GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. Trimble Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Trimble Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01274, D. Colo., 05/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant Trimble Inc. maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality products infringe a patent related to using visual markers that are digitally encoded with geographic coordinate data to accurately position virtual objects in a real-world view.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a core challenge in augmented reality by embedding precise, real-world geographic location information into scannable markers, aiming to improve the registration accuracy and stability of digital overlays in professional applications like construction and surveying.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of a line of applications dating back to 2012, indicating a developed prosecution history that may inform claim construction. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-06-23	’885 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2019-11-18	’885 Patent Application Filing Date
2021-08-03	’885 Patent Issue Date
2024-05-08	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,080,885 - Digitally encoded marker-based augmented reality (AR)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,080,885, titled “Digitally encoded marker-based augmented reality (AR),” issued on August 3, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem of inaccurate registration in augmented reality systems, where digital models can appear to "drift" or be misplaced relative to the physical world. This inaccuracy is attributed to the imprecision of device-based GPS and the fact that conventional AR markers lack inherent, real-world location data. (’885 Patent, col. 1:47-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using a "Digitally Encoded Marker" (DEM), such as a QR code, that contains embedded "real world geographic coordinate data" (e.g., latitude/longitude). An AR device captures an image of this marker, decodes the precise geographic coordinates, and uses that data to accurately register and position a virtual object in the displayed real-world scene, thereby creating a more seamless and stable AR experience. (’885 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-col. 3:4). The patent's Figure 1 illustrates this concept, showing a marker (100) with data fields for a header (100A), geographic coordinate type (100B), and the coordinate data itself (100C).
• Technical Importance: This method aims to combine the benefits of marker-based tracking for local orientation with embedded, absolute geo-location data for global positioning, a combination intended to provide highly accurate AR for industrial and professional use cases. (’885 Patent, col. 2:46-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’885 patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '885 Patent Claims" identified in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 (a method claim) and Claim 11 (a device claim), which are foundational to the patent's scope.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving an input image of a physical environment containing a digitally encoded marker (DEM).
  • Decoding data from the DEM, where the data comprises "at least one of geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data."
  • Retrieving digital content for a virtual object.
  • Displaying an augmented reality image that includes an overlay of the virtual object positioned based on the data decoded from the DEM.
• Independent Claim 11 (User Device) includes the following essential elements:
  • A camera to capture an image of a marker encoded with data.
  • Memory storing a digital model of a virtual object.
  • Components to determine the user device's location and orientation.
  • A utility to extract data from the marker, which includes "at least one of geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data" and an "object identifier."
  • An AR image generator to generate an AR image with the virtual object positioned based on the extracted data.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims, later in the litigation (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, or methods by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in the charts of Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that Trimble directly infringes the ’885 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" products that practice the patented technology (Compl. ¶11). The complaint also alleges that Trimble's internal testing and use of these products constitute direct infringement (Compl. ¶12). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that Trimble's AR systems utilize scannable markers placed in a physical environment, and that these markers contain encoded data which is used to align and display a digital model, thereby practicing the methods and systems claimed in the ’885 Patent (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the data encoded on Trimble’s markers constitutes "geographic coordinate data" as that term is used in the patent. The resolution will depend on whether Trimble’s systems use global coordinate systems (e.g., latitude/longitude) or purely local, site-specific coordinate systems, and how the claims are construed to cover either scenario.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be what data is actually decoded from Trimble's markers and how that data is used to "position" the virtual object as required by Claim 1. The complaint lacks the factual specificity to determine if the accused products perform the claimed functions of decoding and registering based on "geographic coordinate data" or "relative coordinate data."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "geographic coordinate data"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's claimed point of novelty. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the data used in Trimble’s accused systems falls within the construed scope of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples: "latitude/longitude, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate, World Geodetic System (WGS) 84, and the like." Plaintiff may argue the phrase "and the like" extends the term's meaning to other types of coordinate systems, potentially including structured local or site-specific systems. (’885 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background repeatedly frames the invention as a solution to the imprecision of "Global Positioning System (GPS)." Defendant may argue this context limits the term to global, geodetic, or earth-centered coordinate systems, as opposed to arbitrary coordinate systems established for a single construction site. (’885 Patent, col. 2:1-10; col. 2:55-58).

• The Term: "relative coordinate data"

• Context and Importance: Claims 1 and 11 recite "at least one of geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data." Practitioners may focus on this term because if Trimble's systems are found not to use "geographic coordinate data," infringement will turn on the meaning of "relative coordinate data" and its relationship to the former term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone definition for "relative coordinate data," which could support applying its plain and ordinary meaning—coordinates relative to any origin. The use of the disjunctive "or" in "at least one of" suggests it is an alternative to, and therefore distinct from, "geographic coordinate data." (’885 Patent, col. 12:7-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that, read in the context of the entire patent, "relative coordinate data" should be understood as data relative to a known geographic point, such as an offset from a surveyed benchmark. The specification also lists "relative coordinate data" as a type of optional metadata, which could be argued to mean it is secondary to the core geographic-based invention. (’885 Patent, col. 3:60-62).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that since the filing of the complaint, Trimble has had knowledge of the ’885 Patent and has continued to sell its products while distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint contends that the service of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts provide Trimble with "actual knowledge of infringement," and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A foundational issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: a court may first have to address whether the complaint, which fails to identify any specific accused products or the "Exemplary Claims" it asserts, and instead relies entirely on an unattached exhibit, provides sufficient notice under federal pleading standards.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical fact: what specific data is encoded on the markers used by Trimble's AR systems? Discovery will be required to determine if this data constitutes "geographic coordinate data," "relative coordinate data," or something else not covered by a reasonable construction of the claims.
• The case will likely turn on a core issue of definitional scope: can the term "geographic coordinate data," which the patent repeatedly ties to solving problems with global positioning systems, be construed broadly enough to read on the localized, site-specific coordinate systems potentially used in Trimble's construction and surveying products?