DCT
2:25-cv-00437
Zugara Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Case Name: Zugara, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
- Plaintiff: Zugara Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Cisco Systems Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00437, E.D. Tex., 07/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including facilities in Allen and Richardson, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Webex Hologram video conferencing platform infringes a patent related to the real-time manipulation of virtual objects within synchronized, multi-participant augmented reality video streams.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of collaborative augmented reality (AR), where digital information and virtual objects are overlaid onto real-world views for multiple users simultaneously.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a lengthy history between the parties, including discussions about a potential technology collaboration beginning in 2010. Plaintiff further alleges that it provided Defendant with specific notice of the asserted patent and its relevance to Defendant's products on at least two occasions (in 2019 and 2024) prior to filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-02-18 | Initial contact alleged between Cisco and Zugara Inc |
| 2011-01-01 | Cisco allegedly releases "Style:Me" AR product |
| 2013-02-27 | U.S. Patent No. 10,200,654 application filed (Priority Date) |
| 2019-02-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,200,654 issues |
| 2019-03-22 | First alleged notice of '654 Patent provided to Cisco |
| 2024-10-01 | Second alleged notice of '654 Patent provided to Cisco |
| 2025-07-09 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,200,654 - Systems and methods for real time manipulation and interaction with multiple dynamic and synchronized video streams in an augmented or multi-dimensional space
- Issued: February 5, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in existing technologies where augmented reality experiences were confined to a single user, and conventional video conferencing systems did not support the real-time, shared manipulation of virtual objects (’654 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a platform for an interactive, multi-user AR video conference. It enables multiple participants to connect and view synchronized video streams where virtual objects can be overlaid and manipulated by any participant in real-time within a shared three-dimensional space (’654 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-23). The system architecture, depicted in Figure 1, connects multiple participants through a central video conference manager, with each participant's system including a "Multiple Streams Sync Module" to manage the synchronization of objects and video feeds (’654 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to evolve AR from a solitary activity into a collaborative tool and to enhance video conferencing by adding an interactive layer of shared digital content (’654 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint specifically asserts independent method claim 32 (Compl. ¶35).
- The essential elements of independent claim 32 include:
- Providing a real-world video stream from a participant's video camera.
- Receiving an augmented video stream from another participant, which contains data for 3D virtual objects.
- Multiplexing the received augmented stream with the local real-world stream to generate a combined, multiplexed video stream.
- Extracting one of the 3D virtual objects from this multiplexed stream.
- Translating the coordinates of the extracted object in 3D space based on an action by the participant.
- Displaying the multiplexed stream, where both participants can translate the coordinates of the shared 3D virtual objects.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but focuses its narrative allegations on claim 32 (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities include the Webex Hologram, the Webex Hologram capture device, Webex Cloud Services, and the Webex Hologram App (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide for "holographic meetings" that represent the "next evolution of spatial collaboration" (Compl. ¶24). A screenshot from the Webex website included in the complaint shows a user interacting with a 3D holographic model, advertising the product's use with devices like the Apple Vision Pro (Compl. p. 6, Exhibit 1). The complaint also provides visual examples of Plaintiff's own early AR technology, "Webcam Social Shopper," to establish its presence in the field (Compl. p. 5, ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an "Exhibit A" containing detailed infringement evidence, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint; however, the complaint body provides a narrative infringement theory tracking the elements of claim 32 (Compl. ¶36, ¶37).
'654 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 32) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing, using a video camera, a real-world video stream comprising video of a real-world 3D environment including a participant in a video chat or conference; | The Accused Products allegedly provide a real-world video stream from a participant's camera during a conference. | ¶37 | col. 11:19-24 |
| receiving, from another participant in the video chat or conference, an augmented video stream comprising augmentation data representing one or more 3D virtual objects retrieved from a virtual object database; | The Accused Products allegedly receive an augmented video stream from another participant containing data for 3D virtual objects. | ¶37 | col. 11:25-29 |
| multiplexing the augmented video stream received from the other participant with the real-world video stream of the real-world 3D environment in real time to generate a multiplexed video stream...; | The Accused Products allegedly multiplex the streams to generate a combined stream showing the real-world environment and the 3D virtual objects. | ¶37 | col. 11:30-38 |
| extracting at least one of the 3D virtual objects from the multiplexed video stream, | The Accused Products allegedly allow for the extraction of a 3D virtual object from the combined stream. | ¶37 | col. 11:39-40 |
| based on an action of the participant, translating coordinates of the extracted virtual object in at least three dimensions within a multi-dimensional space...; | The Accused Products allegedly allow a participant's action to translate the coordinates of the extracted object in 3D space. | ¶37 | col. 11:41-47 |
| causing a display device... to display the multiplexed video stream... wherein both the participant and the other participant can translate the coordinates of the one or more 3D virtual objects... | The Accused Products allegedly display the combined stream and enable both participants to manipulate the coordinates of the shared virtual objects. | ¶37 | col. 11:48-55 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of "multiplexing." The court may need to determine if this term requires the literal combination of distinct data streams, or if it can be read more broadly to cover a system where a graphics engine renders virtual objects based on shared data and composites them with a live video feed at the user's display.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the Accused Products "extract... 3D virtual objects from the multiplexed video stream." The defense may argue that its system architecture does not involve "extracting" an object from a video stream, but rather manipulates object data in a separate 3D engine, raising a question of a potential mismatch in technical operation with the claimed method.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "multiplexing"
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the claimed method of combining real-world video with shared virtual objects. The infringement case may turn on whether the architecture of the Webex Hologram system falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it describes the core mechanism for creating the shared AR space.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that multiplexing is done "to generate a multiplexed video stream comprising the video of the real-world 3D environment and the one or more 3D virtual objects" (’654 Patent, col. 8:42-46). This language could be argued to encompass any technical method that results in such a combined visual output.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the "multiple streams sync module" suggests a process of combining distinct streams (’654 Patent, col. 7:36-44). This could support a narrower construction requiring the technical combination of data streams, as opposed to separate rendering and display compositing.
The Term: "extracting at least one of the 3D virtual objects from the multiplexed video stream"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific action a user performs to manipulate an object. Proving that the accused system performs this exact step, as opposed to an alternative manipulation method, is critical for the plaintiff.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes enabling participants to "interact with, and manipulate the objects" in the stream, which could support a functional interpretation where any user action that selects an object for manipulation qualifies as "extracting" (’654 Patent, col. 7:55-59).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language "extraction of the augmented object(s) from the multiplexed video stream" (’654 Patent, col. 7:47-48) could be interpreted to require a specific technical process of identifying and separating object data from the video data stream itself, rather than selecting an object via a separate data layer or user interface.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by providing customers with instructions, advertising, and technical support that guide them to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶46-47).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’654 patent. The allegations point to a long history between the parties and claim that Plaintiff specifically notified Defendant of the patent and its alleged infringement on March 22, 2019, and again on October 1, 2024 (Compl. ¶42, ¶43, ¶55).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical definition: can the claim terms "multiplexing" a video stream and "extracting" an object "from" that stream be construed to cover the architecture of the Accused Products, which may use a 3D rendering engine to composite virtual objects with a video feed rather than combining and parsing a single data stream?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: what evidence will be presented to show that the Webex Hologram system functions by performing the specific sequence of receiving, multiplexing, extracting, and translating as recited in claim 32, versus using an alternative technical method to achieve a similar collaborative AR effect?
- Finally, a key question for willfulness will be Defendant's state of mind: given the detailed allegations of a multi-year history and specific pre-suit notice, the court will need to evaluate whether Defendant’s continued actions after being made aware of the ’654 patent constituted objective recklessness regarding Plaintiff's patent rights.