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., 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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2026-00266 10200654 PTAB Unified Patents Zugara", "Zugara Inc. patent litigation 10200654", "Unified Patents IPR 10200654 Cisco", "IPR2026-00266 docket", "Zugara Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. patent infringement", "Unified Patents IPRs real party in interest Cisco", "PTAB IPR2026-00266 status"]))
thought
The user is asking for key legal developments and the outcome of the patent infringement litigation related to IPR2026-00266. This includes details about the underlying district court case that likely prompted the IPR, as well as the IPR itself. I need to cover filing, motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, settlement/judgment, and parallel PTAB proceedings.

From the previous section, I know:

• IPR2026-00266 is pending at the PTAB.
• Petitioner: Unified Patents.
• Patent Owner: Zugara Inc.
• Patent: US 10200654.
• Cisco Systems Inc. is likely the real party in interest being targeted by Zugara.
• Unified Patents files IPRs in response to assertions against its members.

My plan is to:

1. Search for the underlying district court litigation involving Zugara Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. concerning US 10200654.
2. If found, trace the docket of that district court case for filing, motions (to dismiss, transfer, stay), claim construction, discovery, trial, and outcome.
3. Search for updates on IPR2026-00266 at the PTAB, specifically its institution decision and any subsequent developments.
4. Integrate the information, ensuring chronological order and proper citations.

Given the current date (2026-05-29) and the IPR number (IPR2026-00266), the IPR would have been filed relatively recently. It's possible the institution decision has not yet occurred, or the underlying litigation is still early stage.

Let's start by looking for the district court case.### Patent Infringement Litigation Developments and Outcome for U.S. Patent No. 10,200,654

This IPR, IPR2026-00266, is closely tied to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by Zugara Inc. against Cisco Systems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The district court case, Zugara, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00437, involved U.S. Patent No. 10,200,654, which covers technology related to augmented reality and immersive visual communication.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Underlying District Court Litigation (Zugara, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2:25-cv-00437 E.D. Tex.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-04-25): Zugara Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on April 25, 2025, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,200,654. The complaint specifically accused Cisco's Webex Hologram system and its components (capture device, cloud services, and app) of infringement, citing features for displaying realistic holograms of meeting participants in AR/VR headsets and enabling interaction with 3D models.
• Motion to Dismiss (2025-06-25): Cisco Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 25, 2025.
• First Amended Complaint (2025-07-09): Zugara Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint for patent infringement on July 9, 2025. On the same day, Zugara also filed a response in opposition to Cisco's motion to dismiss.
• Voluntary Dismissal (2026-02-24): On February 24, 2026, Zugara Inc. voluntarily dismissed the action against Cisco Systems Inc. without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
• Outcome (2026-02-24): The Eastern District of Texas formally closed Case No. 2:25-cv-00437 on February 24, 2026. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted. The dismissal "without prejudice" is significant as it means Zugara retains the legal right to refile the action against Cisco, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The dismissal was initiated unilaterally by Zugara, with no public reason stated, though possibilities include a private settlement, licensing agreement, or strategic repositioning. No claim construction, patent validity, or infringement analysis was published by the court.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding (IPR2026-00266)

• IPR Filing (2026-02-24): Unified Patents filed IPR2026-00266 against U.S. Patent No. 10,200,654 on February 24, 2026. This date notably coincides with the voluntary dismissal of the district court case against Cisco. Unified Patents listed Cisco Systems Inc. as the real party in interest in their internal portal, indicating that this IPR was likely filed in response to Zugara's assertion of the patent against Cisco.
• Current Status: As of May 29, 2026, IPR2026-00266 is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An institution decision has not yet been issued. The filing of this IPR reflects Unified Patents' strategy to challenge patents asserted against its members, particularly in high-tech areas like augmented reality.
• Effect on Litigation: While the IPR is pending, the associated district court litigation has been dismissed. Had the district court case proceeded further, a PTAB institution decision, particularly a positive one, could have led to a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the IPR. However, with the voluntary dismissal, the immediate need for a stay in that particular case has been circumvented.

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.