Patent Armory Inc v. Dental Imaging Tech Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Golomb Legal, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-05443, E.D. Pa., 09/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional scanning products infringe two patents related to wireless, non-contact 3D shape sensing technology.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for capturing the surface geometry of a physical object by projecting structured light, imaging the reflection, and wirelessly transmitting the data to a computer for processing into a 3D model.
• Key Procedural History: No significant prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-10-04	Priority Date for ’899 and ’375 Patents
2007-08-14	U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899 Issues
2008-02-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 Issues
2025-09-22	Complaint Filed

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 states that prior art 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. 2:36-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a handheld, wireless scanner projects a pattern of light onto an object, captures an image of the resulting intersection, and processes that image data locally (’899 Patent, Abstract). This processed data, which characterizes the object’s surface, is then transmitted wirelessly to a receiver connected to a computer (’899 Patent, col. 2:55-62). Concurrently, a separate tracking system determines the scanner's precise position and orientation in space, allowing the computer to transform the received local coordinate data into a global coordinate system to build a comprehensive 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach untethers the 3D scanning process from a fixed computer or power source, enabling greater flexibility in scanning large or complex objects.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims, referencing exemplary claims in an exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶12). Independent method claim 1 is representative of the patented process.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • 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.

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 - “Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’375 Patent, a divisional of the application that led to the ’899 Patent, addresses the same technical problem: the physical tethering of existing non-contact 3D scanners, which restricts their operational freedom (’375 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for wireless 3D shape sensing. The system comprises a non-contact scanner (containing a light source, an optical sensor, an image processor, a wireless transmitter, and a position indicator), a tracking subsystem to determine the scanner's position, a wireless receiver, and a computer (’375 Patent, Abstract). The computer receives the wireless data and correlates it with the scanner’s position to transform and assemble a 3D model, as depicted in the patent's Figure 1 (’375 Patent, col. 3:11-24).
• Technical Importance: The claimed system provides a complete architectural solution for a mobile, untethered 3D scanning environment.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more claims, referencing exemplary claims in an exhibit not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶21). Independent system claim 1 is representative of the patented system.
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • a non-contact scanner, including a source of structured light, an imaging electro-optical sensor, an image processor, a wireless data transmitter, and at least one position indicator;
  • a scanner tracking subsystem configured to determine the 3D position of the non-contact scanner and the structured light;
  • a wireless data receiver configured to receive data from the transmitter; and
  • a computer configured to correlate received data with the scanner position, transform the data into object coordinates, and accumulate the coordinates to model the object.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in chart exhibits not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶¶12, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides no specific details regarding the functionality, features, or market context of the accused products. Given the defendant's name, Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation, the products may be related to intraoral or other dental 3D scanners.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates by reference claim-chart exhibits that were not provided with the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). As such, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint's factual allegations is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

• ’899 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes one or more claims of the ’899 Patent by making, using, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶12). It further states that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17). The pleading does not, however, contain specific factual allegations detailing how the accused products perform the steps of the asserted method claims.

• ’375 Patent Infringement Allegations
  Similarly, the complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes one or more claims of the ’375 Patent (Compl. ¶21). It asserts that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '375 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '375 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint itself does not describe the components of the accused systems or explain how they meet the limitations of the asserted system claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting" (from ’899 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's main point of novelty over prior art tethered systems. The scope of "wirelessly" will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the boundary between the patented invention and the prior art it sought to improve. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific mode of wireless transmission used by the accused products could be a point of dispute.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying a particular wireless technology. The specification states the medium of transmission "may be one or more of the following: modulated radio frequency signals, modulated infrared signals, or modulated signals of some other wavelength" ('899 Patent, col. 6:46-49), suggesting the term is not limited to a single protocol.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue the term should be understood in the context of the specific industry standards mentioned as examples, such as "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA" ('899 Patent, col. 6:51-53).

• The Term: "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light" (from ’899 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This step is essential for transforming the scanner's local coordinate data into a useful global 3D model. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system performs "tracking" in a manner covered by the claims. The dispute may center on the mechanism used for tracking, especially if the accused product uses a non-optical or sensor-based method different from the patent's primary embodiments.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term is functional, describing the result ("tracking the position") rather than the specific structure for achieving it. This may support a construction that covers any method that determines the pattern's location and orientation over time relative to the object.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily details an optical tracking system using "trackable position indicator[s]" (e.g., retro-reflective markers or LEDs) viewed by external sensors ('899 Patent, col. 7:28-44; Fig. 1). A party could argue the term should be limited to such explicit optical triangulation methods described as part of the "scanner tracking subsystem 60" (col. 8:9-24).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The basis for inducement is Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). The complaint also asserts post-suit inducement based on Defendant's continued sales after being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶16, 25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). This allegation lays the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement and potential enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge or willfulness.

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

1. A primary issue will be evidentiary and factual: given the complaint's reliance on external exhibits, the initial phases of the case will likely focus on discovering the precise architecture and functionality of the unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" to determine if they practice the patented methods and contain the elements of the patented systems.

2. A second key question will concern claim construction: can the term "tracking the position," which the patent illustrates with external optical systems, be construed to cover other potential positioning technologies (e.g., inertial measurement units, internal SLAM algorithms) that may be used in modern 3D scanners?

3. Finally, the case may present a procedural question regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings. The complaint's conclusory infringement allegations, which defer all factual support to unattached exhibits, raises the possibility of an early challenge to whether the pleading provides plausible grounds for relief as required by federal pleading standards.