Patent Armory Inc v. Automated Precision Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Automated Precision Inc. (Maryland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 8:26-cv-00002, D. Md., 01/01/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Maryland because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing products infringe a patent related to wireless methods for performing such sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to 3D scanning systems that capture the surface geometry of physical objects, a process critical for computer-aided design, manufacturing, and quality control.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-10-04	’899 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-14	’899 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-01	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 notes that, at the time of the invention, existing non-contact 3D scanners were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage" (’899 Patent, col. 2:35-38). This physical connection limited the scanner's mobility and ease of use.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system for 3D shape sensing that untethers the scanner from the computer. The system uses a handheld scanner that projects a pattern of structured light onto an object, captures an image of the resulting intersection, and processes that image data (’899 Patent, col. 2:48-55). Crucially, the scanner then "wirelessly transmitted" this surface data to a separate receiver connected to a computer (’899 Patent, col. 2:55-56). Concurrently, a tracking subsystem determines the scanner's position and orientation, allowing the computer to transform the received data into a unified 3D model of the object in a common coordinate system (’899 Patent, col. 2:56-62; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By eliminating the physical cable between the scanner and the computer, the invention enabled greater freedom of movement for the operator, facilitating the scanning of large or complex objects in diverse environments (’899 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referencing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the 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 alleges only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the ’899 Patent but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to support this claim (Compl. ¶11). Instead, it states that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2, which Plaintiff "incorporates by reference" (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory is limited to the conclusory statement that the "Exemplary Defendant Products...satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the patent's focus, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions for the court.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the "wirelessly transmitting" limitation. The dispute could turn on whether the accused system’s data transmission protocol and architecture fall within the meaning of this term as understood in the context of the patent.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform the step of "processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection" before wireless transmission, as required by the claim sequence? The location of this processing (i.e., on the scanner itself versus on a remote computer after data transmission) could be a key point of technical dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central point of novelty distinguishing the invention from the "tethered" prior art systems described in the patent's background. Its construction will be critical to defining the scope of infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a single protocol, listing "modulated radio frequency signals, modulated infrared signals, or modulated signals of some other wavelength" and industry standards like "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, [or] IRDA" as potential transmission media (’899 Patent, col. 6:49-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall context of the invention is an untethered, handheld scanner that communicates with a separate computer (’899 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to systems that fit this specific architecture and excludes systems where data is, for example, stored locally on the scanner and transferred later via a wireless network connection not directly tied to the real-time scanning process.

• The Term: "processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The sequence of the claim requires this "processing" step to occur before the "wirelessly transmitting" step. The definition of what constitutes sufficient "processing" is therefore critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because it determines how much computation must occur on the scanner itself.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where the processing is minimal, generating only "2D pixel coordinates of points on the image of the intersection" before transmission (’899 Patent, col. 15:23-27). This could support an argument that transmitting raw or lightly processed image data meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes an embodiment where the scanner's internal microprocessor performs a more intensive transformation of "subpixel coordinates of given points on the 2D image into 3D XYZ coordinates of surface points of the object" before transmission (’899 Patent, col. 12:28-32). This could support a narrower construction requiring the generation of 3D coordinate data on the scanner prior to transmission.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The complaint references the unprovided Exhibit 2 for evidence of these materials (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge or willful infringement. It asserts that service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13), which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness or enhanced damages should infringement be found.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to several central questions that are not resolved by the complaint alone.

• A primary evidentiary question is one of identification: What specific products are accused of infringement, and what is the specific evidence, presumably contained in the unprovided exhibits, that these products perform each step of the asserted claims?
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "wirelessly transmitting"? The outcome of this construction will likely determine whether the accused system's architecture falls within the patent's scope.
• A key technical question will be one of operational sequence: Does the accused system perform the claim-required "processing" of image data on the scanner unit itself before transmission, or is raw or unprocessed data sent to an external computer for all substantive computation? The answer will be critical for determining literal infringement of the method claim's sequence of steps.