DCT

6:23-cv-00658

Medit Corp. v. 3Shape A/S

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00443, W.D. Tex., 08/18/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Medit alleges venue is proper because 3Shape, a foreign corporation, is subject to venue in any judicial district and has consented to personal jurisdiction by filing its own complaint in this district.
  • Core Dispute: In its counterclaims, Medit alleges that 3Shape’s TRIOS intraoral scanners infringe four U.S. patents related to 3D dental data acquisition, processing, and display.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns intraoral scanners used in digital dentistry to create 3D models of a patient's teeth, a process which has become a cornerstone of modern restorative and orthodontic practice.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is Medit's Answer to a First Amended Complaint by 3Shape, and it includes affirmative counterclaims of infringement against 3Shape. The parties have engaged in prior patent litigation in Germany involving related European patents, indicating a history of disputes in this technology space.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-01-20 ’257 Patent Priority Date
2011-02-22 ’648, ’374, and ’864 Patents Priority Date
2011-03-22 ’257 Patent Issued
2015-11-17 ’648 Patent Issued
2016-01-26 ’374 Patent Issued
2016-02-16 ’864 Patent Issued
2017-04-25 3Shape's U.S. Patent 9,629,551 Issued
2018-09-04 3Shape's U.S. Patent 10,064,553 Issued
2020-06-30 3Shape's U.S. Patent 10,695,151 Issued
2020-08-31 German patent litigation filing mentioned in complaint
2020-09-03 German patent litigation filing mentioned in complaint
2021-07-27 3Shape's U.S. Patent 11,076,146 Issued
2022-06-21 3Shape's U.S. Patent 11,368,667 Issued
2023-08-18 Medit's Answer and Counterclaims Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257 - Real Time Display of Acquired 3D Dental Data (Issued Mar. 22, 2011)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In continuous 3D scanning, unrecoverable errors or gaps in the data can occur, but these issues may not be identified until after the scan is complete, necessitating a new scan (U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257, col. 1:40-49). This creates inefficiency and inconvenience, particularly in a clinical setting (U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257, col. 1:49-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides real-time visual feedback to the operator during a 3D scan. It involves generating a 3D model from acquired image sets and superimposing a visualization that identifies regions of inaccurate scan data, allowing the operator to immediately see where more data is needed (U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257, col. 2:25-35; Abstract). Figure 8, for instance, depicts a visualization technique for locating holes in a digital surface representation by simulating light passing through them (U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257, col. 16:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: Providing real-time feedback on data quality during an intraoral scan allows clinicians to ensure a complete and accurate model is captured in a single session, improving workflow efficiency (U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257, col. 1:63-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The counterclaims assert independent claim 18 (Counterclaims ¶86).
  • Claim 18 is a system claim with the following essential elements:
    • A scanner for acquiring a sequence of image sets from intraoral structures at a video rate.
    • A processor configured to receive the image sets and convert them into a 3D representation.
    • The processor is further configured to combine the 3D representation with previously obtained ones to provide a 3D model.
    • The processor generates a visual display signal of the 3D model.
    • The visual display signal includes a visualization that identifies regions of inaccurate scan data within the 3D representation.
    • A display for displaying the visual display signal.

U.S. Patent No. 9,191,648 - Hybrid Stitching (Issued Nov. 17, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: When multiple, separate 3D scans of an object are performed (e.g., when an initial scan is interrupted and later resumed), conventional registration techniques can align the separate models but do not afford an opportunity to refine the individual models in view of the combined data (U.S. Patent No. 9,191,648, col. 1:24-28). This can leave accumulated errors from the original scan paths uncorrected.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "hybrid stitching" method where disparate 3D scan sequences are related to one another through direct geometric stitches between frames in each sequence (U.S. Patent No. 9,191,648, Abstract). These new "virtual stitches" are integrated with the original camera path data to form a single combined "virtual stitch graph," which is then subjected to a global motion optimization to refine the entire combined model and reduce accumulated errors (U.S. Patent No. 9,191,648, col. 2:35-46).
  • Technical Importance: This technique allows for more accurate combination of multiple scan sessions, improving the final 3D model's fidelity by correcting errors that would persist with simple surface registration (U.S. Patent No. 9,191,648, col. 8:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The counterclaims assert independent claim 23 (Counterclaims ¶109).
  • Claim 23 is a system claim with the following essential elements:
    • A scanner configured to obtain a first 3D model (from a first camera path) and a second 3D model (from a second camera path).
    • A processor and associated memory.
    • The processor is configured to register a set of points from the first model to a set of points from the second model to place them in a shared coordinate system.
    • The processor is configured to create a virtual stitch graph that spatially relates the sets from both models.
    • The processor provides a combined model that includes all sets spatially related by the virtual stitch graph.
    • The processor is configured to refine the combined model with a global motion optimization of the virtual stitch graph.
    • A display for displaying the visual display signal.

U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374 - Space Carving in 3D Data Acquisition (Issued Jan. 26, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of transient obstructions (e.g., a patient's tongue, a dental instrument) corrupting a 3D scan (U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374, col. 1:15-21). The solution employs "space carving," where a spatial matrix tracks volumetric regions (voxels) known to be unoccupied. Data appearing in these "prohibited volumes" is subjected to modified processing, such as being displayed with a decay time or being excluded from the final model, thereby filtering out transient artifacts (U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374, Abstract; col. 2:25-36).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 23 is asserted (Counterclaims ¶133).
  • Accused Features: The TRIOS products are alleged to use filtering operations with prohibited volumes, such as when an object introduced into the scan area (a "pencil eraser" is used as an example) decays and disappears from the rendering while the static dental structures remain (Counterclaims ¶137).

U.S. Patent No. 9,262,864 - Synchronized Views of Video Data and Three-Dimensional Model Data (Issued Feb. 16, 2016)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system to resolve ambiguities in a 3D model by synchronizing the 3D model view with corresponding 2D video data captured during the scan (U.S. Patent No. 9,262,864, Abstract). The user interface displays the 3D model in one window and a corresponding still 2D image in another, with the views synchronized to provide a common perspective. This allows the user to reference the original, more detailed texture and color information from the 2D video to clarify features on the 3D model (U.S. Patent No. 9,262,864, col. 2:42-52).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 9 is asserted (Counterclaims ¶154).
  • Accused Features: The TRIOS user interface is alleged to render a 3D model in a main window while concurrently displaying a corresponding 2D image in a smaller window (e.g., a lower-right corner), with the views synchronized to provide a common perspective on the subject (Counterclaims ¶¶157-158).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are 3Shape’s TRIOS products, including at least the Trios 3, Trios 4, and Trios 5 intraoral scanners, along with their related software and hardware (Counterclaims ¶83).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The counterclaims describe the TRIOS products as intraoral scanners used in digital dentistry (Counterclaims ¶93, ¶117). Functionally, they are alleged to acquire sequences of image sets at a video rate to generate 3D models of intraoral structures (Counterclaims ¶87). The counterclaims allege these products include features for real-time data quality visualization, stitching of multiple scans, filtering of transient objects, and synchronized display of 2D and 3D data (Counterclaims ¶¶91, 115, 137, 158). The counterclaims also allege that 3Shape provides training, marketing materials, and user manuals instructing dentists and other users on how to use these features (Counterclaims ¶97, ¶121).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,912,257 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an intraoral scanner for acquiring a sequence of image sets from one or more intraoral structures of a dental patient at a video rate The TRIOS products include a scanner that acquires a sequence of image sets from a patient's intraoral structures at a video rate. ¶87 col. 4:10-14
a processor which is configured to receive the sequence of image sets and convert the sequence of image sets into a three-dimensional representation of the intraoral structures The TRIOS products include a processor that receives the image sets and converts them into a 3D representation of the intraoral structures. ¶88 col. 4:15-18
the processor is further configured to combine the three-dimensional representation with previously obtained three-dimensional representations from prior image sets to provide a three-dimensional model The processor in TRIOS combines the current 3D representation with previously obtained ones to provide a 3D model of the intraoral structures. ¶89 col. 4:19-22
the processor is further configured to generate a visual display signal of the three-dimensional model that may be used to render the three-dimensional model on a display The processor generates a visual display signal of the 3D model for rendering on a display. ¶90 col. 4:23-26
wherein the visual display signal includes a visualization that identifies regions of inaccurate scan data within the three-dimensional representation The processor generates a visualization that identifies regions of inaccurate scan data. A screenshot from TRIOS is provided showing areas of inaccurate data highlighted in color. (Counterclaims, p. 39). ¶91 col. 4:27-30
a display for displaying the visual display signal The TRIOS products include a display for showing the visual display signal. ¶92 col. 4:31-32

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the definition of "inaccurate scan data." Does this term require a specific method of detection (e.g., holes, low point density) as described in the patent, or can it be construed more broadly to cover any data quality indicator, such as the color-coded feedback allegedly used by TRIOS?
  • Technical Questions: What is the specific technical mechanism by which the TRIOS products allegedly identify "inaccurate scan data"? The counterclaims provide a screenshot showing color overlays (Counterclaims, p. 39), but the underlying algorithm is not detailed. The court will likely need to examine whether this functionality operates in a manner consistent with the methods disclosed in the ’257 Patent.

9,191,648 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a scanner that is configured to obtain a first three-dimensional model that includes a first plurality of sets of three-dimensional points spatially related to one another by a first camera path The TRIOS scanner obtains a first 3D model comprising a first plurality of sets of 3D points related by a first camera path. ¶110 col. 24:3-6
said scanner is further configured to obtain a second three-dimensional model including a second plurality of sets of three-dimensional points spatially related with one another by a second camera path The TRIOS scanner obtains a second 3D model comprising a second plurality of sets of 3D points related by a second camera path. ¶111 col. 24:7-10
...a processor and an associated memory in the intraoral scanner are configured to register one of the first plurality of sets of three-dimensional points to one of the second plurality of sets of three-dimensional points to place the first three-dimensional model and the second three-dimensional model in a shared coordinate system The TRIOS processor and memory register point sets from the first and second models to place them in a shared coordinate system. ¶113 col. 24:13-19
...create a virtual stitch graph that spatially relates the first plurality of sets and the second plurality of sets, thereby providing a combined model that includes the first plurality of sets and the second plurality of sets all spatially related by the virtual stitch graph The TRIOS processor creates a virtual stitch graph to spatially relate the sets from both models, providing a combined model. ¶115 col. 24:20-25
...refine the combined model with a global motion optimization of the virtual stitch graph The processor refines the combined model using a global motion optimization of the virtual stitch graph, as illustrated in "Before Optimization" and "After Optimization" screenshots. (Counterclaims, p. 44). ¶115 col. 24:26-28
a display for displaying the visual display signal The TRIOS products include a display. ¶116 col. 24:29-30

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of "virtual stitch graph" and "global motion optimization." Do these terms imply the specific mathematical and procedural steps detailed in the patent's specification, or can they encompass any process that combines and refines data from separate scans?
  • Technical Questions: The counterclaims allege that the TRIOS products perform a "global motion optimization," supported by "Before" and "After" screenshots (Counterclaims, p. 44). A key question for the court will be whether the underlying refinement algorithm used by TRIOS is technically equivalent to the "global motion optimization" claimed in the ’648 Patent, which involves minimizing errors across the entire combined graph, not just local registrations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’257 Patent

  • The Term: "a visualization that identifies regions of inaccurate scan data"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, as it defines the real-time feedback provided to the user. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the color-coded feedback in the accused TRIOS products (Counterclaims, p. 39) meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope determines whether any real-time data quality indicator infringes, or only those that identify specific types of "inaccuracy" disclosed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional and does not specify a particular type of inaccuracy or visualization method. The specification mentions various issues that could be visualized, including "unrecoverable errors or gaps in incremental data" (U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257, col. 1:40-42) and "holes" (U.S. Patent No. 7,912,257, col. 16:1-3), which could support a construction covering a range of data quality issues.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures primarily focus on identifying "holes" or "gaps" in the point cloud, such as through simulated illumination (Fig. 8). A defendant may argue this context limits the term "inaccurate scan data" to missing data points, rather than data that is merely of low quality or density.

For the ’648 Patent

  • The Term: "global motion optimization of the virtual stitch graph"
  • Context and Importance: This is the key technical step that allegedly differentiates the invention from simple registration of two models. The infringement finding will likely hinge on whether the accused TRIOS "refinement" process (Counterclaims ¶115) performs this specific type of optimization.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not recite a specific mathematical algorithm for the optimization. The term "global" suggests an optimization across the entire combined dataset, which could be argued to read on any process that refines the entire model rather than just local areas of overlap.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process of numerical optimization based on minimizing a "scalar-valued cost function" that depends on both rotational and translational components across all stitches in the combined graph (U.S. Patent No. 9,191,648, col. 14:15-22). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this or a technically equivalent mathematical process, and that a simpler "refinement" algorithm that does not perform a global cost-function minimization would not infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Medit alleges both induced and contributory infringement for its asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on 3Shape allegedly training customers and disseminating promotional materials, manuals, and user guides that encourage use of the infringing features (Counterclaims ¶¶97-98, 121-122, 142-143, 163-164). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the TRIOS products are specifically designed for use as intraoral scanners and have no substantial non-infringing use (Counterclaims ¶¶93, 117, 138, 159).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents based on "information and belief" that 3Shape knew or should have known of Medit's patents because Medit is a "known revolutionary in intraoral scanners with whom 3Shape knows and has familiarity" (Counterclaims ¶¶101, 125, 146, 167). The claims suggest the infringement was so obvious that 3Shape should have known of it.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How broadly will the court construe key technical terms such as "inaccurate scan data" ('257 Patent) and "global motion optimization" ('648 Patent)? The resolution will depend on whether these terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning or are limited by the specific embodiments and algorithms disclosed in the patents' specifications.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: Does the underlying software in the accused TRIOS products operate in a manner that is technically the same as, or equivalent to, the specific methods claimed in Medit's patents? This will require a deep technical dive into the accused products' source code and operation to determine if there is a fundamental match or mismatch in technical functionality compared to the patented inventions.
  • A third question will relate to knowledge and intent for the indirect and willful infringement claims. What evidence can Medit produce to demonstrate that 3Shape specifically intended for its customers to use the TRIOS scanners in an infringing manner, and that 3Shape's alleged infringement was egregious enough to warrant enhanced damages?