Patent Armory Inc v. Scantech Hangzhou Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Scantech (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00479, E.D. Tex., 10/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, causing harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional non-contact scanners infringe patents related to wireless methods and systems for 3D shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that use structured light and wireless data transmission to create digital 3D models of physical objects, a process integral to modern manufacturing, reverse engineering, and quality control.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff states it is the assignee of all rights to the patents.

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 Aug. 14, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a limitation of prior art 3D non-contact scanners which were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," restricting their mobility and ease of use, particularly for large objects (’899 Patent, col. 2:35-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for untethered 3D scanning. The method involves projecting a pattern of light onto an object, forming an image of the intersection, and processing that image to generate coordinate data relative to the scanner (’899 Patent, col. 15:25-34, Fig. 5). This data is then transmitted wirelessly to a receiver, while a tracking system determines the scanner's position and orientation in a global coordinate system. The received scanner-relative data is then transformed into the global coordinate system to build a 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, col. 15:39-col. 16:2).
• Technical Importance: This wireless approach allows for greater freedom of movement when scanning, facilitating the capture of complex or large-scale objects without the physical constraints imposed by data or power cables (’899 Patent, col. 1:47-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’899 Patent, exemplified by charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
  • establishing an object coordinate system;
  • projecting a known pattern of structured light onto an object;
  • forming an image of the intersection of the light pattern and the object;
  • processing the image to generate data characterizing the intersection relative to the light pattern's position;
  • wirelessly transmitting the intersection data to a receiver;
  • receiving the transmitted data;
  • tracking the position of the light pattern;
  • associating the intersection data with the light pattern's position at the time the image was formed;
  • transforming the intersection data into the object coordinate system; and
  • accumulating the transformed coordinates to form a surface approximation.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application leading to the ’899 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: prior art 3D scanners were physically tethered, which limited their operational freedom (’375 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a system that embodies the wireless scanning technology. The system comprises a non-contact scanner (which includes a light source, an image sensor, an image processor, a wireless transmitter, and a position indicator), a separate tracking subsystem to determine the scanner's 3D position, a wireless receiver, and a computer that correlates the received image data with the scanner's position to build a virtual 3D model (’375 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:1-35).
• Technical Importance: The patent protects the specific architecture of interacting components—the mobile scanner, the position tracking system, and the processing computer—that collectively enable untethered, handheld 3D shape sensing (’375 Patent, col. 2:41-col. 3:14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’375 Patent, exemplified by charts in an exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
  • a non-contact scanner that itself includes a source of structured light, an imaging sensor, an image processor, a wireless transmitter, and a position indicator;
  • a scanner tracking subsystem that determines the 3D position of the scanner;
  • a wireless data receiver; and
  • a computer that correlates received data with scanner position, transforms the data into an object coordinate system, and accumulates the coordinates to model 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 any accused products by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in external exhibits not provided with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 21).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are three-dimensional non-contact shape sensing devices that "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" and the '375 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). Based on these allegations, the accused products are understood to be wireless, handheld 3D scanners that project structured light and use position tracking to generate 3D models of physical objects. The complaint does not provide specific details on the products' market context or commercial importance. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of both the ’899 and ’375 patents but relies on claim chart exhibits that were not included in the public filing (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, 26-27). The infringement theory is therefore summarized in prose.

For the ’899 Patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe by being used to perform the patented method. This use allegedly involves carrying out all the required steps, such as projecting light, imaging the intersection, wirelessly transmitting data, tracking the scanner's position, and having a computer transform and accumulate coordinates to create a 3D model (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13).

For the ’375 Patent, the complaint alleges that the accused products are systems that contain all the components recited in the asserted claims. This includes a non-contact scanner with the specified internal components (light source, sensor, processor, wireless transmitter, position indicator), a tracking subsystem, and a computer configured to perform the claimed correlation and transformation functions (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Functional Questions: A central issue for the ’899 method patent will be evidentiary: does the accused system, in operation, perform each claimed step, particularly the "processing," "associating," and "transforming" steps? The specific algorithms used and the timing of the association between image data and positional data may be points of dispute.
  • Structural Questions: For the ’375 system patent, a key question may be the structural and definitional mapping of the accused product's architecture to the claim elements. For example, the case may explore whether the accused system has a distinct "image processor" located within the "non-contact scanner" as claimed, or if processing functions are partitioned differently between the scanner and a host computer in a way that falls outside the claim's scope.

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 term is fundamental to the invention's stated novelty over "tethered" prior art. Its construction will define the boundary between the patented invention and older systems. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused products' communication protocol falls within the scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists several industry standards, 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. 6:49-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term, in the context of the entire patent, implies a fully untethered device (including for power) or requires the transmission of a specific type of processed geometric data rather than raw image data, which could be a basis for non-infringement depending on the accused product's design (’899 Patent, col. 5:21-43).

• The Term: "image processor" (’375 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This element is recited as a component within the "non-contact scanner." Its definition is critical for determining whether the accused scanner itself, as a physical unit, meets the structural requirements of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that processing "may be implemented using an on-board digital microprocessor" but also that some computations may be "deferred... to be performed by separate computer 70" (’899 Patent, col. 4:65-66, col. 6:38-43). This could support a finding of infringement even if processing is distributed.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 of the ’375 patent lists the "image processor" as a sub-element of the "non-contact scanner," which is distinct from the separately claimed "computer" (’375 Patent, col. 16:1-35). This suggests the "image processor" must be a component physically located within the scanner housing, potentially raising a non-infringement argument if all significant processing occurs on an external PC.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The factual basis for inducement is Defendant’s alleged sale of the accused products along with the distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16, 24-25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from the service of the complaint and its attached (but not publicly available) claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). It further alleges that Defendant's infringement has continued despite this knowledge, providing a basis for post-filing willful infringement. The prayer for relief seeks damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the statute authorizing enhanced damages for willful conduct (Compl. p. 6, ¶F).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural and functional mapping: Can the plaintiff demonstrate through technical evidence that the accused scanners' hardware and software architecture corresponds to the specific components and performs the specific functions recited in the claims? This will involve a detailed analysis of how the accused system partitions tasks like image processing, positional tracking, and coordinate transformation between the handheld unit and any connected computer.
• The case may also turn on a definitional dispute over claim scope: What is the proper construction of key terms like "image processor" and "wirelessly transmitting"? The outcome of claim construction will likely determine whether the accused system's distributed architecture and specific communication protocols fall within the boundaries of the asserted claims.
• A key evidentiary question will be proof of operation: Given the complaint's reliance on method claims, Plaintiff will bear the burden of showing that the accused products are used to perform every step of the claimed method, including the "associating" and "transforming" steps, which relate to the internal software logic of the system.