GeoSymm Ventures LLC v. PTC Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: GeoSymm Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: PTC, Inc. (Massachusetts)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00493, W.D. Tex., 11/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Vuforia augmented reality software platform infringes patents related to using digitally encoded markers to accurately position virtual objects in a physical environment.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns augmented reality (AR), specifically methods for improving the registration, or alignment, of digital content with real-world views by embedding geographic location data into scannable markers.
• Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit form a family, with the '930 and '885 patents being continuations of the application that led to the '456 patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s knowledge of infringement began with the service of the complaint, forming the basis for alleged post-filing willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-06-23	Earliest Priority Date for '456, '930, and '885 Patents
2019-03-26	U.S. Patent No. 10,242,456 ('456 Patent) Issued
2019-11-26	U.S. Patent No. 10,489,930 ('930 Patent) Issued
2021-08-03	U.S. Patent No. 11,080,885 ('885 Patent) Issued
2023-11-27	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,242,456 - "Digitally encoded marker-based augmented reality (AR)"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a core problem in augmented reality: the inaccurate registration of virtual objects with the real world. This inaccuracy stems from imprecise location data from mobile device GPS and the limitations of conventional AR markers, which often cannot provide precise, real-world coordinate information ('456 Patent, col. 1:48-2:35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Digitally Encoded Marker" (DEM), such as a QR code, that directly encodes "real world geographic coordinate data" (e.g., latitude/longitude). An AR device can capture an image of this marker, decode the embedded geographic data, and use that precise location to accurately overlay a virtual 3D model onto the live view of the physical world, creating a seamless AR experience ('456 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to solve the "drifting" and "jumping" of virtual objects by providing a reliable, fixed geographic anchor point independent of unreliable device-based location services like GPS ('456 Patent, col. 2:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary claims, which include at least one independent claim. Independent Claim 1 is a method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Operating a user device camera to acquire an image of a physical environment containing a digitally encoded marker (DEM).
  • Processing the image to identify the DEM.
  • Decoding data from the DEM, where the data includes "geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data."
  • Decoding this data "without calculating coordinates of the DEM in the physical environment."
  • Retrieving a "3D digital model."
  • Displaying an augmented reality image with an overlay of the 3D model positioned based on the decoded data.
• The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.

U.S. Patent No. 10,489,930 - "Digitally encoded marker-based augmented reality (AR)"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application for the '456 patent, the '930 patent addresses the same problem of inaccurate registration between virtual objects and the physical world in AR systems ('930 Patent, col. 1:47-2:35).
• The Patented Solution: The '930 Patent also discloses using a scannable marker encoded with coordinate data to provide a precise location anchor. The claims focus on the act of "registering" the decoded coordinates from the marker to the "relative coordinates in the augmented reality image," which involves the mathematical transformation needed to align the digital and physical views ('930 Patent, Claim 1; col. 9:26-10:29).
• Technical Importance: This patent further refines the concept of using encoded markers by emphasizing the specific computational process of translating world coordinates into the AR system's local coordinate space to achieve accurate alignment ('930 Patent, Fig. 6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of exemplary claims, which include at least one independent claim. Independent Claim 1 is a method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Operating a user device camera to acquire an image of a physical environment containing a DEM.
  • With a processor, decoding data from the DEM, where the data comprises "at least one of geographic coordinate data and relative coordinate data."
  • Retrieving digital content for a virtual object.
  • Displaying an augmented reality image with an overlay representing the virtual object.
  • A key step wherein the displaying further comprises "registering the at least one of geographic coordinate data and the relative coordinate data, decoded from the DEM, to relative coordinates in the augmented reality image."
• The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.

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

• Technology Synopsis: The '885 patent, a continuation in the same family, also addresses the problem of AR registration accuracy. It claims a method and system where a marker encoded with geographic and/or relative coordinate data is used to position a virtual object in an AR view, with an emphasis on the process of transforming model geometry based on scaling, orientation, and location offsets derived from both the marker and the AR system's own sensors ('885 Patent, Claims 8-10).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts exemplary claims, including at least one independent claim (e.g., Claim 1 or Claim 11) (Compl. ¶33).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s Vuforia Studio and Vuforia View applications of infringing the '885 Patent by performing the claimed methods (Compl. ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Exemplary Defendant Products" are identified as the "Vuforia Studio application and Vuforia View application" (Compl. ¶¶17, 27, 37).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Vuforia Studio is an application used to create AR experiences and that Vuforia View is an application used to view them (Compl. ¶¶17, 27, 37).
• A central feature is the "ThingMark" widget, which the complaint alleges is a marker used to "align your physical object and digital model as closely as possible" (Compl. ¶¶17, 27, 37). The process involves a user pointing a device camera at a ThingMark to position a digital model in the physical world.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, which were not attached to the publicly filed document. The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint.

'456 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's Vuforia products directly infringe by performing the patented method (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The theory suggests that when a user operates Vuforia View, the device's camera acquires an image of a ThingMark (the alleged DEM). The Vuforia software then allegedly processes this image, decodes data embedded within the ThingMark, retrieves a corresponding 3D digital model, and displays it as an overlay in the augmented reality view, positioned based on the data from the ThingMark (Compl. ¶19). This sequence of operations is alleged to satisfy the elements of the asserted claims.

'930 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the '930 patent is similar, focusing on the same use of the Vuforia Studio and View applications with ThingMarks (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The allegations for this patent appear to emphasize the "registering" step, suggesting that the Vuforia software performs the claimed function of registering the coordinate data decoded from the ThingMark to the relative coordinates of the AR system to achieve the alignment between the digital model and the physical world (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: A primary factual question will be what data is encoded in a "ThingMark." The complaint alleges it is used for alignment but does not provide evidence that it contains "geographic coordinate data" or "relative coordinate data" as required by the claims. The functionality could potentially be based on a unique identifier that retrieves location data from a remote server, which may raise non-infringement arguments.
• Scope Question: The '456 patent claims decoding data "without calculating coordinates of the DEM in the physical environment." The interpretation of this negative limitation will be critical. It raises the question of whether the accused system's method for determining the marker's position and orientation in camera space constitutes the prohibited "calculating."
• Scope Question: For the '930 Patent, a central dispute may arise over the meaning of "registering." The parties may contest whether the accused products' alignment function performs the specific type of coordinate system transformation and mathematical offsetting described and claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"geographic coordinate data" ('456 Patent, Claim 1; '930 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is the technological core of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the data encoded in the accused "ThingMark" falls within the scope of the claims. The complaint does not specify what kind of data a ThingMark contains.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not restrict the term to a specific format. A plaintiff might argue that any data that serves to fix an object's position in a real-world geographic framework meets the definition, even if proprietary.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly provides examples of standard systems, 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)" ('456 Patent, col. 2:58-61). A defendant may argue these examples limit the term to recognized, standardized geographic coordinate systems.

"registering" ('930 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the key action of aligning the decoded coordinates with the AR system's coordinates. The infringement analysis for the '930 patent hinges on whether the accused Vuforia software performs this specific step. Practitioners may focus on this term because "alignment" is a general concept in AR, and the case may turn on whether the accused method is the same as the specific "registering" method claimed.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is used generally in the AR field. A plaintiff could argue it encompasses any process that computationally aligns two coordinate systems.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed flowcharts showing a multi-step process for registration, including calculating a "scaling factor, orientation difference, and location offset" and then transforming the model geometry ('930 Patent, Fig. 5-6; col. 9:26-10:29). A defendant may argue that "registering" is limited to this specific sequence of mathematical transformations.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The basis is that Defendant provides the Vuforia applications and also distributes "product literature and website materials," including support pages, that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the products with ThingMarks in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶17, 27, 37).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint. Plaintiff claims that despite this actual knowledge, Defendant has continued to infringe, supporting a claim for post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶15, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38).

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

This dispute over augmented reality technology will likely focus on the technical details of Defendant's "ThingMark" system and the precise scope of the patent claims. The central questions for the court appear to be:

1. A core evidentiary question of technology: What information is actually encoded in a PTC "ThingMark"? Does it contain self-sufficient "geographic coordinate data" as described in the patents, or is it a mere unique identifier that relies on a network connection to retrieve positioning data from a server? The answer to this factual question may be dispositive.
2. A key question of claim scope: Can the term "geographic coordinate data" be construed to cover a proprietary location identifier, or is it limited by the specification's examples to standardized formats like latitude/longitude or UTM? The viability of the infringement case depends heavily on this construction.
3. A central question of functional operation: Does the accused Vuforia system's process for aligning a digital model with a ThingMark perform the specific act of "registering" claimed in the '930 patent, which the specification details as a multi-step mathematical transformation? This will require a deep technical comparison between the patented method and the accused functionality.