Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Artec Europe SARL

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Artec Europe, S.a.r.l. (Luxembourg)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00386, E.D. Tex., 08/29/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3D scanning products infringe patents related to wireless, non-contact three-dimensional shape sensing technology.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a structured light pattern and position tracking to wirelessly capture and reconstruct three-dimensional models of physical objects, a process integral to industrial design, manufacturing, and quality control.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 is a divisional of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899, indicating they share a common specification and priority date. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

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,” issued August 14, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art non-contact 3D scanners as being "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which limits their mobility and ease of use when scanning objects ('899 Patent, col. 2:35-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system where a mobile, non-contact optical scanner projects a pattern of light onto an object, captures an image of the resulting intersection, and processes that image to generate geometric surface data. This data is then wirelessly transmitted to a receiver connected to a computer, which uses information from a separate tracking subsystem to transform the data into a common coordinate system and build a 3D model ('899 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By eliminating the data cable between the mobile scanner and the computer, the invention purports to offer greater freedom of movement and enhanced flexibility compared to tethered systems, particularly for scanning large or complex objects ('899 Patent, col. 2:35-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶12). Assuming the assertion of the patent's independent claims, the key limitations of method claim 1 include:
  • projecting a pattern of structured light of known geometry onto an object;
  • forming an image of the intersection of the light with the object;
  • processing the image to generate data characterizing the intersection relative to the light pattern's position;
  • wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data to a receiver;
  • tracking the position of the light pattern;
  • associating the intersection data with the tracked position; and
  • transforming the data into an object coordinate system to form a surface approximation.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 - “Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing,” issued February 26, 2008

The Invention Explained

• As a divisional of the application leading to the ’899 Patent, the ’375 Patent shares a common specification and describes the same technological problem and solution, as described in Section II above (’375 Patent, p. 1, "Related U.S. Application Data").

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶21). Assuming the assertion of the patent's independent claims, the key limitations of system claim 1 include:
  • a non-contact scanner comprising a source of structured light, an imaging sensor, an image processor, a wireless data transmitter, and a position indicator;
  • a scanner tracking subsystem configured to determine the 3D position of the scanner;
  • a wireless data receiver to receive data from the transmitter; and
  • a computer configured to correlate the received data with the scanner's position, transform the data, and accumulate coordinates to model the object.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in external exhibits not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶12, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates its substantive allegations by reference to external exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) which were not included with the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). As such, a detailed claim chart analysis based on the complaint's specific allegations is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be establishing the specific products at issue and their precise functionalities. The viability of the infringement claims will depend entirely on whether discovery reveals that the currently unidentified accused products perform each step of the asserted claims.
• Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for both the '899 and '375 patents may be the scope of the "wireless" data transmission limitations. The patents describe a system architecture where a mobile scanning unit is untethered from a processing computer ('899 Patent, Fig. 1). The infringement analysis raises the question of whether the accused products implement a similar wireless link between the scanning head and the primary computer, or if they utilize a different architecture that may not align with the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "wirelessly transmitting" ('899 Patent, claim 1) / "wireless data transmitter" ('375 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

This is the central feature distinguishing the invention from the "tethered" prior art cited in the patents. The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused products, once identified, fall within the scope of the claims.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term could encompass a range of standard protocols, stating the transmission medium "may utilize a proprietary protocol or an industry standard such as IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA, or any other current or future standard" ('899 Patent, col. 6:52-54). This language may support an interpretation covering any non-wired data link.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents' background sections consistently frame the problem as overcoming the physical "electronic cable" that tethers a handheld scanner ('899 Patent, col. 2:35-38). A party could argue that the term should be construed in this context, potentially limiting it to systems where the mobile scanning head itself is fully untethered from its base processing unit.

The Term: "processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection" ('899 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the computational work performed on the mobile scanner before data is transmitted. The allocation of processing tasks between the mobile unit and the base computer is a key architectural aspect of such systems, and its construction will be important for comparing the claims to an accused device.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where the processing is minimal, generating only "a set of 2-d pixel coordinates of points on the image of the intersection" before transmission ('899 Patent, Fig. 6, step 630). This could support a broad reading covering any level of image data abstraction.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An alternative embodiment describes processing the image to "obtain a set of 3-d coordinates of corresponding surface points" on the scanner itself ('899 Patent, Fig. 5, step 530). This may support a narrower construction requiring the on-scanner computation of three-dimensional spatial data, not just two-dimensional image data.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant selling the accused products to customers and distributing "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). The allegations state that the knowledge element for inducement arises "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶16, 25).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement will be willful from the date of service of the complaint, which it claims provides "actual knowledge" of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 7).

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint does not identify the accused products or provide the claim charts it incorporates by reference. A primary task for the court will be to oversee discovery that establishes the specific products at issue and their technical operation, without which an infringement analysis cannot proceed.
• The case may turn on a question of architectural correspondence: Do the accused products, once revealed, embody the specific system architecture recited in the claims? In particular, does the division of computational labor and the nature of the data link between the scanning head and any base computer align with the claims' requirements for on-scanner "processing" and "wirelessly transmitting" the resulting data?
• A key legal question will relate to damages and intent: With allegations of inducement and willfulness based solely on post-filing notice via the complaint itself, a significant issue will be whether Plaintiff can establish any basis for enhanced damages or pre-suit indirect infringement damages.