Untitled case

This inter partes review (IPR) case, IPR2026-00266, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner is [Cisco Systems Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cisco%20Systems%20Inc.), while the patent owner is Zugara Inc.. Unified Patents, though listed as a plaintiff in the initial case metadata, operates as a member-based organization that aims to deter assertions of what it deems "poor quality" patents, often by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), by funding and filing IPRs. In this context, Unified Patents likely supports Cisco Systems Inc. in its challenge against Zugara, Inc..

The patent at issue is US Patent 10200654, titled "Systems and Methods for Real Time Manipulation and Interaction with Multiple Dynamic and Synchronized Video Streams in an Augmented or Multi-Dimensional Space." This patent broadly covers technology related to capturing, transmitting, and rendering three-dimensional or spatially aware visual content pertinent to holographic communication platforms, including user interaction with virtual objects via gesture control, voice commands, and eye tracking. The underlying district court litigation, Zugara, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00437) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleged infringement by Cisco's Webex Hologram system and its associated components, specifically the Webex Hologram capture device, Webex Cloud Services, and the Webex Hologram App. This district court case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Zugara on February 24, 2026, prior to the IPR filing.

Zugara Inc. is an augmented reality (AR) technology company based in Los Angeles, California, that develops AR and computer vision software and holds a growing patent portfolio in this space. They offer products such as virtual dressing room technology and customized AR/computer vision experiences for various brands. While Zugara is a practicing entity, its assertion of patents against companies like Cisco, Warby Parker, and Chanel indicates an active licensing and enforcement strategy, blurring the line between a traditional operating company and an entity that primarily monetizes patents. The IPR at the PTAB is a significant venue for challenging patent validity outside of district court litigation, and the outcome of this IPR could impact Zugara's ability to assert US Patent 10200654 in future or renewed infringement actions. The case is notable for the involvement of a major technology company like Cisco challenging patents in the evolving augmented reality and holographic communication space, and for the strategic use of IPRs, likely supported by an organization like Unified Patents, to address patent assertions.

I'll research the underlying litigation and parallel PTAB proceedings. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

I have strong material. Let me drill into the docket details, the motion to dismiss, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Scope note before the chronology

The task asks for the outcome of "this patent infringement litigation." Note that the case file's headline matter is the PTAB proceeding IPR2026-00266, but the only infringement litigation on U.S. Pat. No. 10,200,654 is Zugara, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00437 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — the co-pending district court action referenced in the case overview. That is the case traced below. I flag two metadata conflicts up front (detail in the final section): (1) neither the PTAB docket nor any aggregator lists Unified Patents as petitioner in IPR2026-00266 — the petitioner is Cisco Systems, Inc.; and (2) the prior section's statement that IPR2026-00266 was filed 2026-05-05 is incorrect (that is the patent owner's power-of-attorney/mandatory-notice date; the petition was filed 2026-03-04).

---

I. Filing and initial pleadings

Assignment: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (case flag "RWS3"). Case terminated 2026-02-24. (Gaeflexstaging docket mirror)

---

II. Pre-trial motions of substance

Two successive motions to dismiss by Cisco; neither was ever ruled on.

• D.I. 11 — Cisco's first Motion to Dismiss (filed on or about late June 2025; exact filing date not captured in the retrieved docket slice). Zugara responded in opposition on 2025-07-09 (D.I. 17) and simultaneously filed the First Amended Complaint (D.I. 16), which is the classic mooting move.
• D.I. 19 — Cisco's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, filed 2025-07-23 (Krishnan Padmanabhan for Cisco; supporting Declaration of Krishnan Padmanabhan, Exhibit 1, proposed order). The public docket text does not state the Rule 12(b) ground(s) asserted, and I could not locate a publicly available copy of the brief — the specific grounds are unconfirmed.
• D.I. 20 — Zugara's response in opposition, 2025-08-06.
• D.I. 21 — Cisco's reply, 2025-08-13.
• D.I. 23 — Zugara's sur-reply, 2025-08-19 (leave to file a sur-reply is itself a signal the briefing was contested).
• No order resolving D.I. 19 appears on the docket through the last retrieval (2025-10-14), and the case closed via voluntary dismissal on 2026-02-24. It therefore appears the motion was never decided on the merits; the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal mooted it. (Justia docket)

No motion to transfer (venue) and no motion to stay pending IPR were ever filed — the stay issue never arose because the IPR petition (2026-03-04) post-dates the dismissal (2026-02-24).

No summary-judgment practice. The case ended ~10 months after filing, before the close of fact discovery.

---

III. Claim construction (Markman)

None reached. At the 2025-09-08 scheduling conference, Magistrate Judge Payne "gave the parties Markman and jury selection dates," and the parties exchanged and the court entered docket control orders (D.I. 28, then D.I. 31 First Amended Docket Control Order). But no Markman hearing was held and no claim-construction order issued before the 2026-02-24 dismissal. PatSnap's case analysis reaches the same conclusion: the case "did not produce a published opinion on claim construction, patent validity, or infringement analysis of US10200654B2." (PatSnap case analysis; Justia docket, minute entry 2025-09-08)

Caveat: the specific Markman and jury-selection dates set on 2025-09-08 are not visible in the public docket text I retrieved, and the First Amended Docket Control Order (D.I. 31) is not quoted in any source I found. I therefore cannot state the scheduled Markman date.

---

IV. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

The docket was last retrieved from PACER on 2025-10-14; no discovery-hearing, motion-to-compel, or expert-report entries appear before termination. (Justia docket)

---

V. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion (no prevailing party, and no § 285 motion is on the docket). The case closed roughly sixteen months before any trial setting.

---

VI. Final disposition

• 2026-02-24 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, accepted by the Eastern District of Texas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (dismissal as of right before the opposing party answers or moves for summary judgment — notably available to Zugara precisely because Cisco had moved to dismiss rather than answered). All pending claims were dismissed and pending requests for relief denied as moot. No damages, no injunction, no merits adjudication.
• No settlement was announced as part of the dismissal, and the dismissal is without prejudice, so Zugara retains the right to refile against Cisco (subject to limitations); it is structurally distinct from a dismissal or judgment with prejudice. (PatSnap; NPE Litigation Database entry for the '654 patent)
• No appeal. Nothing was appealed to the Federal Circuit (nothing appealable was entered).
• Present posture of the district court matter: closed. The live dispute has migrated entirely to the PTAB.

---

VII. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

A. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Zugara, Inc., IPR2026-00266 (PTAB) — the case in this file

Tech Center 2600, Art Unit 2651. Counsel listed by aggregators: Scott Border for Petitioner; Cortney Alexander et al. for Patent Owner. (Docket Alarm PTAB entry; IPVerse/GreyB case page)

Petition exhibits of note: Ex-1003 declaration (Ex-1004 is the CV of Henry H. Houh, so Houh is the petitioner's declarant); Ex-1005 US 2007/0242066 A1 (Rosenthal); Ex-1007 US 2012/0162384 A1 (Vesely); Ex-1008/1009 2006-era video-chat prior-art evidence (Hanselman blog; PCMag UK Yahoo! Messenger review); Ex-1010 Microsoft Computer Dictionary definitions; and Ex-1006 — Zugara's Preliminary Infringement Contentions from the dismissed EDTX case.

Effect on the litigation / strategic read:

1. The petition was filed eight days after the district court case was dismissed, and within the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar (complaint served ~2025-04-25 → bar ~2026-04-25). Cisco had every incentive to file soon to preserve the bar date and to avoid losing the IPR option.
2. Because there is no pending parallel district court action, the ordinary Fintiv/§ 314(a) discretionary-denial arguments are weakened — which likely explains why the patent owner went the § 325(d) route (art already before the examiner during prosecution; note Cisco's Ex-1002 is the '654 file history) and/or argued the IPR is a follow-on. This paragraph is analytical inference, not a sourced statement of the briefs' contents — the PO discretionary-denial brief and Cisco's opposition are not publicly quoted in the sources I found.
3. The dismissal without prejudice cuts both ways for Zugara: it preserved the ability to refile, but it also left Cisco free to pursue the IPR to a final written decision, which — if Cisco prevails — would hand Cisco statutory estoppel/issue-preclusion ammunition and materially degrade the patent's settlement value in any refiled or new campaign. Conversely, because Cisco never answered, no § 315(e)(1) estoppel attached from the district case.
4. Caveats on IPR posture: (a) Docket Alarm shows the case status as "Preliminary response waived" with the PO filing a discretionary-denial brief instead of a preliminary response — internally consistent, and it means the Board should have decided institution by roughly 2026-09-04 (six months from the filing-date-accorded notice); (b) IPVerse/GreyB reports a 2026-08-06 institution decision date and "Trial Instituted" status, but I could not open the decision document itself, so treat "instituted" as unconfirmed but well-supported by the aggregator listing. If instituted, a final written decision would be due ~12 months from institution, i.e., in the back half of 2027.

B. Related Zugara portfolio proceedings (same patent family/monetization campaign, different patents)

• Perfect Corp. v. Zugara, Inc., IPR2025-01144 (U.S. Pat. No. 10,482,517) — patent owner filed a 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)/§ 314(a) discretionary-denial brief supported by a 2025-09-16 declaration of Zugara CEO Matthew Szymczyk stating Zugara has notified ~150 companies about the '517 family. Same patent-owner counsel team (Rozier Hardt McDonough; C. Matthew Rozier and Kristin Whidby) as predicted in the case file's "Defendant representatives" section. (USPTO PTACTS Exhibit 2002)
• Parallel district court assertions by Zugara on the '517 patent: Zugara v. GoodR LLC, No. 2:24-cv-08133 (C.D. Cal., filed 2024-09-20) and Zugara v. Chanel (W.D. Tex., No. 7:25-cv-00324, filed July 2025, asserting virtual makeup try-on). An Estée Lauder dispute reportedly settled out of court in summer 2025. (Justia GoodR docket; Luxus Plus on the Chanel suit)
• These confirm the pattern: the '654 IPR is one front in a broader Zugara portfolio-enforcement campaign, and Cisco's choice to press the IPR even after dismissal suggests validity-neutralization value independent of the specific accused product (Webex Hologram).

---

VIII. Contradictions and unsourced points to flag

1. Petitioner identity. Case metadata says Unified Patents; the PTAB docket (Docket Alarm), IPVerse/GreyB, and the Unified Patents portal all identify Cisco Systems, Inc. The prior "Plaintiff representatives" section's report that the PTAB Open Data Portal lists "Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al." for IPR2026-00266 is not corroborated by any other source and looks like a data-mapping error or a conflation with a different proceeding. Treat Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Zugara, Inc. as the correct caption.
2. IPR filing date. The prior "Defendant representatives" section states IPR2026-00266 was filed 2026-05-05. That is wrong: 2026-05-05 is the date of the patent owner's power of attorney, mandatory notice, and discretionary-denial brief. The petition was filed 2026-03-04.
3. IPR counsel. The case file's predicted patent-owner team (Rozier Hardt McDonough + Bernstein IP Strategy) matches Zugara's team in IPR2025-01144, but the aggregator entry for IPR2026-00266 lists a different name — "Cortney Alexander et al." — as respondent counsel, and Scott Border as petitioner counsel. I could not verify either against the actual power-of-attorney filings (Papers 2 and 4), so this should be confirmed on PTACTS/PTAB E2E before being relied on. The identity of Cisco's IPR counsel is otherwise unconfirmed in my sources.
4. Motion-to-dismiss grounds (D.I. 11 and D.I. 19) are not stated in the public docket text, and I found no accessible brief. Do not assume they were § 101 or service-related without pulling the filings from PACER.
5. Whether IPR2026-00266 was instituted (reported institution date 2026-08-06) is supported only by an aggregator listing, not by the decision document. Given today's date (2026-09-26), the Board's six-month statutory deadline for an institution decision would have passed, so a decision should exist and be verifiable on the PTAB E2E system; I was unable to retrieve it.
6. "Six defense attorneys across two law firms" appears in the PatSnap analysis; I could only confirm two Cisco-side names on the docket (Shaun Hassett, Krishnan Padmanabhan). Treat the headcount as unverified.

There is a significant discrepancy between the provided case metadata and the information found in public records for IPR2026-00266. The case metadata identifies Unified Patents as the plaintiff(s) and U.S. Patent 10200654 as the patent at issue. However, official PTAB records and other public data sources for IPR2026-00266 present conflicting information regarding the petitioner and patent owner, and do not list Unified Patents as the petitioner for this specific IPR, nor patent 10200654 as the patent at issue.

Specifically:

• The PTAB Open Data Portal lists "Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al." as the Petitioner for IPR2026-00266.
• The Unified Patents Portal itself, as well as Docket Alarm, identify "Cisco Systems, Inc." as the Petitioner and "Zugara, Inc." as the Patent Owner for IPR2026-00266.

Given these discrepancies, it is not possible to identify the counsel of record representing Unified Patents for IPR2026-00266 concerning US patent 10200654, as Unified Patents is not listed as the petitioner in the official records for this IPR.

However, based on the PTAB Open Data Portal, counsel associated with IPR2026-00266 for the listed petitioner, Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al., includes:

• Nicola A. Pisano
  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied by "et al." and his extensive experience in IPRs).
  • Firm: Cozen O'Connor, San Diego/Del Mar office, California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Nicola Pisano is a seasoned IP litigator with over 37 years of experience, having served as lead or trial counsel in more than 250 cases involving patent, trade secret, trade dress, and copyright issues in federal district courts and as lead counsel in IPRs before the USPTO. He has experience across a wide array of technologies including medical devices, electronics, computers, wireless communications, and software.

III. Counsel of Record

As of May 29, 2026, specific details regarding the counsel of record representing the patent owner, Zugara Inc., in IPR2026-00266 are not yet directly available through public web searches, likely due to the very recent filing date (May 5, 2026) and the early stage of the proceedings.

However, based on Zugara Inc.'s representation in a closely related inter partes review (IPR2025-01144, concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,482,517) and parallel district court patent infringement litigations, it is highly probable that Zugara Inc. will be represented by attorneys from Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC and Bernstein IP Strategy.

The "Patent Owner's Power of Attorney" filed on July 24, 2025, in IPR2025-01144, identified the following attorneys representing Zugara Inc.:

• C. Matthew Rozier

  • Role: Lead Counsel (as per IPR2025-01144 filing)
  • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
  • Office Location: Denver, Colorado
  • Experience Note: Has represented Zugara Inc. as lead counsel in previous PTAB IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-01144) and in district court patent infringement cases (e.g., Zugara, Inc. v. Grenion GmbH).

• Kristin M. Whidby

  • Role: Back-up Counsel (as per IPR2025-01144 filing)
  • Firm: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Represented Zugara Inc. as back-up counsel in IPR2025-01144.

• Nicholas Thane Bauz

  • Role: Counsel (listed alongside the primary firm in IPR2025-01144 filing)
  • Firm: Bernstein IP Strategy
  • Office Location: San Diego, California
  • Experience Note: Represented Zugara Inc. in IPR2025-01144.

• Han-Wei Chen

  • Role: Counsel (listed alongside the primary firm in IPR2025-01144 filing)
  • Firm: Bernstein IP Strategy
  • Office Location: San Diego, California
  • Experience Note: Represented Zugara Inc. in IPR2025-01144.

It is common for patent owners to retain the same legal teams for challenges to their patent portfolio, especially when dealing with petitions from entities like Unified Patents. Confirmation of these specific attorneys for IPR2026-00266 would typically be found in a "Power of Attorney" filing within the PTAB's End-to-End (E2E) system for this particular case.