GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. Zappar Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Zappar Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00344, E.D. Tex., 05/08/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has 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 visual markers encoded with geographic coordinate data to accurately position virtual objects.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of precisely aligning digital content with the real world in augmented reality (AR) applications, a critical factor for creating immersive and functional user experiences.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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 identifies a core problem in AR: the "lack of precision" when registering virtual objects with the real world, which can cause digital models to drift or appear in incorrect positions (’885 Patent, col. 1:51-59). This inaccuracy is attributed to the limitations of device-based GPS and conventional visual markers that lack inherent location information (’885 Patent, col. 2:3-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes embedding "real world geographic coordinate data" directly into a visual marker, referred to as a Digitally Encoded Marker or "DEM" (’885 Patent, col. 2:59-61). An AR device captures an image of this marker, decodes the specific geographic coordinates (e.g., latitude/longitude), and uses this precise data to position a virtual object in the augmented view, thereby achieving accurate registration without relying on the device's own, often less accurate, location sensors (’885 Patent, col. 3:11-23). Figure 1 illustrates a QR-style marker containing distinct data fields for a header, coordinate type, coordinate data, and optional metadata (’885 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology seeks to provide a reliable and accurate method for geo-locating AR content by fusing the visual certainty of a marker with the absolute positioning of geographic data, solving a key challenge in creating seamless AR experiences (’885 Patent, Abstract).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '885 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s first independent method claim is Claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 elements include:
    • Receiving an input image of a physical environment containing a "digitally encoded marker (DEM)".
    • "decoding data from the DEM by processing the input image," where the data includes "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 within the augmented reality image based on the decoded data from the DEM".
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific products, methods, or services (Compl. ¶11). It states these products are identified in an "Exhibit 2" attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context, as this information is allegedly contained within the un-provided Exhibit 2.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from its Exhibit 2, which was not filed as part of the public document (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed claim-chart analysis is not possible. The complaint’s narrative allegations are general, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’885 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’885 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The core of the patented invention is the encoding and decoding of "geographic coordinate data" (’885 Patent, col. 12:5). A central dispute may arise over whether the data encoded in the Defendant's markers meets this definition. The court may need to determine if the claims require absolute world coordinates (e.g., latitude/longitude) or if they could be read more broadly to cover other forms of location data.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require a specific sequence of "decoding data from the DEM" and "displaying an augmented reality image... positioned... based on the decoded data" (’885 Patent, col. 12:3-15). A key technical question is what evidence exists to show that the accused system performs this specific function—that is, whether it extracts coordinate data from the marker itself and uses that extracted data as the basis for positioning the virtual object, as opposed to using the marker as a simple fiducial for relative scene tracking.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "geographic coordinate data"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's claimed point of novelty. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the information on Defendant’s markers falls within the construed scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because if Defendant's markers encode only relative positioning information (e.g., orientation relative to a camera) rather than absolute world coordinates, it could form a basis for a non-infringement argument.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, stating the data is readable in "any geospatial projection system (e.g., 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" may be argued to support a meaning that includes other systems beyond those explicitly listed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes "real world geographic coordinate data" and "world coordinates" to distinguish its invention from prior art markers that only convey position relative to a camera or scene (’885 Patent, col. 1:51-52, col. 2:59-60). This context suggests the term refers to an absolute or near-absolute location on Earth.

• The Term: "decoding data from the DEM"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the action performed on the marker. The infringement analysis will turn on how the accused system interacts with its markers and what information it extracts.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This phrase could be argued to cover any process of reading information from the marker, including reading a simple ID that is then used to retrieve coordinate data from a remote server.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures illustrate a process where the coordinate data is self-contained within the marker as a "textual representation" and is extracted directly by the device (’885 Patent, Fig. 2; Fig. 3, steps 325, 330). This suggests a more limited meaning where the "decoding" step involves the direct extraction of the coordinate data itself from the marker's payload, not merely a lookup key.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15). The alleged acts of inducement include selling the accused products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that the filing and service of the lawsuit provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of the ’885 patent and its alleged infringement, and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "geographic coordinate data," which the patent links to real-world mapping systems like latitude/longitude, be construed to cover the specific type of information encoded in the accused Zappar markers? The answer will likely determine the reach of the claims.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused system performs the claimed method of decoding coordinate data from the marker and then using that decoded data as the basis for positioning a virtual object, as opposed to using the marker in a different, potentially non-infringing manner for AR tracking?