Patent Armory Inc v. Willowwood Global LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: WillowWood Global LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00393, D. Del., 03/27/2024
• 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’s three-dimensional scanning products infringe a patent related to wireless, non-contact shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating digital 3D models of physical objects by projecting light patterns onto them and capturing the reflections, specifically using wireless data transmission.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-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, “Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing,” issued August 14, 2007 (the “’899 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for capturing 3D models of real-world objects for use in computer graphics and mechanical design ( Compl. Ex. 1, ’899 Patent, col. 1:15-20). It notes that prior non-contact optical scanners were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," limiting their mobility and ease of use (’899 Patent, col. 2:35-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system for 3D shape sensing that operates wirelessly (’899 Patent, col. 1:11-14). It involves projecting a known pattern of light onto an object, imaging the resulting intersection, tracking the scanner's position relative to the object, and then wirelessly transmitting the captured geometric data to a computer, which transforms the data into a 3D model (’899 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5). This untethers the scanner from the processing computer, allowing for greater freedom of movement.
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention addresses a limitation in prior art scanning systems by eliminating the physical data cable, thereby enabling more flexible and mobile non-contact 3D shape acquisition (’899 Patent, col. 2:54-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit, but does not identify specific claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim in the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim) Elements:
  • 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body (Compl. ¶¶1-19). It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within Exhibit 2, an attachment not provided with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). This suggests they are systems for non-contact, three-dimensional shape sensing. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific functionality or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). However, it incorporates the detailed infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not provided (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed, element-by-element analysis based on the provided documents is not possible. The narrative theory is that the Defendant's products, when made, used, or sold, perform a method of wireless 3D scanning that meets all the limitations of at least one claim of the ’899 Patent (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent’s asserted novelty over prior "tethered" systems (’899 Patent, col. 2:35-38). The dispute may focus on whether the accused system's mode of data transmission falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely define the boundary between the patented invention and the prior art.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope, 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. 6:49-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term should be limited by the context of the overall claimed method, which involves a specific sequence of tracking, associating, and transforming data that might not be met by all forms of wireless communication.

• The Term: "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light"

• Context and Importance: This step is critical for transforming local scanner data into a global object model. The definition of "position" and the method of "tracking" will be key to the infringement analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "position" broadly to mean "both its 3-dimensional location and its 3-dimensional orientation" (’899 Patent, col. 3:63-66). It also states that "Any 3D tracking system may be used" (’899 Patent, col. 8:55-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of tracking, such as using "at least three non-collinear position indicators" on the scanner which are tracked by an external subsystem like the "FlashPoint system" (’899 Patent, col. 8:30-50). A party could argue the term should be construed in light of these specific embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The allegation is predicated on knowledge acquired "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful." However, it alleges that the service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant "has also continued to sell" its products "Despite such actual knowledge" (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). This provides a basis for alleging post-filing willful infringement.

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

1. An evidentiary question of infringement: As the complaint defers all technical details of infringement to an unprovided exhibit, a central issue will be what evidence Plaintiff produces to demonstrate that the accused products, which are not named in the complaint, actually perform each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the steps of tracking, wireless transmission, and coordinate transformation.
2. A claim construction question of scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of key terms. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: whether the term "tracking the position," as described in the patent's embodiments, can be construed to read on the specific method of location and orientation sensing used in the accused systems.
3. A question of timing and knowledge: The allegations of indirect and potential willful infringement are based solely on knowledge gained from the complaint itself. A key question will be whether Plaintiff can later introduce evidence of pre-suit knowledge to strengthen these claims and expand the period for potential enhanced damages.