Engrain Sues Beans.ai Over Alleged Map Copying

Engrain Technology Inc., a Colorado-based provider of apartment mapping software, has filed a federal lawsuit accusing One Hundred Feet Inc., doing business as Beans.ai, and its founders of copying Engrain’s proprietary property maps and related technology to accelerate the launch of a competing 3D mapping product. The complaint asserts that the alleged copying followed a short-lived partnership effort in 2022 that granted the defendants access to Engrain’s materials under contractual restrictions aimed at preventing copying and reverse engineering. Engrain claims it has begun losing customers as Beans markets a free alternative that purportedly offers comparable interactive mapping functionality for multifamily property websites.

Claims Centered on Map Copying and Contract Restrictions

According to the complaint, Engrain’s core allegation is that Beans scraped or reverse-engineered Engrain’s proprietary “unit maps” and used that content to build and promote a competing product called WebWidget, which Engrain contends mirrors the functionality of its flagship offering, SightMap. Engrain brings claims for copyright infringement and breach of contract, alongside unjust enrichment and vicarious infringement, framing the dispute as both an intellectual property case and an alleged violation of negotiated access terms governing the parties’ 2022 interactions.

The suit emphasizes that the alleged misuse occurred after Beans obtained access during the parties’ contemplated business relationship, which Engrain says was subject to anti-copying and anti-reverse-engineering provisions. By characterizing the partnership as the gateway to downstream replication, Engrain positions the contract claim as a key liability theory independent of whether particular maps qualify for protection or whether specific technical processes constitute copying under copyright standards. The complaint’s structure suggests Engrain intends to prove both unauthorized reproduction of map content and improper exploitation of restricted access to accelerate product development.

Alleged Market Impact and Customer Cancellations

Engrain alleges it began suspecting copying in 2024 after a check-in with Entrata, described in the complaint as a major property management software provider and Engrain customer, during which Engrain learned that Beans was offering free immersive maps for integration into property websites. The complaint asserts that this shift created commercial pressure on property operators and software providers to prefer a no-cost mapping tool, and that Engrain’s customers were encouraged to discontinue or avoid deploying SightMap for new and existing properties in favor of Beans’ product.

In terms of damages and competitive injury, Engrain claims at least six customers canceled contracts, citing the free mapping arrangements Beans offered. The pleading also alleges that Beans conducted an extensive sales and advertising push throughout 2025 promoting WebWidget as offering the same functionality as SightMap, contending that these efforts contributed to customer erosion and threatened Engrain’s market position. While the complaint focuses on alleged lost customers and ongoing competitive harm, it also implicitly frames the dispute as involving platform-level integrations with property management systems, where product adoption can shift quickly when offered at no cost.

“Fingerprints” of Copying and the Dispute Over Technology Origins

To support its infringement theories, Engrain alleges it can identify “fingerprints” of copying within Beans’ mapping outputs, including identical spacing and layout quirks in building shapes and the replication of preconstruction GPS coordinate errors that Engrain says it manually assigned to unfinished properties. These allegations are aimed at showing more than functional similarity, attempting to demonstrate shared idiosyncrasies consistent with direct copying rather than independent creation, particularly where the asserted anomalies have no obvious reason to recur absent reuse of the same underlying source materials.

Beans’ co-founder Nitin Gupta has publicly characterized the suit as a “knee-jerk reaction” to the company’s recent commercial success and contended that Beans’ product differs because it uses artificial intelligence rather than human effort to create maps. The complaint, however, highlights Engrain’s investment in building map inventory, alleging it has created more than 20,000 building maps and that each map takes approximately 37 days to complete. Engrain also links demand for unit-level digital mapping to pandemic-era and post-pandemic changes in real estate marketing, underscoring the economic value it attributes to its map library and the claimed harm from the alleged replication of that work.

Case Details

Case Name: Engrain Technology Inc. v. One Hundred Feet Inc. dba Beans.ai et al.

Court Name: U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Case Number: 1:26-cv-00557

Plaintiff Attorney(s): FisherBroyles LLP