Patent Armory Inc v. Natus Medical Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Natus Medical Incorporated (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00210, W.D. Wis., 04/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to wireless, non-contact, three-dimensional shape sensing systems.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using structured light and optical tracking to create 3D digital models of physical objects, a process critical in fields like medical imaging, industrial design, and reverse engineering.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent.

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”

• Issued: August 14, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for improved methods of capturing 3D computer models of physical objects. Prior art systems, including both contact-probe and non-contact optical scanners, were often "tethered at least by an electronic cable, if not by further mechanical linkage," which limited their ease of use and mobility. (Compl., Ex. 1, ’899 Patent, col. 2:36-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method and system for wireless 3D shape sensing. A handheld, untethered scanner projects a pattern of structured light onto an object. An imager on the scanner captures the intersection of the light and the object's surface. A separate tracking system determines the scanner's position and orientation in 3D space. The scanner wirelessly transmits data about the captured intersection to a computer, which correlates this data with the scanner's tracked position to build a 3D model of the object. (’899 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This process allows an operator to freely move the scanner around an object to "paint" its surface and build a complete model. (’899 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
• Technical Importance: The invention's primary contribution was to remove the physical cables from the 3D scanning process, enabling greater freedom of movement and simplifying the capture of complex object geometries. (’899 Patent, col. 2:41-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referencing "Exemplary '899 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method:

• Independent Claim 1:
  • establishing an object coordinate system in known relationship to the object;
  • projecting a pattern of structured light of known geometry onto the object;
  • forming an image of an intersection of the pattern of structured light with the object;
  • processing the image to generate a set of data characterizing the intersection relative to a position of the pattern of structured light;
  • wirelessly transmitting some portion of the image and intersection data to a receiver;
  • receiving the transmitted portion of the image and intersection data;
  • tracking the position of the pattern of structured light;
  • associating each intersection datum with the position of the projected pattern of light at the time the image corresponding to the datum was formed;
  • transforming each intersection datum into coordinates of the object coordinate system; and
  • accumulating the transformed coordinates to form an approximation of the surface of the object.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused instrumentalities by name. It refers to them as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an incorporated but unprovided exhibit, Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’899 Patent. (Compl. ¶16). Without access to Exhibit 2, which purportedly contains charts comparing the patent claims to the accused products, the specific functionality and market context of these products cannot be determined from the complaint itself. The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and/or imports these products in the United States. (Compl. ¶¶11, 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are asserted conclusorily and rely entirely on charts in Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '899 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). It asserts direct infringement through the making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing of the accused products, as well as through internal testing by Defendant's employees. (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). No specific facts mapping product features to claim limitations are included in the body of the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "wirelessly transmitting" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The "wireless" nature of the scanner is a central feature of the invention, distinguishing it from prior "tethered" systems. (’899 Patent, col. 2:36-40). The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused products, once identified, practice this element. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to specific protocols or covers any non-cabled data transfer.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying a particular wireless technology. The summary of the invention also describes the concept generally as transmitting "wirelessly." (’899 Patent, col. 2:55-56).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of wireless transmission mediums, such as "modulated radio frequency signals," and industry standards like "IEEE 801.11 WiFi, Bluetooth, [or] IRDA." (’899 Patent, col. 6:49-54). A defendant might argue these examples limit the scope of the term.

• The Term: "tracking the position of the pattern of structured light" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This step is essential for correlating the image data with the scanner's location in 3D space to build an accurate model. The dispute may turn on what type of "tracking" is covered by the claim and whether the accused systems employ a comparable method.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "tracking" without specifying a mechanism. The summary states the process "tracks the position of the pattern of light with respect to the object over time." (’899 Patent, col. 2:53-55).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a specific embodiment using a "scanner tracking subsystem" that optically tracks "at least three non-collinear position indicators" (e.g., retro-reflective markers or LEDs) on the scanner body to determine its location and orientation. (’899 Patent, col. 8:10-15, 8:30-43; Fig. 1). A party could argue the claims should be read in light of this detailed disclosure.

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 on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’899 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶14, 15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation appears to be based on post-suit conduct only. The complaint alleges that "at least since being served by this Complaint," Defendant has had "actual knowledge" and has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement." (Compl. ¶¶13, 15).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations. With all specific infringement facts confined to an unprovided external exhibit, the court may need to address whether the complaint, on its face, provides Defendant with adequate notice of the basis for the claims against it.

2. Claim Scope and "Wireless Tracking": A central technical question will be one of claim scope. Can the patent's claims, which describe a system with a separate optical tracking subsystem monitoring indicators on a handheld scanner, be construed to read on the specific architecture of the accused products? The definitions of "wirelessly transmitting" and "tracking the position" will be pivotal in this analysis.

3. Indirect Infringement and Intent: Assuming direct infringement is established, a key factual question will be whether Plaintiff can prove Defendant’s specific intent to induce infringement. This will likely require an analysis of the "product literature and website materials" referenced in the complaint to determine if they in fact instruct users to perform all steps of the claimed method.