GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. Kinetic Vision Media Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Kinetic Vision Media Corp. (Pennsylvania)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-03188, E.D. Pa., 07/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to augmented reality (AR) systems that use physical markers encoded with geographic data.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for improving the accuracy of AR by embedding precise real-world location data directly into visual markers, which are then used to correctly position virtual objects in a device's camera view.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative challenges regarding the patent-in-suit. The patent itself claims priority to a series of provisional and non-provisional applications, indicating a developed prosecution history.

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 identifies a key challenge in augmented reality: the lack of precision in positioning virtual objects. It notes that location-based AR often suffers from inaccurate device GPS, while conventional marker-based AR can lead to virtual objects that "drift" or "jump out of position" as the user's view changes, compromising the seamlessness of the experience (’885 Patent, col. 1:52-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system that embeds "real world geographic coordinate data" directly into a visual marker, such as a QR code or barcode (’885 Patent, col. 2:58-61). An AR device captures an image of this "Digitally Encoded Marker" (DEM), decodes the specific geographic coordinates from it, and uses that precise location information to register and display a virtual object accurately in the physical world (’885 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 7:8-48). This approach aims to provide the accuracy of a fixed marker with the real-world context of geographic location data, without relying on the AR device’s own, often imprecise, location services.
• Technical Importance: The described technology seeks to solve the fundamental problem of registration accuracy, which is critical for creating a stable and believable AR illusion for the user (’885 Patent, col. 1:37-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '885 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains three independent claims: 1 (method), 11 (user device), and 17 (user device).
• As a representative example, independent claim 1 recites the key elements of a method for providing an AR experience, including:
  • Receiving an input image of a physical environment containing a "digitally encoded marker (DEM)"
  • Decoding data from the DEM, where the data includes "geographic coordinate data" and/or "relative coordinate data"
  • Retrieving digital content for a virtual object
  • Displaying an AR image where the virtual object is positioned based on the decoded data from the DEM
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its broad allegation of infringing "one or more claims" suggests this possibility (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (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, as this information is allegedly contained within the un-provided Exhibit 2. The pleading states only that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '885 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶¶16-17). In the absence of these charts, the complaint's narrative infringement theory is conclusory. It alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by being made, used, or sold, and that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '885 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). It further alleges direct infringement through Defendant's internal testing of these products (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. Without specific allegations in the complaint body, a threshold issue will be for the Plaintiff to produce evidence demonstrating that the unidentified accused products actually perform the claimed functions.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question for the court will be whether the accused products decode geographic coordinate data from the marker itself, as described in the patent, or if they use an alternative method, such as reading a simple marker ID and retrieving associated location data from a remote server. The complaint provides no facts to address this distinction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"digitally encoded marker (DEM)"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent, defining the object from which location data is derived. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the markers used by the accused products fall within the scope of a "DEM." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification suggests the marker must itself "contain" the coordinate data, a potential point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the marker in broad terms, including as a "barcode (1D or 2D)," a "QR code," a "3D printed marker," or even "any high-contrast object" (’885 Patent, col. 4:39-52). This language could support a construction that encompasses a wide variety of physical marker types.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention states that a key characteristic of the markers is that they "contain real world geographic coordinate data" (’885 Patent, col. 2:59-60). Figure 1, which illustrates the data structure of a DEM, explicitly includes a field for "GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATE DATA" (100C). This could support a narrower construction requiring the coordinate data to be physically encoded in the marker itself, rather than merely referenced by an ID.

"geographic coordinate data"

• Context and Importance: This term specifies the type of information that must be decoded from the marker to practice the invention. Whether the accused system uses data that qualifies as "geographic coordinate data" will be a critical infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as "latitude/longitude, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate, World Geodetic System (WGS) 84, and the like" (’885 Patent, col. 2:61-63). The phrase "and the like" may support an interpretation that includes other, potentially proprietary, location-defining data systems.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: All specific examples provided are established, global geospatial projection systems (’885 Patent, col. 2:61-63). This may support a narrower construction limited to standardized, earth-referenced coordinate systems, as opposed to local or relative coordinate systems that are not tied to a global framework.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement. The factual basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint appears to allege willfulness based on post-suit conduct. It asserts that "service of this Complaint" constitutes "actual knowledge" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-15).

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

• A central issue will be one of claim construction and definitional scope: can the term "digitally encoded marker", which the patent specification suggests "contain[s] real world geographic coordinate data," be construed to cover a marker that only includes an identifier used to retrieve location data from a separate source? The resolution of this question may determine the reach of the claims.
• A key evidentiary and factual question will follow: assuming a construction is adopted, what is the specific technical operation of the accused products? The case will likely require a detailed factual inquiry into whether Defendant's systems in fact decode "geographic coordinate data" from a marker and use it to position virtual objects in the manner required by the claims.