local Interest's voluntary dismissal in June 2026. Its suits against Ulta, Macy's, and FedEx, filed in July 2026, remain open, and Ulta and FedEx have moved to dismiss. None has reached a judgment on the merits.

What to watch next

Watch for Choice Hotels' answer or a motion to dismiss, whether any eligibility challenge addresses the PetSmart ruling, the rulings on the pending motions in the Ulta and FedEx cases, and any inter partes review petitions.