Patent Armory Inc v. Dental Imaging Tech LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Dental Imaging Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00948, D. Del., 09/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products infringe two patents related to wireless, non-contact, three-dimensional shape sensing technology.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a handheld, untethered scanner to project light onto an object and capture its 3D geometry for use in computer modeling and design.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 is a divisional of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899. This establishes a direct familial link and shared specification between the two patents-in-suit.

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. (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of prior art 3D non-contact scanners, which were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," restricting their mobility and ease of use. (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for 3D shape sensing that untethers the scanner from the computer. The method involves projecting a pattern of light from a mobile scanner, imaging the light’s intersection with an object, tracking the scanner's position in 3D space, and wirelessly transmitting the captured surface data to a receiver connected to a computer. (’899 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:51-61). The computer then correlates the scanner's position with the received data to construct a 3D model of the object. (’899 Patent, col. 14:26-44).
• Technical Importance: By eliminating the physical tether, the invention allows for greater freedom of movement when scanning large, complex, or difficult-to-reach objects. (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its body, instead incorporating them by reference to an external exhibit. (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1, a method claim, is representative of the patent's core teaching.
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • establishing an object coordinate system;
  • projecting a pattern of structured light onto the object;
  • forming an image of the intersection of the light pattern and the object;
  • processing the image to generate data characterizing the intersection;
  • wirelessly transmitting the intersection data to a receiver;
  • receiving the transmitted data;
  • tracking the position of the light pattern;
  • associating the intersection data with the tracked position;
  • transforming the intersection data into the object's coordinate system; and
  • accumulating the transformed coordinates to form a surface approximation.

U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 - Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375, issued February 26, 2008. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application for the ’899 Patent, the ’375 Patent addresses the same problem: the physical tethering of existing 3D scanners. (’375 Patent, col. 2:35-37).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for implementing the wireless 3D scanning concept. The system comprises a non-contact scanner (with a light source, sensor, processor, and wireless transmitter), a scanner tracking subsystem to determine the scanner's 3D position, a wireless receiver, and a computer. (’375 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:26-52). The computer is configured to receive the wireless data, correlate it with the scanner's position, and assemble a 3D model. (’375 Patent, col. 16:48-52).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides the system architecture for a mobile, untethered 3D scanning solution, enabling more flexible data capture than prior wired systems. (’375 Patent, col. 2:35-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint incorporates the asserted claims by reference without specifying them in the pleading. (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1, a system claim, is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • a non-contact scanner which itself includes: a source of structured light, an imaging sensor, an image processor, a wireless data transmitter, and at least one position indicator;
  • a scanner tracking subsystem configured to determine the 3D position of the non-contact scanner;
  • a wireless data receiver; and
  • a computer configured to correlate the received data with the scanner position, transform the data into object coordinates, and accumulate the coordinates to model the object.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify the accused products by name. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts incorporated by reference as Exhibits 3 and 4. (Compl. ¶12, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context. It makes only conclusory allegations that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" and the '375 Patent. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim chart exhibits that were not included with the pleading. (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). It alleges that Defendant directly infringes the patents-in-suit by making, using, selling, and importing the accused products, and by having its employees internally test and use them. (Compl. ¶12-13, ¶21-22). The narrative infringement theory is that the accused products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Structural Equivalence: A potential issue for the '375 Patent's system claims is whether the accused products contain the distinct structural elements recited in the claims, such as a "non-contact scanner," a "scanner tracking subsystem," and a "computer." The dispute may center on whether these claimed components, described as potentially separate hardware in the patent, can be found in a modern, highly integrated device where these functions might be performed by a single processor or consolidated hardware.
• Functional Operation: For the '899 Patent's method claims, a key question may be whether the accused products perform all the claimed steps. This could involve disputes over whether the device's software architecture separately performs the steps of "tracking," "associating," "transforming," and "accumulating" as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"wirelessly transmitting" (’899 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's stated goal of overcoming the limitations of "tethered" prior art systems. Its construction will likely define the boundary between the patented invention and the prior art, and its breadth will be critical for the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the transmission medium may use "an industry standard such as IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA, or any other current or future standard," which may support an interpretation covering a wide range of wireless technologies. (’899 Patent, col. 6:49-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the context of the invention—a handheld scanner communicating with a separate computer—limits the term to transmissions between physically separate devices and does not cover, for example, wireless communication between components within a single, self-contained housing.

"scanner tracking subsystem" (’375 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is a required structural component of the claimed system. Whether an accused device includes this "subsystem" is a threshold question for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether the patent covers modern tracking technologies not explicitly detailed in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the subsystem functionally as that which "tracks and computes the location and orientation of at least one position indicator." (’899 Patent, col. 8:9-11). It also states that "Any 3D tracking system may be used," including non-optical ones like magnetic systems. (’899 Patent, col. 8:55-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment shown in the figures depicts an "outside-in" tracking system, where fixed external sensors (64) track indicators (20, 22, 24) on the scanner body. (’899 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction limited to systems that rely on external infrastructure, potentially excluding modern "inside-out" tracking (e.g., SLAM) where a device tracks itself using its own onboard sensors.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The factual basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents. (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶24-25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant gained "actual knowledge" of infringement upon service of the complaint and associated claim charts. (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). It further alleges that Defendant has continued to infringe despite this knowledge, which forms the basis for a potential claim of post-filing willful infringement. (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).

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

• A core issue will be one of technological scope: can the claims, which describe a 2006-era architecture of a distinct handheld scanner, tracking system, and computer, be interpreted to cover modern, highly integrated devices (e.g., a smartphone with LiDAR) where these functional components may not be physically separate?
• The case may turn on a question of claim construction: will the term "scanner tracking subsystem", which is exemplified in the patent with an external "outside-in" system, be construed narrowly to that structure, or broadly enough to encompass the "inside-out" and SLAM-based tracking common in contemporary 3D scanning technology?
• An initial procedural and evidentiary question will be the sufficiency of the complaint itself. Given the lack of specific factual allegations regarding the accused products' operation and the reliance on unattached exhibits, the court may first need to address whether the pleadings provide adequate notice of the infringement theory.