Patent Armory Inc v. Fussen Technology Intl Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Fussen Technology International Co., Limited (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00504, E.D. Tex., 05/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional scanning products infringe a patent related to wireless, non-contact shape sensing technology.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that create three-dimensional computer models of physical objects by projecting structured light patterns and wirelessly transmitting the captured surface data to a computer.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that its filing constitutes actual notice to the Defendant, forming the basis for allegations of post-suit willful infringement. No prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings concerning the patent-in-suit are mentioned.

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 technical challenge with 3D non-contact scanners existing at the time of the invention, noting that they were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which could limit mobility and ease of use. (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem with a wireless 3D shape sensing system. The system employs a non-contact scanner that projects a pattern of structured light onto an object, captures images of the resulting intersection, processes the image data, and wirelessly transmits this data to a receiver connected to a computer. (’899 Patent, Abstract). A tracking subsystem continuously determines the scanner's position and orientation relative to the object, allowing the received data to be transformed and accumulated into a coherent 3D model. (’899 Patent, col. 2:55-61; Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: By removing the physical tether, the patented technology sought to improve the flexibility of 3D scanning, particularly for manual scanning of large or complex objects. (’899 Patent, col. 10:45-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is the broadest method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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 states that Plaintiff may assert infringement of additional claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11, 16). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a more specific analysis of the accused products' functionality or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external document (Exhibit 2) that was not provided. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The term "processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection" appears before the "wirelessly transmitting" step in Claim 1. The patent discloses embodiments where fully processed 3D coordinates are generated in the scanner before transmission (’899 Patent, Fig. 5, step 530) and others where less-processed 2D pixel coordinates are transmitted for later conversion. (’899 Patent, Fig. 6, step 630). A potential dispute may arise over whether the data transmitted by the accused products meets the claimed level of "processing" required to "characterize the intersection."
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products perform the step of "associating each intersection datum with the position of the projected pattern of light at the time the image corresponding to the datum was formed." (’899 Patent, col. 16:3-6). This suggests a need for evidence of a precise temporal synchronization between the system’s position-tracking data and its image-capture data, which may be a point of technical dispute. (’899 Patent, col. 14:11-19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "wirelessly transmitting"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's stated contribution over prior art "tethered" systems. (’899 Patent, col. 2:32-35). Its construction will be critical for determining whether the communication protocol used by the accused products falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term as it defines the core novelty alleged by the patentee.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that 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," which may support a broad, technology-neutral interpretation. (’899 Patent, col. 6:50-54).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be limited by the context of what is being transmitted, i.e., "some portion of the image and intersection data." The patent provides detailed examples of specific data formats for this purpose, which could be argued to narrow the scope of the required transmission. (’899 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 11:35-12:41).

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

• Context and Importance: This step enables the transformation of data from the scanner's local coordinate system to the object's global coordinate system, a necessary function for creating a coherent 3D model. Proving infringement will require showing the accused system performs this specific function. (’899 Patent, col. 16:1-2).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that "Any 3D tracking system may be used," including non-optical systems such as magnetic trackers, which may support construing the term broadly. (’899 Patent, col. 8:55-58).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments described and depicted in the patent focus on optical tracking systems that use "position indicators" (e.g., LEDs or retro-reflective markers) on the scanner body that are tracked by external sensors. (’899 Patent, col. 8:9-15; Fig. 1). A party may argue that this context limits the term to such external tracking architectures.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that "direct end users" to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’899 Patent. (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that its service provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any subsequent infringing activities are therefore willful. (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the "Exemplary Defendant Products" operate. The case will depend on discovery to reveal the specific hardware architecture, software logic, and data-flow protocols of the accused systems to determine if they practice each limitation of the asserted claims.
2. A key legal and technical question will be one of sequential operation: Claim 1 recites a specific sequence of steps, including "processing the image" before "wirelessly transmitting" the resulting data. The case may turn on whether the accused products perform these steps in the claimed order and whether the data they transmit wirelessly constitutes "data characterizing the intersection" as processed and defined by the patent.