Patent Armory Inc v. Dentsply Sirona Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Dentsply Sirona Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01177, D. Del., 09/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's incorporation in the state of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products infringe a patent related to wireless three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology involves systems that capture the three-dimensional shape of an object by projecting a pattern of light onto its surface and wirelessly transmitting captured data to a computer, which is significant in fields such as medical imaging, manufacturing, and industrial design.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events.

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 (’899 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that, at the time of the invention, non-contact 3D scanners were typically "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which limited their mobility and ease of use in various applications (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides for a handheld, non-contact 3D scanner that operates wirelessly (’899 Patent, Abstract). The system functions by projecting a known pattern of structured light onto an object, using an optical sensor to form an image of the light's intersection with the object's surface, processing that image data to generate geometric coordinates, and then wirelessly transmitting this processed data to a separate computer (’899 Patent, Fig. 5). A tracking subsystem simultaneously determines the scanner's position and orientation in space, allowing the computer to correctly assemble the received coordinate data into a comprehensive 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, col. 3:10-21).
• Technical Importance: This untethered approach was designed to increase the flexibility and portability of 3D scanning technology, making it more practical for applications requiring significant operator movement, such as intraoral dental scanning or inspection of large industrial components (’899 Patent, col. 1:15-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’899 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" detailed in an exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s independent claims are Claim 1 (a method claim) and Claim 16 (a system claim).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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 data;
  • Tracking the position of the pattern of structured light;
  • Associating each intersection datum with the position of the projected pattern of light;
  • 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.
• Independent Claim 16 (System):
  • This claim recites a system comprising "means for" performing each of the functional steps listed in method Claim 1 (e.g., "means for projecting," "processing means," "transmitting means"). As a means-plus-function claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), its scope is limited to the corresponding structures described in the patent's specification and their equivalents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products by name, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that were purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused product. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference infringement allegations from "the attached claim charts and references cited" in Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶13, ¶17). The body of the complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping limitations of the asserted patent claims to features of any accused product. It alleges that the charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced claim charts, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the complaint alone.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute for system Claim 16, which is drafted in means-plus-function format, will involve identifying the specific structures disclosed in the '899 Patent's specification that perform the claimed functions (e.g., "processing means") and then determining whether the accused products contain those structures or their legal equivalents.
  • Technical Questions: The asserted claims require "wirelessly transmitting" data derived from the captured image. A likely point of contention will be the nature of this transmitted data. An evidentiary question for the court may be what specific data (e.g., raw image pixels, 2D coordinates, or fully processed 3D surface point coordinates) the accused products transmit and whether that data falls within the scope of the claim term "intersection data."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's contribution of an untethered scanner. The definition of "intersection data" will be critical for determining infringement. A defendant may argue that the term requires the transmission of fully processed 3D coordinates calculated on the scanner itself, while the plaintiff may argue for a broader interpretation that includes less processed data, such as 2D pixel coordinates or raw image information.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses that a transmitter may send a "stream of video image pixels and/or many image subpixel coordinates and/or 3D surface point coordinates," which may support an argument that "intersection data" is not limited to a single format (’899 Patent, col. 7:2-4).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 5 depicts a distinct step of processing the image "to obtain a set of 3-d coordinates" (Step 530) before the step of "Wirelessly transmit[ting] the processed surface point coordinates" (Step 540). This sequence may support an argument that the "intersection data" contemplated by the method is the output of the on-scanner processing, namely the 3D coordinates.

• The Term: "processing means for generating a set of data characterizing the intersection" (from Claim 16)

• Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation, the scope of this term is defined by the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because identifying the specific structure and its equivalents will be a dispositive issue for infringement of Claim 16.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the transformation of 2D image data into 3D coordinates "may be performed in a microprocessor within scanner 12, or within a separate computer 70" (’899 Patent, col. 5:40-42). This language could support an argument that the "processing means" is not limited to a processor located within the scanner itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes that "image processing may be implemented using an on-board digital microprocessor" located within the handheld scanner (’899 Patent, col. 4:64-65). This disclosure of a specific embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction where the corresponding structure must be physically located on the scanner.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’899 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement. It asserts that the filing and service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement," which may form a basis for alleging ongoing infringement is willful post-filing (Compl. ¶13).

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

• A central issue will be one of structural scope: For the means-plus-function limitations in Claim 16, what specific structures (e.g., an "on-board digital microprocessor") are disclosed in the specification as corresponding to the claimed "means," and do the accused products contain those structures or their legal equivalents?
• A key question for claim construction will be the definitional scope of "intersection data." The case may turn on whether this term is limited to fully processed 3D coordinates transmitted from the scanner or if it can be construed more broadly to cover intermediate data types like 2D pixel coordinates or raw image information.
• An immediate procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: As the complaint's factual allegations of infringement appear to be contained entirely within an unattached exhibit, the court may need to resolve whether the complaint, on its face, provides plausible grounds for relief as required under federal pleading standards.