DCT
6:23-cv-00920
Askan v. Faro Tech Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yoldas Askan (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: FARO Technologies, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00920, M.D. Fla., 01/12/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being a Florida corporation with its principal place of business within the Middle District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3D laser scanners and associated software platforms infringe two patents related to methods and systems for smoothing noisy 3D point cloud data.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves digital signal processing algorithms designed to remove statistical noise from data generated by 3D laser scanners, thereby improving the accuracy and utility of the resulting 3D models for high-precision applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history between the parties, including two prior patent infringement lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in 2018 and 2021. Plaintiff asserts that the current action is not barred by res judicata because it targets new products introduced after the earlier cases. The complaint also details extensive alleged pre-suit knowledge by Defendant of Plaintiff's technology and patents, dating back to 2011 communications and a 2012 inquiry from Defendant regarding Plaintiff's patent applications.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-10 | FARO VP David Homewood emails Plaintiff regarding a future working relationship |
| 2010-12-01 | Plaintiff purchases a FARO 3D laser scanner |
| 2011-06-01 | Plaintiff's invention is published in the Nuclear Future Journal |
| 2012-06-25 | Earliest Priority Date for '841 and '255 Patents |
| 2012-07-12 | FARO VP David Homewood writes to Plaintiff inquiring about his patents |
| 2013-10-08 | FARO publishes an article on a third-party website about its scanner's noise reduction capabilities |
| 2014-12-18 | FARO's attorney allegedly emails Plaintiff's representative stating, "Our software predates his patent." |
| 2016-03-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,300,841 is issued |
| 2018-06-21 | Plaintiff files first patent infringement lawsuit against FARO |
| 2018-07-24 | U.S. Patent No. 10,032,255 is issued |
| 2021-08-20 | Plaintiff files second patent infringement lawsuit against FARO |
| 2023-02-09 | Plaintiff emails FARO, putting it on notice of alleged infringement by new products |
| 2024-01-12 | Amended Complaint is filed in the current action |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,300,841 - Method of Generating a Smooth Image from Point Cloud Data
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section explains that point cloud data obtained from 3D laser scanners contains "statistical noise and false scatter points," which "mask the true shape of the object being measured" and prevent accurate measurements ('841 Patent, col. 1:26-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for iteratively smoothing this noisy data. The process begins by establishing "local error limits" for each data point (pixel) ('841 Patent, Abstract). It then enters a loop where each pixel's distance value is compared to its neighbors. If a neighbor's value is outside an "error bar," the pixel's value is adjusted by a "small fraction." If it is inside the error bar, the pixel's value is replaced by a "weighted average" of itself and its neighbors. This process is repeated, causing the collection of points to converge toward a smooth surface while remaining bounded by the initial error limits ('841 Patent, col. 2:1-20; Fig. 10).
- Technical Importance: This claimed method purports to create a smooth, noise-free 3D model without distorting or reducing the density of the original scan data, which is critical for engineering applications requiring high-precision deformation monitoring ('841 Patent, col. 1:48-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶148).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
- calculating local error limits for each distance value for each pixel in a processed point cloud data set;
- determining an error bar;
- beginning a distance value adjusting loop for each pixel by calculating the difference between its distance value and that of its neighboring pixels;
- determining whether the difference is within the range defined by the error bar;
- if the difference is not within the error bar, changing the distance value by a small fraction while keeping it within the local error limits;
- if the difference is within the error bar, replacing the distance value with a weighted average value; and
- terminating the loop based on exit criteria.
U.S. Patent No. 10,032,255 - System for Smoothing 3D Clouds
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’841 Patent: raw data from 3D scanners is degraded by noise, which obscures the true dimensions of the scanned object ('255 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a system comprising a scanner and a processor. The scanner generates a "first point cloud data set," described as a "noisy 3D model" ('255 Patent, col. 13:13-15). The processor is configured to execute instructions to iteratively process this data. In each iteration, new distance values are generated based on an "average based distance value of at least two neighboring points" from the previous iteration's data. The output is a "second point cloud data set" that represents a "noise free and smoothed representation" of the object ('255 Patent, col. 13:20-32).
- Technical Importance: By claiming a complete system, the patent covers the integration of the data acquisition hardware (scanner) with the processing software that performs the smoothing algorithm.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶154).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system with the essential elements of:
- a scanner configured to generate a "first point cloud data set" representing a "noisy 3D model";
- a processor configured to execute instructions for:
- receiving the first point cloud data set;
- generating second distance values based on at least two neighboring points;
- generating a second point cloud data set based on an "average based distance value" of at least two neighboring points;
- performing one or more iterations where each new distance value is an "average based distance value of at least two neighboring points" from the previous iteration; and
- outputting the processed point cloud data set.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "FARO Sphere", "Focus Premium Laser Scanner", "Focus Core Laser Scanner", and "Stream" software application (Compl. ¶76).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are 3D laser scanners and associated software platforms for processing the collected data (Compl. ¶79). The complaint alleges that since 2011, Defendant has integrated Plaintiff's inventive steps into an "in-camera processor" to filter raw data and output "noise free scans" (Compl. ¶¶59-60). A FARO product manual excerpt included in the complaint shows a side-by-side comparison of a "raw" scan of a floor and a "Smooth" filtered version, illustrating the noise-reduction function (Compl. ¶26). The complaint alleges this smoothing is achieved by a process that replaces the distance value of a given scan point with a "mean distance value of scan points within a 2D grid" (Compl. ¶¶56, 88). Plaintiff provides visuals contrasting noisy raw scans with the smoothed output allegedly produced by his invention, which he claims the FARO products now replicate (Compl. ¶¶17, 29).
- The complaint alleges Defendant is a significant competitor in the 3D scanner market and provides Defendant's annual revenue figures for 2018 ($403.63M) and 2022 ($345.8M) (Compl. ¶¶108, 132).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,300,841 Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart for the '841 Patent. The infringement theory is based on narrative allegations that Defendant's in-camera filtering process performs repetitive averaging of neighboring scan points.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| calculating local error limits for each distance value...; determining the error bar | The accused software allegedly uses "certain criteria" to determine whether to average the distance values of scan points. | ¶¶56, 88 | col. 2:2-3 |
| beginning a distance value adjusting loop by for each pixel... | Defendant is alleged to deploy "repetitive averaging" to produce smooth point cloud surfaces. | ¶58 | col. 2:4-5 |
| if the difference is within the error bar the distance value in the pixel being processed is replaced by a weighted average value | The accused products allegedly "change the distance values of scan points by replacing the distance value of a given scan point with a mean distance value of scan points within a 2D grid." | ¶¶56, 88 | col. 2:11-14 |
| terminating the loop | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 2:18-20 |
U.S. Patent No. 10,032,255 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a scanner operably configured to scan a surface of an object...so as to generate a first point cloud data set...representing a noisy 3D model | The accused FARO 3D Laser Scanners probe an object by emitting a laser beam from a rotating mirror and detecting the reflection to create distance measurements, which form a point cloud. An included diagram illustrates this operation. | ¶79.a | col. 13:8-15 |
| a processor operably configured to execute instructions for: receiving the first point cloud data set | The scanners and associated software create and use the distance measurement data obtained from the scan, which is referred to as a "point cloud." | ¶79.c | col. 13:19-20 |
| generating a second point cloud data set based on the second distance values which are an average based distance value of the at least two neighboring points | The accused software allegedly changes the distance values of scan points by replacing a point's value with a "mean distance value" calculated from neighboring points. | ¶¶56, 88 | col. 13:23-26 |
| performing one or more iterations to generate distance values...each of the iteratively generated distance values being the average based distance value of at least two neighboring points of each of the distance values of the previous iteration | Defendant is alleged to deploy "repetitive averaging" to produce smooth surfaces, which implies an iterative process. | ¶58 | col. 13:27-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely concern the actual operation of FARO's filtering algorithm. The complaint alleges a "mean distance value" calculation (Compl. ¶56), but the specific mechanism, criteria, and iterative nature of this process will be critical. Does FARO's process perform the specific conditional logic (i.e., the "if/then" steps based on an error bar) required by claim 1 of the '841 Patent?
- Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of whether FARO's alleged calculation of a "mean distance value" meets the '841 Patent's claim limitation of a "weighted average value." Further, it raises the question of whether the "certain criteria" alleged to be used by FARO (Compl. ¶56) are structurally and functionally the same as the "error bar" recited in the '841 Patent claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "weighted average value" (from '841 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the core method step of the '841 Patent. The complaint alleges that FARO calculates a "mean distance value" (Compl. ¶56). The dispute will likely focus on whether a simple arithmetic mean falls within the scope of a "weighted average." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether FARO's alleged "mean" calculation literally infringes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "weighted average" can encompass a simple mean, where all components are assigned an equal weight of 1. The patent does not appear to explicitly disclaim this meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes replacing a pixel distance with a "loop count weighted average value" ('841 Patent, Fig. 10, step 340), suggesting a specific implementation where the weight changes with each iteration. This may support an argument that the patentee envisioned a more complex weighting scheme than a simple mean.
The Term: "error bar" (from '841 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: The "error bar" defines the conditional threshold that dictates whether a pixel's value is adjusted by a "small fraction" or replaced by a "weighted average." The complaint alleges FARO's process uses "certain criteria" to trigger its averaging function (Compl. ¶56). Whether these "criteria" constitute an "error bar" will be a key issue for infringement of the '841 Patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to mean any numerical range or threshold used to evaluate the difference between a pixel and its neighbors.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the error bar as being derived from an "error function," which is itself determined through empirical testing of the scanner hardware across various distances, surfaces, and angles ('841 Patent, col. 6:11-24). This may support a narrower construction requiring the "error bar" to be a specific, hardware-calibrated value range, not just any arbitrary software criteria.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for both patents, asserting that FARO provides the accused products to its customers with the specific intent to encourage them to perform the infringing smoothing operations (Compl. ¶¶174, 182). The basis for knowledge and intent includes direct pre-suit communications about the patents in 2012, prior infringement lawsuits, and Plaintiff's notice letter regarding the newly accused products in February 2023 (Compl. ¶¶67, 80, 175).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged long-standing knowledge of the patents and the underlying technology (Compl. ¶¶151, 157). The factual basis includes Defendant's alleged study of Plaintiff's 2011 technical article, a 2012 inquiry about Plaintiff's patent applications, and two prior lawsuits on the same patent family (Compl. ¶¶37, 63-64, 67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does Defendant's proprietary "in-camera" filtering algorithm, which is alleged to calculate a "mean distance value," in fact operate according to the specific iterative and conditional logic recited in the asserted claims? Specifically, discovery into the function of FARO's "certain criteria" will be necessary to determine if it functions as the claimed "error bar."
- The case will also likely involve a significant question of claim scope: Can the term "weighted average value" in the '841 Patent be construed to cover a simple arithmetic mean, as allegedly practiced by the accused products, or does the patent's specification implicitly limit the term to a more complex, variable-weighted calculation?
- A threshold legal question will be one of preclusion: Although Plaintiff targets new products to avoid claim preclusion (res judicata), the court will have to determine if any critical issues—such as the construction of key claim terms or the validity of the patents—were actually litigated and decided in the two prior lawsuits between the parties, which could trigger issue preclusion (collateral estoppel).