DCT

2:25-cv-01198

Patent Armory Inc v. Artec Europe SARL

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01198, E.D. Tex., 12/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional scanning products infringe patents related to wireless, non-contact methods and systems for shape sensing.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using structured light and position tracking to create 3D digital models of physical objects without requiring a physical cable between the scanner and the computer.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-04 Priority Date for ’899 and ’375 Patents
2007-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899 Issues
2008-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375 Issues
2025-12-09 Complaint Filed

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 (’899 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of existing 3D non-contact scanners, which at the time were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," restricting operator mobility and ease of use (’899 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for 3D shape sensing using a handheld, wireless scanner. The system projects a known pattern of structured light onto an object, captures an image of the resulting intersection, and processes that image data (’899 Patent, col. 1:46-51, Fig. 5). Crucially, the scanner's position and orientation are tracked in 3D space, and this positional data is correlated with the image data to transform the captured surface points into a common coordinate system, thereby building a 3D model of the object (’899 Patent, col. 3:10-23). The processed surface point data is then "wirelessly transmit[ted]" to a receiving computer, eliminating the need for a physical cable (’899 Patent, col. 1:52-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach untethers the 3D scanning process, enabling greater freedom of movement and potentially faster, more comprehensive data capture of complex objects.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’899 Patent, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶12). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
  • Claim 1 requires the 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 structured light pattern;
    • associating the intersection data with the pattern's position at the time of image capture;
    • 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 February 26, 2008 (’375 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application that led to the ’899 Patent, the ’375 Patent shares an identical specification and addresses the same problem of tethered 3D scanners (’375 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’375 Patent claims the system that performs the method described in the ’899 Patent. The claimed system comprises a wireless "non-contact scanner" that includes a light source, an optical sensor, and a wireless transmitter, along with a "scanner tracking subsystem" that determines the scanner's 3D position over time (’375 Patent, col. 15:26-47). A computer receives the wireless data and correlates it with the tracking data to build a 3D model (’375 Patent, col. 16:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This patent provides protection for the physical apparatus used to carry out the untethered 3D scanning process.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’375 Patent, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶21). Claim 1 is the first independent system claim.
  • Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
    • A non-contact scanner, which itself includes a structured light source, 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.
    • A computer configured to correlate the received data with the scanner's 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 identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" without naming specific product models (Compl. ¶¶12, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these products are three-dimensional scanners that "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products beyond the conclusory allegation that they satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The complaint contains no allegations regarding the products' specific market positioning or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Exemplary Defendant Products infringe the asserted patents but references claim charts in external exhibits that were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

  • ’899 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the method claims of the ’899 Patent by making, using, testing, and selling the Exemplary Defendant Products (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The core of the allegation is that the accused products perform a wireless 3D scanning method that includes projecting structured light, tracking the scanner's position, wirelessly transmitting captured surface data, and processing that data to form a 3D model, thereby practicing all steps of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).

  • ’375 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Exemplary Defendant Products directly infringe the system claims of the ’375 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The allegation posits that the accused products embody the claimed system, containing all the required components: a non-contact scanner with a light source and wireless transmitter, a scanner tracking subsystem, a wireless receiver, and a computer that performs the claimed correlation and transformation functions (Compl. ¶26).

  • Identified Points of Contention: The complaint's allegations are framed at a high level of generality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

    • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be evidentiary. What specific evidence does the complaint or its referenced (but unattached) exhibits provide to show that the accused products perform each claimed step, such as "tracking the position of the pattern" and "transforming each intersection datum into coordinates of the object coordinate system" as required by the claims?
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise questions about the scope of the claims relative to the accused technology. For instance, does the specific method of position tracking used in the accused products fall within the scope of the "tracking the position" limitation? Similarly, does the accused products' wireless data transmission protocol meet the "wirelessly transmitting" element?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’899 Patent: "wirelessly transmitting"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's core concept of an "untethered" scanner. The interpretation of this term will determine what types of non-wired communication fall within the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad meaning, listing multiple industry standards as suitable transmission media: "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, IRDA, or any other current or future standard" (’899 Patent, col. 6:51-54). This language may support an interpretation covering any form of data transmission without a physical cable.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue for a narrower construction based on the detailed examples of data record formats provided in Figure 4 and the associated description, suggesting the term implies not just the absence of wires but also the transmission of specific types of formatted geometric data (’899 Patent, col. 11:35-42; Fig. 4).

  • Term from ’375 Patent: "scanner tracking subsystem"

    • Context and Importance: This subsystem is a critical component of the claimed system, as it provides the positional data needed to assemble the 3D model. The definition will be key to determining whether the accused products contain an equivalent structure.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Any 3D tracking system may be used," including non-optical systems such as magnetic ones (’375 Patent, col. 8:55-58). This suggests the term should be construed broadly to encompass any technology that determines the 3D position and orientation of the scanner.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the specific embodiments described, such as the optical tracking system employing "three 1-dimensional CCD sensors" (the FlashPoint system) or the system using "two 2-dimensional imaging sensors" (the Polaris system) (’375 Patent, col. 8:46-53).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the products in a manner that directly infringes the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 24-25).
  • Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that its service "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities despite this knowledge are willful (Compl. ¶¶14-15, 23-24).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the high-level, generalized allegations, can the Plaintiff produce sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate, on an element-by-element basis, that the accused products perform the specific functions claimed, particularly the discrete steps of tracking scanner position, transforming local coordinate data into a global object coordinate system, and accumulating those points to form a 3D model?

  2. The case will also likely involve a question of definitional scope: Will key terms such as "wirelessly transmitting" and "scanner tracking subsystem," which are rooted in the technological context of 2006, be construed broadly enough to read on the specific technologies implemented in the modern accused products, or will their meaning be narrowed by the specific examples disclosed in the patent specification?