Patent Armory Inc v. Keyence Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Keyence Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00751, E.D. Tex., 07/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, and the complaint asserts that Defendant committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional non-contact scanning products infringe a patent related to wireless methods for 3D shape sensing.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using structured light and wireless data transmission to create 3D digital models of physical objects, a process widely used in manufacturing, quality control, and computer-aided design.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. The filing of the complaint itself is noted as the event establishing Defendant's knowledge for the purposes of post-suit infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-10-04	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899
2007-08-14	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899
2025-07-30	Complaint Filing Date

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's background section identifies a limitation in prior art non-contact 3D scanners, stating that such systems were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which restricted their mobility and ease of use when scanning objects ('899 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system for 3D shape sensing that untethers the scanner from the computer. The system employs a scanner that projects a pattern of light onto an object, captures an image of the resulting intersection, processes that image into coordinate data, and then wirelessly transmits this data to a receiver connected to a computer ('899 Patent, Abstract). A separate tracking subsystem determines the scanner's position and orientation in real-time, allowing the received local coordinate data to be transformed and aggregated into a comprehensive 3D model of the object in a common coordinate system ('899 Patent, col. 1:55-62; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: By eliminating the physical cable, the patented approach aimed to provide greater freedom of movement and flexibility, facilitating the scanning of large, complex, or difficult-to-access objects ('899 Patent, col. 1:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit, but does not identify specific claims in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) recites the key steps of:
  • establishing an object coordinate system;
  • projecting a pattern of structured light onto the object;
  • forming an image of the intersection of the light 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 tracked position of the light pattern;
  • transforming the intersection data into the object coordinate system; and
  • accumulating the transformed coordinates to form a 3D model.
• The complaint indicates Plaintiff may assert infringement of other claims, which could include dependent claims or the independent system claim 16 (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). As Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint, the specific accused instrumentalities are not identified in the provided documents.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). This suggests the products are wireless, non-contact 3D scanners that project light, capture the reflection, and transmit data to a separate computer to generate a 3D model. The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific technical operation or market position of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative theory of infringement alleges that the Defendant directly infringes the ’899 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and importing the accused products in the United States (Compl. ¶11). The core of the allegation is that the accused products perform the method of capturing 3D geometry by projecting structured light and wirelessly transmitting the resulting data, thereby satisfying all elements of at least one asserted claim (Compl. ¶16). The complaint also alleges direct infringement through internal testing and use of the products by Defendant's employees (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the scope of "wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data" as recited in claim 1. The question for the court could be whether the specific wireless protocol and data format used by the accused products fall within the scope of this limitation as understood in light of the patent's specification.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused products "process the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection relative to a position of the pattern of structured light" before transmission, as required by claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence of how and when the accused scanners convert raw image data into local coordinate data, and whether this operational sequence matches the specific order of steps recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"wirelessly transmitting"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's stated novelty over "tethered" prior art systems. Its construction will likely define the boundary of infringement, as nearly all modern portable scanners use some form of wireless communication. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to specific types of data or protocols.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad meaning by listing several exemplary protocols, including "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA, or any other current or future standard," which may support an interpretation covering a wide range of wireless technologies ('899 Patent, col. 6:52-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for a narrower construction based on language describing the transmission of a "substantial amount of information" and specific data formats shown in Figure 4, suggesting the term requires a transmission method capable of handling the specific data structures and volumes disclosed in the patent ('899 Patent, col. 7:1-6; Fig. 4).

"tracking the position of the pattern of structured light"

• Context and Importance: This limitation is essential for converting locally captured data from the mobile scanner into a globally consistent 3D model. The definition of "tracking" is critical, as different technologies exist to accomplish this task.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that "Any 3D tracking system may be used," including non-optical systems such as magnetic trackers, potentially supporting a broad, technology-agnostic interpretation ('899 Patent, col. 8:55-57).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments heavily feature an external optical tracking subsystem (60) that observes discrete "position indicators" (20, 22, 24) on the scanner body ('899 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:28-44). An accused infringer may argue that this context limits the term to systems that rely on tracking such physical markers, potentially excluding other methods like Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) that may be used in modern scanners.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant knowingly encourages infringement by selling the accused products to customers and providing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Can the term "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light," which the patent primarily illustrates using an external camera system observing physical markers on the scanner, be construed to cover modern, self-contained tracking technologies (e.g., SLAM, inertial measurement units) that may operate without such external components or discrete markers?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: Does the accused system's software and hardware architecture perform the specific sequence of steps recited in method claim 1? In particular, discovery will likely focus on whether the accused products generate local coordinate data "relative to a position of the pattern of structured light" before wirelessly transmitting that data, or if they follow a different data processing and transformation pipeline that may not align with the claim's sequential limitations.