GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. Media Horizons LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Media Horizons LLC (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-06297, S.D.N.Y., 08/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and committing the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to marker-based augmented reality systems that use digitally encoded geographic coordinates to position virtual objects.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of accurately registering virtual objects within a real-world view in augmented reality applications by embedding precise geographic location data into scannable markers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that Defendant’s knowledge of infringement began with the service of the complaint itself, suggesting no pre-suit notice was provided. The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a series of applications and claims priority to an application filed in 2011.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,080,885 - "Digitally encoded marker-based augmented reality (AR)," issued August 3, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a key problem in augmented reality (AR) systems: the "lack of precision" that causes virtual objects to "drift" or "jump out of position" relative to the real world (ʼ885 Patent, col. 1:52-58). It notes that location-based AR using GPS is often inaccurate, while traditional marker-based AR lacks a connection to real-world coordinates ('885 Patent, col. 2:4-9, 2:28-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system where a visual marker, such as a QR code, is digitally encoded with "real world geographic coordinate data" ('885 Patent, col. 2:56-63). An AR device captures an image of the marker, decodes the embedded geographic data, and uses that precise location to register a virtual object in the AR view, thereby creating a more stable and accurate experience ('885 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This method solves the registration problem by tying the virtual object to a fixed, real-world geographic point provided by the marker itself ('885 Patent, col. 3:6-14).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the reliability of AR experiences by combining the visual-tracking precision of markers with absolute real-world positioning, without relying on potentially inaccurate device sensors like GPS ('885 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary '885 Patent Claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating by reference a non-proffered claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
  • Receiving an input image of a physical environment from a camera where a "digitally encoded marker (DEM)" is present.
  • Decoding data from the DEM, with the data comprising "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, where the object is positioned based on the decoded data from the DEM and the marker's location.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringing "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" throughout the pleading.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the accused instrumentality's features, functions, or operation. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unnamed products "practice the technology claimed by the '885 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No information regarding the products' commercial importance or market position is provided.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates by reference an external "Exhibit 2" containing claim charts, which was not filed with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶16-17). In the absence of this exhibit, the infringement theory must be gleaned from the complaint's narrative allegations. The pleading alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, and selling the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). However, the complaint provides no specific facts explaining how these products meet any of the limitations of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Basis: The primary point of contention is the complaint's lack of factual specificity. It fails to identify any accused product or allege any specific facts to support the claim that Defendant’s products perform the claimed method steps, such as decoding "geographic coordinate data" from a marker. This raises the question of whether the complaint meets federal pleading standards.
  • Scope Questions: Assuming an AR product is later identified, a central dispute may concern the scope of "geographic coordinate data." The question will be whether the accused product's location-data system, if any, falls within the patent’s definition, which includes examples like latitude/longitude and UTM coordinates ('885 Patent, col. 2:59-63).
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the court will be whether the accused product actually performs the claimed function. What evidence does the complaint provide that an accused AR system uses data decoded from a marker to position a virtual object, as required by the claim, rather than using other common AR techniques such as SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) or device-based GPS/IMU sensors for positioning?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "geographic coordinate data"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to traditional, absolute geospatial coordinate systems or if it can read on more modern or proprietary location-data schemes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is a critical factor for the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists examples and concludes with the phrase "and the like," which may support an interpretation that the term is not limited to the enumerated systems ('885 Patent, col. 2:59-63).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s repeated emphasis on providing "real world" coordinates to solve the imprecision of other systems could support a narrower construction limited to established, absolute geospatial reference systems like WGS 84, as opposed to relative or scene-specific coordinate systems ('885 Patent, col. 1:52, col. 2:56-63).

The Term: "decoding data from the DEM by processing the input image"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanism of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused system's process for identifying and using a marker constitutes "decoding data" from it in the manner claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the decoding process at a high level, suggesting a series of functions like identifying the marker type, extracting a textual representation, and parsing it for a header and coordinate data, which could encompass a variety of technical implementations ('885 Patent, col. 7:6-59).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is implicitly limited by the specific data structure shown in Figure 1, which includes a "DEM HEADER ID," "COORDINATE TYPE," and "COORDINATE DATA" ('885 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 6:2-14). This could support an argument that only systems processing a marker with this specific data protocol are covered.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). No specific examples from such materials are provided.
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations are based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).

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

• A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does a complaint that fails to identify a single accused product by name or provide any specific facts mapping product features to claim elements satisfy the plausibility standard under Twombly/Iqbal, or is it vulnerable to an early motion to dismiss?
• A central substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "geographic coordinate data," which the patent illustrates with real-world mapping systems like latitude/longitude, be construed to cover proprietary, relative, or non-geodetic location information that might be used in a modern AR system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Assuming the case proceeds, what evidence will demonstrate that an accused product performs the specific function of "decoding" location data from a visual marker to position a virtual object, as distinguished from the many other markerless or sensor-based techniques for object anchoring in AR?