Patent Armory Inc v. Faro Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Faro Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01178, D. Del., 09/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the district.
• 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 for capturing the three-dimensional geometry of physical objects by projecting structured light and wirelessly transmitting the resulting surface data to a computer for model creation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-10-04	’899 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-14	’899 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-22	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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that, at the time of the invention, non-contact 3D scanners were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which limited their mobility and ease of use (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system for 3D shape sensing that untethers the scanner from the processing computer. It achieves this by using a handheld scanner that projects a light pattern onto an object, captures an image of the pattern's intersection with the object's surface, processes that image data, and then "wirelessly... transmits the... surface point data" to a separate receiver connected to a computer (’899 Patent, col. 2:54-57; Fig. 1). The system simultaneously tracks the scanner's position and orientation in 3D space, allowing the computer to correlate the incoming wireless data with the scanner's position to build a comprehensive 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, col. 3:10-22).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for greater freedom of movement and portability in capturing 3D data from physical objects, a significant advantage over prior, physically tethered systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’899 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • establishing an object coordinate system
  • projecting a pattern of structured light onto the object
  • forming an image of the intersection of the light pattern with the object
  • processing the image to generate data characterizing the intersection
  • 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 the intersection data with the tracked position
  • transforming the intersection data into coordinates of the object coordinate system
  • accumulating the transformed coordinates to form a surface approximation
• 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 refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific products (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges that infringement details are provided in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not included with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe the ’899 Patent and provides its infringement theory in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which is incorporated by reference but not provided in the filed document (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint’s narrative allegations are conclusory, stating only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the asserted patent, the infringement analysis will likely raise several key questions.

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether Defendant’s accused products perform the "wirelessly transmitting" step as claimed. The dispute may center on whether the data transmitted by the accused products constitutes "data characterizing the intersection" as required by the claim, or if it is some other form of data.
• Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the accused systems "track[] the position of the pattern of structured light" and "associat[e] each intersection datum with the position," as recited in claim 1. The specific mechanism used by the accused products for position tracking and data correlation will be compared to the methods disclosed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"wirelessly transmitting"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior "tethered" systems. Its construction will determine whether the accused products, which presumably have a wireless component, fall within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a single technology, listing "modulated radio frequency signals, modulated infrared signals," and industry standards like "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, [or] IRDA" as potential transmission media (’899 Patent, col. 6:49-54). This may support a construction covering a wide range of wireless data transfer protocols.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires transmitting "some portion of the image and intersection data." A defendant may argue that this requires transmitting specific geometric data (e.g., coordinates) rather than raw, unprocessed sensor data, potentially narrowing the term's scope based on the nature of the data packet being transmitted.

"tracking the position of the pattern of structured light"

• Context and Importance: This step is critical for transforming the scanner-relative data into a coherent 3D model in the object's coordinate system. The dispute will hinge on whether the accused product's method of determining its location and orientation in space meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses multiple tracking methods, including optical systems using "retro-reflective marker[s]" or LEDs, as well as "non-optical, such as a magnetic tracking system" (’899 Patent, col. 7:32-38; col. 8:53-56). This disclosure of multiple, distinct embodiments may support a broad construction that is not limited to any single tracking technology.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "tracking the position" implies a continuous or near-continuous determination of location and orientation, as described in the context of the "FlashPoint system" referenced in the specification (’899 Patent, col. 8:46-50). If an accused product uses a more intermittent or different method of registration, it could raise a non-infringement argument.

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).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears aimed at supporting a claim for enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement rather than pre-suit willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s infringement allegations are entirely dependent on an external Exhibit 2. A key early question will be whether the complaint, on its face, provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief without this exhibit, an issue that may be tested by a motion to dismiss.
• A key technical question will be one of functional performance: Assuming the case proceeds, the dispute will center on whether the accused products actually perform the claimed method, specifically by (1) wirelessly transmitting data that "characteriz[es] the intersection" of a light pattern with an object, and (2) simultaneously "tracking the position" of that light pattern to transform and accumulate the data into a 3D model.