Patent Armory Inc v. Hangzhou Shining 3D Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00505, E.D. Tex., 12/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, and further asserts that Defendant has committed acts of infringement and caused harm within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional, non-contact shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems that create 3D digital models of physical objects by projecting structured light, capturing the reflection, and wirelessly transmitting processed data to a computer.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a limitation in prior art non-contact 3D scanners, noting that they were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage" (’899 Patent, col. 2:37-39). This physical connection restricts the scanner's mobility and ease of use.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for 3D shape sensing that untethers the scanner from the computer. The system involves a mobile scanner that projects a pattern of light onto an object, captures an image of the resulting intersection line, processes that image data locally to generate coordinate data, and then wirelessly transmits this processed data to a receiver connected to a computer (’899 Patent, Abstract). A separate tracking subsystem determines the scanner's precise location and orientation in space, allowing the computer to transform the received local coordinates into a global coordinate system and assemble a complete 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: The approach sought to improve the flexibility and usability of 3D scanning technology by eliminating the physical cable between the scanning device and the processing computer, enabling greater freedom of movement around the object being scanned (’899 Patent, col. 1:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’899 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • projecting a pattern of structured light of known geometry onto the object;
  • forming an image of an intersection of the pattern with the object;
  • processing the image to generate data characterizing the intersection relative to the pattern's position;
  • wirelessly transmitting a portion of the image and intersection data to a receiver;
  • tracking the position of the pattern of structured light;
  • associating the intersection data with the tracked position of the pattern;
  • transforming the intersection data into coordinates of an object coordinate system; and
  • accumulating the transformed coordinates to form an approximation of the object's surface.
• 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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application leading to the ’899 Patent, the ’375 Patent addresses the same problem of physically tethered 3D scanning systems that limit mobility (’375 Patent, col. 2:35-38).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a complete system for wireless 3D scanning. This system comprises a non-contact scanner (with a light source, sensor, processor, wireless transmitter, and position indicator), a scanner tracking subsystem to determine the scanner's 3D position, a wireless data receiver, and a computer (’375 Patent, Abstract). The computer is configured to receive the wireless data, correlate it with the scanner's position at the time of capture, transform the data into a common coordinate system, and build a 3D model (’375 Patent, col. 10:20-29).
• Technical Importance: This patent claims the constituent parts of the wireless scanning system, complementing the method claims of the parent ’899 Patent by defining the required hardware and software architecture (’375 Patent, col. 1:50-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’375 Patent without specification (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A non-contact scanner comprising a source of structured light, an imaging sensor, an image processor, a wireless data transmitter, and at least one position indicator;
  • A scanner tracking subsystem configured to continuously determine the 3D position of the scanner;
  • A wireless data receiver; and
  • A computer configured to: correlate received data with the corresponding scanner position, transform the data into an object coordinate system, and accumulate 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 product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim chart exhibits, which are incorporated by reference but not attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body. Instead, it states that Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not filed with the complaint, contain charts comparing the asserted claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The complaint's narrative infringement theory is that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). Without the exhibits or more specific factual allegations, a detailed comparison is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patents-in-suit, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be how the accused products perform the claimed "processing" and "transforming" steps. For the ’899 Patent, a dispute may arise over what constitutes "intersection data," specifically whether the accused products transmit raw image data, partially processed pixel coordinates, or fully calculated 3D coordinates, and whether the transmitted format falls within the claim scope. For the ’375 Patent, a question may arise regarding whether the accused system architecture maps onto the claimed components, particularly the functions attributed to the "image processor" on the scanner versus the "computer" at the receiver.
  • Technical Questions: Evidentiary questions may focus on the actual implementation of the "scanner tracking subsystem" and the method of "associating each intersection datum with the position of the projected pattern of light" (’899 Patent, claim 1). The analysis will question what evidence demonstrates that the accused products temporally correlate the captured image data with the scanner's specific location and orientation as required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data" (’899 Patent, claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the claimed method, as it defines what information is sent from the mobile scanner to the base computer. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers systems that transmit raw image data for off-board processing versus those that transmit already-processed coordinate data. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between transmitting raw versus processed data is a critical design choice with significant technical and performance implications.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "some portion of the image and intersection data" could be argued to be broad, potentially encompassing raw pixel data from the imager, as this is a "portion of the image."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes between transmitting raw video frames and more compact, processed data formats, suggesting an inventive focus on reducing bandwidth (’899 Patent, col. 7:1-10, col. 11:43-48). The patent provides examples of specific data record formats, including formats for transmitting 2D pixel coordinates (format 403) and 3D XYZ coordinates (format 407), which supports an interpretation that "intersection data" refers to processed, numerical coordinates rather than raw image pixels (’899 Patent, Fig. 4).
• The Term: "computer ... configured to correlate ... transform ... and accumulate" (’375 Patent, claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the role of the base station component in the claimed system. The allocation of these specific computational tasks to the "computer" (distinct from the "image processor" on the scanner) is a key architectural element of the claim. Infringement may depend on whether the accused system performs these exact functions on a single, receiver-side computer or distributes them differently (e.g., across the scanner, a local PC, and a cloud server).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "computer" is generally understood broadly. A party might argue that as long as the functions are performed somewhere on the receiver side of the wireless link, the limitation is met, regardless of the specific hardware architecture.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly separates the "image processor" on the scanner from the "computer" at the receiver, assigning distinct roles. The detailed description states the "computing module correlates each received surface point datum temporally with the position of the scanner ... transforms the received surface point data ... and generates a set of 3D surface point coordinates" (’375 Patent, col. 3:14-20). This language could support an interpretation requiring a single computing entity, distinct from the scanner, to perform all three recited functions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant knowingly sells the accused products to customers for use in a manner that infringes (’899 Patent, Compl. ¶16; ’375 Patent, Compl. ¶25). The allegations state that product literature and website materials, referenced in the unattached Exhibits 3 and 4, direct end users on how to use the products in an infringing way (’899 Patent, Compl. ¶15; ’375 Patent, Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge acquired upon service of the complaint and the attached claim charts (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). The complaint alleges that despite this actual knowledge, the Defendant continues its infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ G.i).

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

1. A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, the case will depend on evidence produced during discovery that shows whether the accused products—once identified—actually perform the claimed steps of on-scanner image processing, wireless data transmission, position tracking, and subsequent coordinate transformation.
2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: The dispute will likely focus on claim construction, particularly whether the term "intersection data" (’899 Patent) is limited to processed numerical coordinates or can be read more broadly to include raw image information, a distinction that could be dispositive for infringement.
3. A further question will be one of architectural mapping: For the system claims of the ’375 Patent, the case may turn on whether the accused system's distribution of processing tasks between its scanner and its host software aligns with the claimed separation of roles between the on-scanner "image processor" and the receiver-side "computer."