1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

 

 

 

Patent Armory Inc.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Scantech (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.,

 Defendant. 

 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-479 

 Patent Case 

 Jury Trial Demanded 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1. Plaintiff Patent Armory Inc. (“Plaintiff”), through its attorneys, complains of 

Scantech (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Defendant”), and alleges the following: 

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Patent Armory Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the 

laws of Canada that maintains its principal place of business at 400-1565 Carling Ave., Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada K1Z 8R1. 

3. Defendant Scantech (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of China that maintains an established place of business at Building 12, No.998, 

West Wenyi Road, Yuhang District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China. 

JURISDICTION

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the 

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 

Case 2:23-cv-00479-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
2 

5. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a). 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has engaged in 

systematic and continuous business activities in this District. As described below, Defendant has 

committed acts of patent infringement giving rise to this action within this District. 

VENUE

7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because Defendant is a 

foreign corporation. In addition, Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in this 

District, and Plaintiff has suffered harm in this district. 

PATENTS-IN-SUIT

8. Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in United States Patent Nos. 

7,256,899; and 7,336,375 (the “Patents-in-Suit”); including all rights to enforce and prosecute 

actions for infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the 

Patents-in-Suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the 

present action for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by Defendant. 

THE ’899 PATENT

9. The ’899 Patent is entitled “Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional 

non-contact shape sensing,” and issued 2007-08-14. The application leading to the ’899 Patent 

was filed on 2006-10-04. A true and correct copy of the ’899 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 

1 and incorporated herein by reference. 

THE ’375 PATENT

10. The ’375 Patent is entitled “Wireless methods and systems for three-dimensional 

non-contact shape sensing,” and issued 2008-02-26. The application leading to the ’375 Patent 

Case 2:23-cv-00479-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
3 

was filed on 2007-06-03. A true and correct copy of the ’375 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 

2 and incorporated herein by reference. 

COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’899 PATENT

11. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference. 

12. Direct Infringement. Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe one 

or more claims of the ’899 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, 

selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the 

charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that 

infringe at least the exemplary claims of the ’899 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated 

into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’899 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of 

equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringe the claims of the 

’899 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its 

customers. 

13. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’899 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally 

test and use these Exemplary Products. 

14. Actual Knowledge of Infringement. The service of this Complaint, in 

conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of 

infringement as alleged here. 

15. Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer 

for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’899 Patent. On 

information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products 

and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its 

Case 2:23-cv-00479-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
4 

products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’899 Patent. See Exhibit 3 

(extensively referencing these materials to demonstrate how they direct end users to commit 

patent infringement). 

16. Induced Infringement. At least since being served by this Complaint and 

corresponding claim charts, Defendant has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to 

induce infringement of the ’899 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling 

Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that 

infringes one or more claims of the ’899 Patent. 

17. Exhibit 3 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’899 Patent Claims to the 

Exemplary Defendant Products. As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products 

practice the technology claimed by the ’899 Patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant 

Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’899 Patent Claims. 

18. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim 

charts of Exhibit 3. 

19. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant's 

infringement. 

COUNT 2: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’375 PATENT

20. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference. 

21. Direct Infringement. Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe one 

or more claims of the ’375 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, 

selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the 

charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that 

infringe at least the exemplary claims of the ’375 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated 

Case 2:23-cv-00479-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
5 

into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’375 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of 

equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringe the claims of the 

’375 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its 

customers. 

22. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’375 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally 

test and use these Exemplary Products. 

23. Actual Knowledge of Infringement. The service of this Complaint, in 

conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of 

infringement as alleged here. 

24. Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer 

for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’375 Patent. On 

information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products 

and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its 

products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’375 Patent. See Exhibit 4 

(extensively referencing these materials to demonstrate how they direct end users to commit 

patent infringement). 

25. Induced Infringement. At least since being served by this Complaint and 

corresponding claim charts, Defendant has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to 

induce infringement of the ’375 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling 

Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that 

infringes one or more claims of the ’375 Patent. 

Case 2:23-cv-00479-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
6 

26. Exhibit 4 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’375 Patent Claims to the 

Exemplary Defendant Products. As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products 

practice the technology claimed by the ’375 Patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant 

Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’375 Patent Claims. 

27. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim 

charts of Exhibit 4. 

28. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant's 

infringement. 

JURY DEMAND

29. Under Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully 

requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: 

A. A judgment that the ’899 Patent is valid and enforceable 

B. A judgment that Defendant has infringed directly and indirectly one or more 

claims of the ’899 Patent; 

C. A judgment that the ’375 Patent is valid and enforceable 

D. A judgment that Defendant has infringed directly and indirectly one or more 

claims of the ’375 Patent; 

E. An accounting of all damages not presented at trial; 

F. A judgment that awards Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 

for Defendant's continuing or future infringement, up until the date such judgment 

Case 2:23-cv-00479-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
7 

is entered with respect to the ’899; and ’375 Patents, including pre- or postjudgment interest, costs, and disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

G. And, if necessary, to adequately compensate Plaintiff for Defendant's 

infringement, an accounting: 

i. that this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 

and that Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys fees against Defendant 

that it incurs in prosecuting this action; 

ii. that Plaintiff be awarded costs, and expenses that it incurs in prosecuting 

this action; and 

iii. that Plaintiff be awarded such further relief at law or in equity as the Court 

deems just and proper. 

 

Dated: October 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Isaac Rabicoff 

 Isaac Rabicoff 

 Rabicoff Law LLC 

 600 Mamaroneck Ave STE 400 

 Harrison, NY 10528 

 7736694590 

 isaac@rabilaw.com 

 

 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Patent Armory Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00479-JRG Document 1 Filed 10/12/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7