Patent Armory Inc v. Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00278, E.D. Tex., 04/24/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional scanning products infringe a patent related to wireless, non-contact 3D shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for creating 3D digital models of physical objects by projecting structured light and wirelessly transmitting coordinate data from a mobile scanner to a computer.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of induced and willful infringement are based on knowledge allegedly established by the service of the complaint itself.

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 a market for 3D modeling of real-world objects where existing non-contact scanners, which use techniques like projecting laser stripes, were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage" (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-35). This tethering limits the mobility and ease of use for scanning objects.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for a wireless 3D scanner. The system works by projecting a known pattern of light onto an object, using an imager on the scanner to capture the resulting intersection, and processing the image to generate coordinate data relative to the scanner itself (’899 Patent, col. 10:46-54, Fig. 5). This coordinate data is then wirelessly transmitted to a receiver connected to a computer, while a separate tracking subsystem determines the scanner's real-time position and orientation in a global coordinate system (’899 Patent, col. 3:10-21). The computer combines the scanner's position with the received coordinate data to transform it into the global system, thereby accumulating points to build a 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, col. 14:40-54).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to untether the 3D scanning process, allowing a user to freely move a handheld scanner around an object while a computer constructs a digital model in real time.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims," including "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims," but does not specify them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
• 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 but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). It states these products are identified in charts included as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶14, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Based on the patent's subject matter, this suggests the accused products are 3D scanners that capture the shape of physical objects. The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality or market context of the accused products beyond the general allegation of infringement. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body. Instead, it "incorporates by reference... the claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not provided (Compl. ¶17). The complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

Without the specific allegations from Exhibit 2, a detailed analysis is not possible. The infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's 3D scanners perform the method of claim 1 of the '899 patent by projecting light onto an object, capturing an image of that light, wirelessly transmitting data related to that image, and using position tracking to build a 3D model.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light." The patent describes this being done by a "scanner tracking subsystem" that is separate from the imaging components and tracks position indicators on the scanner body (’899 Patent, col. 8:8-14). The case may turn on whether the accused products use such a system or an alternative method for determining the scanner's position and orientation that falls outside the claim's scope.
• Technical Questions: A key question will be what specific "intersection data" the accused products "wirelessly transmit" as required by the claims (’899 Patent, col. 16:35-37). The patent contemplates transmitting raw image data, processed pixel coordinates, or 3D coordinates relative to the scanner (’899 Patent, col. 11:51-12:3). Evidence will be needed to show that the data transmitted by the accused products corresponds to one of the types of data covered by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art "tethered" systems. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products' communication method qualifies as "wirelessly transmitting" as understood in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to specific protocols mentioned as examples or covers any non-cabled data transfer.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the medium of transmission broadly, including "modulated radio frequency signals, modulated infrared signals, or modulated signals of some other wavelength" (’899 Patent, col. 6:49-53). This could support a construction covering a wide range of non-physical connections.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent lists specific industry standards like "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA" as examples (’899 Patent, col. 6:55-58). A defendant might argue these examples, and the data rates discussed, implicitly limit the term to certain types of wireless communication protocols known at the time.

• The Term: "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light"

• Context and Importance: This step is critical for transforming the scanner-relative coordinates into a global object model. The dispute will likely hinge on whether the defendant's method for determining the scanner's pose in 3D space is equivalent to the "tracking" described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad. The specification states, "Any 3D tracking system may be used... as long as the location and orientation of the pattern of light 42 may be determined in real time" (’899 Patent, col. 8:55-59). This suggests the term is not limited to a specific tracking technology.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures heavily feature an optical tracking system that uses external sensors (64) to track position indicators (20, 22, 24) on the scanner body (’899 Patent, col. 8:8-14, Fig. 1). A defendant could argue that "tracking" should be construed as requiring this type of "outside-in" system, as opposed to modern "inside-out" tracking (e.g., SLAM) that uses the device's own cameras to map its surroundings and determine its position.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement, claiming Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges this inducement occurred "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on "The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶13). It alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the infringing products, suggesting post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶14).

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

• A central issue will be one of technological correspondence: does the method used by the accused products to determine their own position and orientation in 3D space constitute "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light" as that functional step is described and claimed in the '899 patent, or does it represent a fundamentally different approach (e.g., SLAM-based tracking vs. the external optical tracking emphasized in the patent's embodiments)?
• A key evidentiary question will concern the data transformation process: what specific set of data do the accused products generate, "wirelessly transmit," and subsequently "transform" to build the 3D model? The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether this data flow maps onto the specific sequence of generating and transforming "intersection data" required by the claims.
• A threshold procedural question, stemming from the complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit, will be whether the pleadings provide sufficient factual detail to plausibly allege that the accused products perform each element of the asserted claims.