DCT

2:20-cv-05815

Dental Imaging Tech Corp v. J Morita Mfg Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:20-cv-05815, E.D. Pa., 11/19/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff DITC alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because its corporate headquarters, along with its technical support team and product managers for the accused product, are located within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its KaVo OP 3D X-ray imaging system does not infringe five of Defendant's patents related to dental X-ray computed tomography and panoramic imaging systems.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on advanced dental imaging technology, which combines panoramic X-ray capabilities for broad views of the dental arch with computed tomography (CT) for detailed, localized 3D imaging.
  • Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed after Defendant Morita sued Plaintiff DITC for infringement of the same patents in the District of Utah. At the time of this filing, DITC’s motion to dismiss or transfer the Utah case was pending, indicating a procedural dispute over the proper forum for the litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-12-10 ’842 Patent Priority Date
1998-09-02 ’074 Patent Priority Date
2000-09-12 ’842 Patent Issued
2001-09-11 ’074 Patent Issued
2005-07-22 ’622 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-12 ’759 Patent Priority Date
2007-11-16 ’762 Patent Priority Date
2008-03-25 ’622 Patent Issued
2009-02-03 ’759 Patent Issued
2012-10-30 ’762 Patent Issued
2020-06-30 Morita files initial lawsuit in D. Utah
2020-08-19 Morita files First Amended Complaint in D. Utah, naming DITC
2020-11-19 DITC files this Complaint in E.D. Pa.

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,118,842 - “X-Ray Imaging Apparatus,” issued September 12, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need in the field of dental diagnostics for a single X-ray apparatus that can perform both panoramic tomographic imaging (for a wide view of the dental arch) and partial computed tomography (CT) imaging (for a detailed view of a local site), as prior art devices were typically dedicated to one function or the other (U.S. Patent No. 6,118,842, col. 1:7-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a dual-purpose apparatus featuring a "mode switching means" that allows a user to select between a CT mode and a panorama mode. Depending on the mode selected, a "moving means" moves the X-ray source and sensor along either a "CT image formation locus" or a "panoramic image formation locus" to generate the desired type of image (’842 Patent, col. 2:15-35; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide dentists with a single, versatile machine for both general diagnoses and pre-surgical planning (e.g., for implants), which previously might have required two separate, expensive pieces of equipment (’842 Patent, col. 1:36-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 14.
  • Independent Claim 2, for example, requires:
    • An X-ray imaging apparatus with mode switching between a CT mode and a panorama mode.
    • A CT image formation locus where supporting means is rotated about a rotation axis without moving the rotation axis.
    • A panoramic image formation locus where the rotation axis of the supporting means is moved along an envelope and the supporting means is rotated about the rotation axis as required.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims (Compl. ¶30.b-c).

U.S. Patent No. 6,289,074 - “X-Ray Computed Tomography Method and System,” issued September 11, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to reduce the radiation exposure dose and examination time associated with prior art X-ray CT techniques, particularly for dental applications where only a small, local region needs to be imaged (U.S. Patent No. 6,289,074, col. 1:11-32). Conventional panoramic systems also required complex mechanical movements (’074 Patent, col. 1:45-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system that uses a conical X-ray beam to perform local CT by turning a rotary arm "within a scope of angle according to... projecting conditions" while its rotation center is "fixed at a center position of a [virtual] local region." This localized approach reduces radiation and simplifies the mechanics compared to systems that must scan an entire area or follow a complex path (’074 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-26).
  • Technical Importance: This method enables more targeted, lower-dose 3D imaging for specific dental procedures and offers a mechanically simpler way to generate panoramic images, potentially leading to smaller and more cost-effective devices (’074 Patent, col. 2:7-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 3, 7, and 8.
  • Independent Claim 1, for example, requires a method comprising the step of:
    • producing an X-ray projection image on a two-dimensional X-ray image sensor
    • by turning a rotary arm within a scope of angle according to projecting conditions
    • while locally radiating conical X-ray beams
    • with a rotating center of the rotary arm fixed at a center position of a virtual local region to be X-rayed
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims (Compl. ¶35.b).

U.S. Patent No. 7,347,622 - “X-Ray CT Scanner and Scan Method,” issued March 25, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an X-ray CT scanner where the rotation of a rotary device and the movement of the rotary axis (or the object) are synchronized. This synthesized motion is designed to keep a point in a region of interest at the rotation center from the viewpoint of the CT scan, allowing for precise imaging (’622 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: DITC alleges its OP 3D product does not perform the claimed synchronized motion of the rotary device and movement of the rotary axis (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 7,486,759 - “X-Ray Computer Tomography Apparatus,” issued February 3, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses an X-ray apparatus with an "imaging mode selecting device" that allows a user to select between different imaging modes, specifically a "panoramic imaging mode" and an "offset scan/CT mode." This provides a user interface for controlling the dual-functionality of the device (’759 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts non-infringement of claims including the "imaging mode selecting device" limitation (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: DITC alleges that the OP 3D does not have the specific "imaging mode selecting device for selecting: a panoramic imaging mode...; and an offset scan/CT mode" as claimed (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 8,300,762 - “X-Ray CT Imaging Apparatus,” issued October 30, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to the mechanical operation of an X-ray apparatus, specifically claiming a structure where the rotary angle of a supporter is 360 degrees or more. This enables the device to capture data from a full revolution around the object of interest (’762 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts non-infringement of claims requiring "the rotary angle of the first supporter being 360 degrees or more" (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: DITC alleges that the OP 3D's supporter does not have a rotary angle of 360 degrees or more (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The KaVo OP 3D ("the OP 3D" or "the Accused Device") (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the OP 3D as "an X-ray imaging system for dentists and other qualified professionals" (Compl. ¶8). No specific technical details regarding its operational modes, mechanical movements, or software features are provided in the complaint.
  • The complaint notes that the Accused Device is a competitor to products marketed and sold by Defendant Morita (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’842 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
the panoramic image formation locus is a locus in which the rotation axis of the supporting means is moved along an envelope... The complaint alleges the Accused Device does not meet this limitation. ¶30 col. 2:56-59
...and the supporting means is rotated about the rotation axis as required... The complaint alleges the Accused Device does not meet this limitation. ¶30 col. 2:59-60
...and, when the X-ray source and the X-ray imaging means are moved along the panoramic image formation locus...are irradiated in a direction substantially perpendicular to a dental arch. The complaint's general allegation suggests the Accused Device does not perform this. ¶30 col. 2:60-64

’074 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
turning a rotary arm... with a rotating center of the rotary arm fixed at a center position of a virtual local region to be X-rayed The complaint alleges the Accused Device's rotary arm is not turned with a fixed rotating center during projection. ¶35 col. 5:17-21
  • Identified Points of Contention: The complaint for declaratory judgment frames the dispute in terms of non-infringement but provides no technical basis for these assertions beyond conclusory statements.
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’842 Patent will be the definition of "moved along an envelope." The court may need to determine if this requires a specific, predefined path characteristic of older panoramic systems or if it can be read more broadly to cover the motion path of the OP 3D.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’074 Patent, the key question is factual: is the rotation center of the OP 3D's rotary arm "fixed" during the projection process as required by the claims? For the ’842 Patent, the question is whether the device's rotation axis is "moved" during panoramic mode. The case will require evidence detailing the precise mechanics of the OP 3D's operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "moved along an envelope" (’842 Patent, Claim 2)

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the path of the rotation axis in the claimed panoramic mode. Practitioners may focus on this term because the non-infringement defense for this mode appears to hinge on whether the OP 3D's actual movement path falls within the scope of this language, which is rooted in the art of panoramic radiography.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the concept generally, stating the "panoramic image formation locus is a locus in which the rotation axis of the supporting means is moved along an envelope" without strictly limiting the shape of that envelope to a single embodiment (’842 Patent, col. 2:56-59).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Morita may argue that the term should be limited by the specific embodiments shown, such as the curved path depicted in Figure 19, which illustrates a conventional locus for a panoramic image of a dental arch (’842 Patent, Fig. 19; col. 24:36-42).

  • The Term: "fixed at a center position" (’074 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to distinguishing the patented method from prior art that involved complex movements of the rotation center. DITC's non-infringement argument likely depends on demonstrating that the OP 3D's rotation center is not "fixed" in the manner required by the claim during operation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: DITC may argue that "fixed" implies absolute immobility during the entire projection, and any deviation, however minor, would fall outside the claim scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Morita may point to the specification's description of fixing the rotation center "on the central position of the local region to radiograph" to argue that "fixed" refers to being centered on the target, not necessarily being perfectly stationary in a mechanical sense throughout the entire operation (’074 Patent, col. 2:48-50).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes passing reference to non-infringement "either directly or indirectly" but does not allege any specific facts related to inducement or contributory infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶29, 31, 35, 36).
  • Willful Infringement: This is not alleged, as the complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement brought by the accused infringer.

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

  • A primary issue will be procedural: which court will hear the case? The outcome of the jurisdictional fight between the first-filed action in Utah and this subsequent declaratory judgment action in Pennsylvania will be a critical early determinant of the litigation's trajectory.
  • The central technical issue will be one of factual correspondence: does the actual mechanical operation of the KaVo OP 3D system map onto the specific movements required by the patent claims? The case will likely turn on expert testimony and evidence detailing whether the OP 3D's rotation axis is "moved along an envelope" in panoramic mode (’842 Patent) and whether its rotation center is "fixed" during CT scans (’074 Patent).
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of claim scope: how broadly will the court construe terms like "envelope" and "fixed"? The resolution of these definitional questions will establish the boundaries for the factual infringement analysis.