GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. Varjo Tech Oy

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Varjo Technologies Oy (Finland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00341, E.D. Tex., 05/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s augmented reality products and services infringe a patent related to using markers encoded with geographic coordinate data to accurately position virtual objects.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a core challenge in augmented reality (AR): accurately and stably registering virtual content with the physical world to create a seamless user experience.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-06-23	'885 Patent - Earliest Priority 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, issued August 3, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a "major problem" in the field of augmented reality: the lack of precision in registering virtual objects with real-world coordinates ('885 Patent, col. 1:52-54). This imprecision, whether from inaccurate GPS signals or the limitations of standard visual markers, can cause virtual objects to "drift" or "jump," disrupting the user experience ('885 Patent, col. 1:55-59, col. 2:4-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system that combines visual markers with geo-location data. The solution involves creating a marker, such as a QR code, that is digitally encoded with "real world geographic coordinate data" (e.g., latitude/longitude) ('885 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-60). An AR device captures an image of this marker, decodes the specific geographic coordinates, and uses that precise location information to register and display a virtual object, thereby solving the registration problem without relying on the device's potentially inaccurate internal GPS ('885 Patent, col. 2:49-54). The process of encoding geographic data into a marker is illustrated in Figure 2 ('885 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a method for achieving highly accurate and stable AR experiences by embedding precise, real-world location data directly into the physical environment via a scannable marker ('885 Patent, col. 2:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, instead referring to "Exemplary '885 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Receiving an input image from a camera of a physical environment containing a digitally encoded marker (DEM).
  • Decoding data from the DEM, where the data includes "at least one of geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data."
  • Retrieving digital content for a virtual object.
  • Displaying an AR image that includes an overlay of the virtual object, positioned "based on the decoded data from the DEM."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '885 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Based on these allegations, the accused instrumentalities are AR systems that use markers to facilitate the display of virtual content. The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on their use (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' market context or commercial importance.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unprovided exhibit (Exhibit 2) and does not contain sufficient narrative detail to construct a claim chart summary (Compl. ¶¶16, 17).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central question will be what specific data is encoded in the markers used by Defendant's AR system. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence demonstrating that these markers contain either "geographic coordinate data" (such as latitude/longitude) or "relative coordinate data" as those terms are used in the patent. Further, Plaintiff would need to show that the accused system actually decodes this specific data and uses it to position the virtual object, as required by the claim.
• Scope Questions: The claim recites decoding "at least one of geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data." The interpretation of these two terms will be critical. The case may raise the question of whether the "relative coordinate data" allegedly used by the accused product falls within the scope of the claim, particularly in the context of an invention focused on solving problems with geo-location.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"geographic coordinate data"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the core of the invention, which is presented as a solution to the imprecision of other geo-location technologies like GPS. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the data encoded in Defendant's markers meets the court's definition of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from prior art markers that only provided positioning relative to a camera.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including "latitude/longitude, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate, World Geodetic System (WGS) 84, and the like" ('885 Patent, col. 2:60-63). The phrase "and the like" could support an interpretation that includes other types of world-referenced coordinate systems beyond those explicitly listed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently frames the invention in the context of "real world geographic" coordinates that can be mapped to a global position ('885 Patent, col. 2:59-60). A party could argue that this context limits the term to established, earth-centric geospatial projection systems and excludes proprietary or purely local coordinate systems.

"relative coordinate data"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 allows for infringement based on either "geographic" or "relative" coordinate data. The scope of "relative coordinate data" is therefore crucial. If construed broadly, it could potentially cover a wide range of marker-based systems that do not use any form of absolute geo-location.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "relative coordinate" is broad. The patent itself, when describing prior art, notes that markers can be used to "convey a position of the marker in relation to the camera or viewing device," which is a form of relative positioning ('885 Patent, col. 1:29-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also lists "relative coordinate data" as a type of optional metadata that can be included in a marker ('885 Patent, col. 4:61). A party might argue that its inclusion as a primary data type in Claim 1 should be read in the overall context of the patent's focus on geo-located markers, potentially narrowing its scope to relative offsets from a known geographic point.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement occurring "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15). The basis for this allegation is Defendant's continued sale of the accused products along with the distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that its service "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities despite this knowledge support a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The prayer for relief requests a judgment for all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 4-5).

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

The dispute, as framed by the complaint and the patent-in-suit, raises several key questions for the court:

• A primary issue will be one of technical evidence: What data do the markers in Defendant's system actually encode? The case will likely depend on factual evidence demonstrating whether this data constitutes "geographic coordinate data" or "relative coordinate data" within the meaning of the patent.

• A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "geographic coordinate data"? The answer will determine whether the invention is limited to markers encoded with established, earth-centric coordinates (like lat/long) or if it can also cover other proprietary world-mapping systems.

• Finally, a key question for infringement will be functional operation: Assuming the accused markers are found to contain the claimed data, what evidence will show that Defendant's system actually uses that specific decoded data to position the virtual object, as opposed to using other visual or sensor-based techniques for registration?