Ann: Nearmap made aware of complaint in US District Court (Utah), page-317

First 317 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
FlightTime

1,214 Posts.

278

30/03/22

16:03

Post #: 60524804
Share

Originally posted by Shtevie77: ↑

In the Utah Action, the Plaintiffs assert that at least two products of Nearmap,
both of which are separate and distinct products from GAF’s QuickMeasure roof
reports, infringe the Plaintiffs’ patents, “including (1) Nearmap on OpenSolar and (2)
MapBrowser.” [Id. at 2 ¶ 1.]

GAF maintains that the District of Utah is the more convenient venue for the
Case 1:21-cv-10669-RMB-SAK Document 65 Filed 03/28/22
present infringement action, arguing that the software behind its Accused Product
was developed entirely outside of New Jersey through a partnership between GAF,
Nearmap, and another Minnesota-based entity known as “Pushpin”:

GAF does not make QuickMeasure reports, did not design or develop any of
the QuickMeasure oftware, and has never maintained or controlled any of
the QuickMeasure oftware. Instead, QuickMeasure reports are generated
through a partnership between Utah-based Nearmap . . . and Minnesota-based
Primitive LLC (d/b/a Pushpin) (hereafter “Pushpin”). QuickMeasure reports
are white-labeled by GAF, but GAF’s role is essentially limited to sales and
marketing of those reports.

Looks like GAF uses a Nearmap / Pushpin partnership to produce Quickmeasure roofing reports similar to those Eagleview produces with Pictometry software. Therefore, if the calculation used to produce these reports is deemed patented and unique and sitting with Eagleview, the QuickMeasure reports would also violate the patent.

Please correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly as I work in the Medical Imaging sector not Aerial Imaging and definitely not Law....

Expand

So Eagleview are "casting a wide net"... Makes it look like an even more of a cynical attempt to stop Nearmap taking market share by targeting Nearmap's customers.

NEA Price at posting: $1.52 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
4 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply