DCT

2:26-cv-00031

Patent Armory Inc v. Capvis AG

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00031, E.D. Tex., 01/13/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, causing harm.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to wireless, non-contact systems for three-dimensional shape sensing.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue enables the creation of 3D digital models of physical objects by using a handheld device to project structured light and wirelessly transmit captured surface data to a computer.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-04 ’899 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-14 ’899 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-13 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"*

  • Patent Identification: 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 describes that, at the time of the invention, non-contact 3D scanners were "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which limited their portability and ease of use in capturing the shape of real-world objects (’899 Patent, col. 2:36-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method and system for 3D shape sensing that eliminates the physical tether. A handheld scanner projects a known pattern of structured light onto an object, an imager captures the resulting line of intersection on the object's surface, and an on-board processor generates data representing this intersection (’899 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5). This geometric data is then wirelessly transmitted to a remote computer, which uses information from a separate tracking system to determine the scanner's position and orientation in space and assemble the data points into a cohesive 3D model (’899 Patent, col. 3:10-23).
  • Technical Importance: By creating a wireless handheld scanner, the invention sought to provide greater freedom of movement, allowing users to more easily digitize large, complex, or difficult-to-reach physical objects (’899 Patent, col. 2:41-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" as identified in an Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention’s core method.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • 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 a portion of the image and intersection data;
    • receiving the transmitted data;
    • tracking the position of the pattern of structured light;
    • 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 surface approximation.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific accused products, systems, or services in the main body of the pleading (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. This information is allegedly contained in an unprovided exhibit that is incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶16-17). In their absence, the complaint’s narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '899 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges direct infringement by Defendant making, using, selling, and internally testing the accused products (Compl. ¶¶11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may concern the scope of the limitation "wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data" (’899 Patent, col. 16:35-37). The dispute could focus on what constitutes "intersection data." Questions may arise as to whether transmitting raw or compressed image data for remote processing meets this limitation, or if the claim requires the handheld scanner itself to first process the image into geometric coordinates (e.g., 2D or 3D points) before transmission.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires both "processing the image to generate a set of data" and separately "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light" (’899 Patent, col. 16:32-34, 41-42). A factual question may be whether the accused system performs these as distinct functions as contemplated by the patent (which describes optical tracking systems), or if it employs a different architecture, such as a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm that derives position from the image data itself. The court may need to determine if such an alternative technical approach meets the claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the function that must be performed by the scanner before the wireless transmission step. Its construction is critical because it dictates how much, if any, computational work must occur on the handheld device versus the remote computer. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a "dumb" scanner that merely streams raw video wirelessly would infringe.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses embodiments where different types of data are generated, including "2D pixel coordinates" or even just a compressed raw video frame, with the more complex 3D conversion happening later at the receiver (’899 Patent, col. 15:23-43; Fig. 6). This may support a construction where minimal processing on the scanner is required.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure separates "forming an image" from "processing the image to generate a set of data." This may support an argument that "processing" requires more than just formatting or compressing the raw image; it requires generating a new "set of data," such as the numerical coordinates of points on the intersection. The patent’s description of calculating subpixel locations could be cited to support this view (’899 Patent, col. 5:19-30).

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

  • Context and Importance: This element is essential for converting the scanner's local measurements into a global 3D model. The definition of "tracking" will determine whether systems that derive position through means other than the external optical trackers described in the patent fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad and does not specify how the tracking must be performed. A plaintiff may argue it covers any method of determining the scanner's real-time position and orientation relative to the object.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes this function being performed by a "scanner tracking subsystem" with external sensors that track "position indicators" (e.g., LEDs or reflective markers) on the scanner body (’899 Patent, col. 3:10-14; col. 8:9-15; Fig. 1). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this disclosed architecture and not read to cover fundamentally different techniques like algorithmic image-based position derivation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the ’899 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its associated (unprovided) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's continued infringing activities despite this knowledge support a claim for enhanced damages, establishing a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶14). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

  • An Evidentiary Question of Functionality: As the complaint’s technical allegations are entirely contained within an unprovided exhibit, a threshold issue for the case will be establishing the precise operation of the accused products. The viability of the infringement claims depends entirely on evidence demonstrating whether Defendant's systems perform the claimed steps of on-device image processing, wireless data transmission, and real-time position tracking.
  • A Definitional Question of Claim Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, specifically the boundary between local and remote processing. A core question will be: can the claim "processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection" be met by a system that wirelessly streams raw or compressed video from a handheld scanner to a remote computer for all substantive geometric computation, or does the claim require the handheld unit itself to first calculate coordinate data?