Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Scantech Americas Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Scantech Americas, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00949, D. Del., 09/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed acts of patent infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional scanning products infringe patents related to wireless, non-contact methods and systems for shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using structured light and optical sensors to capture the shape of physical objects and wirelessly transmit that data to a computer to create a 3D model.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is an Amended Complaint. U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 is a divisional of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899.

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," Issued August 14, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art non-contact 3D scanners were physically connected to computers or power sources, stating they were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage" (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-34). This physical tethering limits the mobility and operational freedom of the scanning device.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for wireless 3D scanning. A mobile, untethered 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. This processed data is then transmitted wirelessly to a receiver connected to a computer, which uses information from a tracking system to correlate the scanner's position and assemble the data points into a 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-62).
• Technical Importance: By eliminating the physical cable, the invention allows a handheld scanner to be moved more freely around large or awkwardly positioned objects, increasing the efficiency and versatility of the 3D data capture process (’899 Patent, col. 3:25-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" identified in an exhibit not included with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Establishing an object coordinate system.
  • Projecting a known pattern of structured light onto an object.
  • Forming an image of the intersection of the light and the object.
  • Processing the image to generate data characterizing the intersection relative to the light pattern's position.
  • Wirelessly transmitting the intersection data to a receiver.
  • Tracking the position of the light pattern.
  • Associating the intersection data with the tracked position.
  • Transforming the intersection data into the object coordinate system.
  • Accumulating the transformed coordinates to form a surface approximation.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims of the ’899 Patent (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 - "Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing," Issued February 26, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent patent, the ’375 Patent addresses the limitations of 3D scanners being "tethered at least by an electronic cable," which restricts their use (’375 Patent, col. 2:35-38).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a system for wireless 3D scanning. The system comprises a non-contact scanner (which itself includes a light source, an imaging sensor, an image processor, a wireless transmitter, and a position indicator), a separate scanner tracking subsystem to determine the scanner's 3D position, a wireless data receiver, and a computer. The computer is configured to correlate the received data with the scanner's position, transform the data into a common coordinate system, and accumulate the data to model the object (’375 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:26-53).
• Technical Importance: The claimed system provides a complete architectural solution for untethered, mobile 3D scanning, defining the key hardware components and their cooperative functions (’375 Patent, col. 3:10-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" identified in an exhibit not included with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A non-contact scanner comprising: a source of structured light, an imaging sensor, an image processor, a wireless transmitter, and a position indicator.
  • A scanner tracking subsystem configured to continuously determine the 3D position of the scanner.
  • A wireless data receiver.
  • A computer configured to correlate received data with the scanner's position, transform the data, and accumulate the coordinates to model the object.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims of the ’375 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name any specific accused products in its text. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶17, ¶21, ¶26).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality, features, or market context. It makes only general allegations that the products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).
  No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to external claim charts that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The following tables summarize the infringement theory for the lead independent claim of each patent based on the general allegations in the complaint.

’899 Patent Infringement Allegations

’375 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint's reliance on un-filed exhibits for both product identification and infringement specifics raises the fundamental question of what evidence Plaintiff will produce to show that the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims.
  • Technical Question: A potential dispute may arise over the "processing the image" step of the ’899 patent. The claim requires processing to occur on the scanner to generate data "relative to a position of the pattern of structured light" before wireless transmission. The case may turn on whether the accused scanners perform this specific local computation, or if they transmit raw or merely compressed image data for processing at a separate computer.
  • Scope Question: The infringement analysis will likely require construction of what constitutes "data characterizing the intersection," as recited in claim 1 of the ’899 patent, raising the question of whether the data format transmitted by the accused products falls within the scope of this term.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection relative to a position of the pattern of structured light" ('899 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the computational work that must be performed by the scanner itself. The point of infringement may hinge on the location and nature of this processing in the accused system—whether it occurs on the mobile scanner or on the host computer after data transmission.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this step in general terms, such as generating "intermediate set[s] of surface data" (’899 Patent, col. 2:51-54), which could support an interpretation covering various forms of data extraction or reduction performed on the scanner.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as transforming 2D subpixel image coordinates into "3D coordinates relative to a local Cartesian coordinate system defined with respect to the scanner" (’899 Patent, col. 5:36-40). A defendant could argue the term is limited to generating such 3D local coordinates on the scanner prior to transmission, excluding systems that transmit 2D image data.

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting" ('899 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: As the central feature of the invention, the scope of this term is key. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction, when read in light of the preceding "processing" step, could determine what kind of data must be sent over the wireless link for infringement to occur.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly contemplates multiple transmission protocols, including "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA, or any other current or future standard," suggesting the term is not limited to any single technology (’899 Patent, col. 6:49-52).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: This term does not appear in isolation. A party might argue that, based on the claim structure, "wirelessly transmitting" refers specifically to the transmission of the "set of data" generated by the "processing" step. This would support a narrower reading where transmitting raw or simply compressed video data, for example, would not meet the limitation as claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The factual basis asserted is that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end-users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15, ¶16, ¶24, ¶25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of the patents and infringement. It further alleges that any continued infringing activities by Defendant after this date are willful (Compl. ¶14-15, ¶23-24). The prayer for relief requests that the case be found exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 7).

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations and its reliance on un-filed exhibits, a threshold question is what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that the accused products, once identified, actually contain the components and perform the steps recited in the asserted claims.

2. The case may also turn on a question of architectural scope: does the claim language, particularly the "processing...relative to a position of the pattern of structured light" limitation, require a specific computational task to be performed on the mobile scanner before wireless transmission? The answer will determine whether infringement is limited to systems that transmit processed geometric coordinates, or if it can also read on systems that transmit raw or compressed image data for external processing.