DCT
1:24-cv-00609
Patent Armory Inc v. Carl Zeiss Industrial Quality Solutions LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
- Defendant: Carl Zeiss Industrial Quality Solutions, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00609, D. Del., 05/22/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional non-contact scanning products infringe a patent related to wireless methods for 3D shape sensing.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that capture the surface geometry of physical objects by projecting structured light, imaging the reflection, and processing the data to create a 3D model, with a specific focus on wireless data transmission.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of knowledge and willfulness are based solely on the filing of the instant complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-10-04 | Patent Application Filing Date for U.S. Patent 7,256,899 |
| 2007-08-14 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent 7,256,899 |
| 2024-05-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior non-contact 3D 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. 2:32-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system for untethered, wireless 3D shape sensing. The system uses a handheld scanner that projects a known pattern of structured light onto an object and captures an image of the resulting intersection line ('899 Patent, col. 2:48-51). A key aspect is that the scanner processes this image data and wirelessly transmits it to a remote computer ('899 Patent, col. 2:55-56, col. 5:46-51). A separate tracking subsystem determines the real-time position and orientation of the handheld scanner in a global coordinate system, allowing the wirelessly received data to be transformed and assembled into a complete 3D model of the object ('899 Patent, col. 3:10-21, col. 8:8-14).
- Technical Importance: By eliminating the physical cable between the scanner and the computer, the invention sought to increase the flexibility and operational freedom for capturing the geometry of large or complex objects in fields like industrial design and quality control ('899 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "one or more claims" and the "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). 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.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint does not name specific accused products in its body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within an Exhibit 2, which is incorporated by reference but not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in an unattached Exhibit 2 and does not provide a narrative infringement theory in the body of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶16-17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's unidentified 3D scanning products perform all steps of the claimed method.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of the '899 patent and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data." A potential dispute is whether the data transmitted by the accused products constitutes "intersection data" as contemplated by the patent, or if it is some other form of processed spatial data. The method by which the accused products "track the position of the pattern of structured light" will also be a central point of comparison to the claim language.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform the specific step of "associating each intersection datum with the position of the projected pattern of light at the time the image corresponding to the datum was formed"? The mechanism for temporal correlation between the scanner's position data and the captured image data may be a key technical issue for the court to resolve.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pattern of structured light of known geometry"
Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the light projected onto the object. Its construction is critical because it will determine the range of scanning technologies covered by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term to argue whether the specific light patterns used by the accused products meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is broad, encompassing various patterns, including "one or several narrow rays of light," "multiple planes of light," or more complex patterns generated by a hologram or digital video projector ('899 Patent, col. 4:22-44). This language may support a construction that is not limited to any single type of pattern, so long as its geometry is "known."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claims recite specific patterns, such as a "narrow ray-like beam of light" (Claim 2) and a "planar fan of light" (Claim 3). A defendant could argue these dependent claims suggest the independent claim's "pattern" should not be interpreted so broadly as to automatically read on these more specific embodiments.
The Term: "wirelessly transmitting"
Context and Importance: This is the central feature of the invention, intended to distinguish it from prior "tethered" systems. The scope of "wirelessly" will be dispositive for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generally understood in the art, and a party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any form of data transmission without a physical cable.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of wireless protocols, 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). A party might argue that this list, while non-exhaustive, cabins the term to similar radio or infrared frequency technologies and may not cover other forms of wireless communication.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of 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 directly infringes the '899 patent (Compl. ¶14).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" since the service of the complaint and that any continued infringing activity is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13-14). The basis for willfulness is entirely post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unattached exhibit, a primary question will be what specific evidence Plaintiff can marshall during discovery to demonstrate that the accused Carl Zeiss products actually perform each element of the asserted claims, particularly the steps of wirelessly transmitting specific "intersection data" and associating it with temporally-correlated scanner position data.
- The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: The construction of the term "pattern of structured light of known geometry" will be critical. The outcome could depend on whether the court adopts a broad construction covering any predictable light pattern or a narrower one limited by the specific examples and embodiments described in the patent's specification.