Patent Armory Inc v. Xrpro LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: XRPro, LLC (MI)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01428, D. Colo., 05/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a "foreign corporation" that has committed acts of patent infringement in the District of Colorado, where it maintains an established place of business.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe a patent related to wireless, non-contact, three-dimensional shape sensing systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld 3D scanners that use structured light to map an object's surface and wirelessly transmit the captured data to a computer for processing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of knowledge and willfulness are based solely on the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899 - "Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899, issued August 14, 2007 (’899 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that, at the time of the invention, non-contact 3D scanners were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which limited their ease of use and mobility (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system for a fully wireless 3D scanning process (’899 Patent, col. 2:46-48). A handheld scanner projects a pattern of structured light onto an object, captures an image of the resulting intersection, and processes that image to generate geometric data (’899 Patent, col. 2:49-54). Crucially, this data is then transmitted wirelessly to a receiver connected to a computer (’899 Patent, col. 2:55-60). Simultaneously, a separate tracking subsystem determines the scanner's precise position and orientation in 3D space, allowing the computer to correctly correlate the incoming data points and assemble them into a cohesive 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, col. 3:10-14; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By removing the physical cable connecting the scanner to the computer, the invention aimed to provide greater freedom of movement and flexibility for the operator, simplifying the process of capturing the shape of complex, real-world objects (’899 Patent, col. 2:46-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them, referring to "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 (method) and 16 (system).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • establishing an object coordinate system in known relationship to the object;
  • projecting a pattern of structured light of known geometry onto the object;
  • forming an image of an intersection of the pattern of structured light with the object;
  • processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection relative to a position of the pattern of structured light;
  • wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data to a receiver;
  • receiving the transmitted portion of the image and intersection data;
  • tracking the position of the pattern of structured light;
  • associating each intersection datum with the position of the projected pattern of light;
  • transforming each intersection datum into coordinates of the object coordinate system; and
  • accumulating the transformed coordinates to form an approximation of the surface of the object.
• Independent Claim 16 (System): This is a means-plus-function claim reciting a system comprising "means for" performing each of the key functions described in method claim 1.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context. It alleges only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific factual basis for its allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The complaint itself contains no claim charts or specific mapping of accused product features to claim limitations. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant directly infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, and/or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" which allegedly "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The primary threshold issue is whether the complaint, which defers all specific infringement facts to an external, unprovided exhibit, meets the plausibility pleading standards required to survive a motion to dismiss.
  • Technical Question: A key factual dispute will concern how the accused products perform the "tracking" function. The court will need to determine what mechanism the accused products use to ascertain their position and orientation in space and whether that mechanism performs the function required by the claims.
  • Scope Question: A central dispute may arise over the scope of the "wirelessly transmitting" limitation. The question will be whether the data wirelessly transmitted by the accused products constitutes "some portion of the image and intersection data," as required by claim 1, or if it is a different type of data that falls outside the claim's scope.
  • Means-Plus-Function Question: For system claim 16, the analysis will turn on whether the accused products employ structures that are identical or equivalent to the specific structures disclosed in the '899 Patent specification for performing the claimed functions (e.g., the optical tracking subsystem 60 shown in Fig. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"tracking the position of the pattern of structured light" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines how the system spatially orients the captured surface data. Its construction will determine what types of 3D tracking technologies fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern 3D scanners may employ tracking technologies (e.g., SLAM, inertial measurement units) that differ from the specific embodiment described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying a particular method of tracking. It could be argued to encompass any technology that determines the location and orientation of the light pattern relative to the object.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a particular implementation: a "scanner tracking subsystem" (60) that uses external optical sensors (64) to track the location of multiple "position indicators" (20, 22, 24) affixed to the scanner body (’899 Patent, col. 8:9-24; Fig. 1). A party could argue that the claims should be limited to such an external, fiducial-based optical tracking system.

"means for tracking the position of the projected pattern of structured light" (Claim 16)

• Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), this term's scope is strictly limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents. The viability of the system claim hinges on this analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Disclosed Structure: The specification explicitly discloses the structure corresponding to this function as the "scanner tracking subsystem 60" (’899 Patent, col. 8:9-14). This subsystem is further described as employing sensors (64), such as those in the "FlashPoint system of Boulder Innovation Group," which track multiple "position indicators" (20, 22, 24) on the scanner to determine its location and orientation (’899 Patent, col. 8:46-50, 9:6-16). The infringement analysis for this element will therefore require a comparison of the accused product's tracking hardware and software to this specific disclosed structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The complaint states that these materials are referenced in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on a theory of post-suit knowledge. Plaintiff alleges that the service of the complaint itself provided Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing conduct thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-15).

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

• A central threshold question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint’s complete reliance on an unprovided external exhibit for all operative facts of infringement satisfy the plausibility requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and the Twombly/Iqbal standard?
• A key substantive issue will be one of technological scope and equivalence: Can the patent’s claims, which are supported by a specification describing an external optical system for tracking fiducials on a scanner, be construed to cover accused products that may use more modern, self-contained tracking methods? This question will manifest as a claim construction dispute for the method claim and a structural equivalence dispute for the means-plus-function system claim.
• The case may also turn on a question of data characterization: Does the data that is "wirelessly" transmitted by the accused product constitute the "intersection data" as required by the claims, or is it a different form of data (e.g., raw sensor readings, pre-processed motion data) that falls outside the claim language?