Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. 3Shape Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: 3Shape Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00950, D. Del., 09/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being incorporated in Delaware and having an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional, non-contact shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves 3D scanning systems that capture the geometry of physical objects by projecting light patterns and wirelessly transmitting the resulting data to build a digital model.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 is a divisional of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899, indicating a 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”, issued August 14, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a limitation in prior art non-contact 3D scanners, stating that they are "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage" (’899 Patent, col. 2:35-37). This tethering restricts the scanner's movement and operational flexibility.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for untethered 3D shape sensing where a scanner projects a pattern of light onto an object, captures an image of the intersection, and processes that image to generate coordinate data (’899 Patent, Fig. 5). Crucially, this data is then "wirelessly" transmitted to a receiver, and the scanner's own position is tracked by a separate subsystem, allowing a computer to correlate the two data streams and build a 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, col. 2:41-62; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: By eliminating the physical cable, the invention enables greater freedom of movement for the scanner, which could improve the efficiency and completeness of capturing the surface geometry of complex objects (’899 Patent, col. 1:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, instead referring to "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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 at the time the image corresponding to the datum was formed;
  • 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.

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: As a divisional of the '899 Patent application, the '375 Patent shares the same specification and addresses the identical problem of physical tethers limiting the utility of 3D scanners (’375 Patent, col. 2:35-38).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is also identical to that of the '899 Patent: a wireless 3D scanning architecture. However, the '375 Patent claims the invention as a system comprising physical components rather than as a method comprising steps (’375 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a system architecture for a handheld, untethered 3D scanner, which could allow for more flexible and complete data capture compared to stationary or wired systems (’375 Patent, col. 1:41-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, instead referring to "Exemplary '375 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • a non-contact scanner, including a source of structured light, an imaging electro-optical 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 and the structured light;
  • a wireless data receiver; and
  • a computer configured to correlate received data with the scanner position, transform the data into object coordinates, and accumulate the points to model the object.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in external exhibits, which were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶17, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any specific accused product. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the patents-in-suit by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). The infringement theory is detailed in claim chart exhibits that were incorporated by reference but not filed with the complaint document itself (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The complaint asserts that these charts demonstrate that the accused products "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without access to these exhibits, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "wirelessly transmitting" ('899 Patent, Claim 1) / "wireless data transmitter" ('375 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This concept is the central feature distinguishing the invention from the "tethered" prior art cited in the specification. The scope of "wireless" will be critical to determining infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not limit the term to any specific protocol. The term itself implies any form of data transmission not conducted over a physical wire or cable.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, stating the transmission medium "may utilize a proprietary protocol or an industry standard such as IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA, or any other current or future standard" (’899 Patent, col. 6:51-54). A party could argue these examples contextualize and potentially limit the scope of the term.

• Term: "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light" ('899 Patent, Claim 1) / "scanner tracking subsystem" ('375 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This element is necessary to convert the scanner-relative data into a coherent 3D model in a global coordinate system. The mechanism by which the accused products determine their position and orientation will be a key point of comparison. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents describe a specific architecture where an external system tracks the scanner.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify the technology used for tracking. The specification notes that "Any 3D tracking system may be used...even one which is non-optical, such as a magnetic tracking system" (’899 Patent, col. 8:55-58). This suggests the term is intended to be technologically broad.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description consistently depict a system where a "scanner tracking subsystem" (60) with external sensors (64) tracks "position indicators" (20, 22, 24) on the scanner itself (’899 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:9-16). A defendant might argue that this consistent depiction limits the claim to systems with a separable tracking subsystem and trackable markers, potentially excluding systems that use other methods like simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) from on-board sensors alone.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant obtained "actual knowledge" of its alleged infringement upon service of the complaint and its associated claim charts (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). It alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continues to infringe, supporting a claim for ongoing willful infringement (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶24-25).

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

• A primary issue is evidentiary and procedural: The complaint's infringement allegations rely entirely on external exhibits that were not provided. The initial phase of litigation will likely focus on discovery to establish the precise identity and technical operation of the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that form the basis of the suit.
• A key technical question will be one of architectural correspondence: Do the accused products determine their position and orientation using a "scanner tracking subsystem" that is architecturally consistent with the system disclosed in the patents? The case may turn on whether the accused technology, whatever it may be, can be read onto a claim structure that appears to teach a scanner with passive markers being tracked by a separate, active external system.
• The case will also present a question of definitional scope: The central novel feature is the "wireless" nature of the system. The construction of "wirelessly transmitting" and its system counterpart, "wireless data transmitter," will be pivotal in defining the boundary between the patented invention and the prior art, thereby shaping the entire infringement analysis.