Askan v. Faro Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yoldas Askan (United Kingdom)
  • Defendant: FARO Technologies, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-01674, M.D. Fla., 08/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the suit occurred.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3D laser scanners infringe patents related to methods and systems for processing 3D point cloud data to generate smoothed, noise-reduced images.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software algorithms used in 3D scanning to correct for inherent inaccuracies, or "noise," in raw scan data, which is critical for applications requiring precise measurements.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and continued its allegedly infringing activities after the termination of unspecified "earlier related cases."

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,300,841 - "Method of Generating a Smooth Image from Point Cloud Data", Issued March 29, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that point cloud data from 3D laser scanners contains inaccuracies, such as "statistical noise and false scatter points," which prevent the data from accurately representing the true dimensions of the scanned object Compl. ¶8 ’841 Patent, col. 1:25-32
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for processing the raw point cloud data to reduce this noise. The process involves iteratively adjusting the distance value of each pixel by comparing it to its neighboring pixels. An "error bar" is calculated, and if the difference between a pixel and its neighbor is within this bar, its value is replaced by a weighted average; if not, its value may be changed by a small, predefined fraction. This iterative process is designed to converge on a "noise free smooth surface." '841 Patent, Abstract col. 2:1-20
• Technical Importance: Such smoothing techniques are important for enabling high-precision measurements from 3D scan data, which is necessary for engineering purposes like monitoring structural deformation where minute changes must be accurately quantified '841 Patent, col. 1:49-56

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶28
• The essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
  • Scanning an object to generate a first point cloud data set representing a "noisy 3D model."
  • Receiving this data set with a processor.
  • Generating second distance values based on at least two neighboring points.
  • Generating a second point cloud data set based on an "average based distance value" of those neighbors.
  • Performing one or more iterations of this process to generate a "noise free and smoothed representation."
  • Outputting the processed data set.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶29

U.S. Patent No. 10,032,255 - "System for Smoothing 3D Clouds", Issued July 24, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '255 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the '841 Patent: raw data from 3D scanners is corrupted by noise and scatter points, diminishing its accuracy and utility '255 Patent, col. 1:27-32
• The Patented Solution: While the underlying algorithm is the same as that described in the '841 Patent, this patent claims the physical system that executes the method. The claimed invention is a system comprising a scanner that captures the initial "noisy" data and a processor that is configured with instructions to perform the iterative smoothing process, which includes calculating an "error bar" and adjusting pixel values based on comparisons with neighboring pixels '255 Patent, Abstract col. 8:3-22
• Technical Importance: By claiming the system itself, the patent covers the apparatus (e.g., a 3D scanner with integrated processing capabilities) that implements the noise-reduction functionality.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶34
• The essential elements of independent system claim 1 include:
  • A scanner configured to generate a first point cloud data set representing a "noisy 3D model."
  • A processor configured with instructions to:
    • Receive the data set.
    • Generate second distance values based on neighboring points.
    • Generate a second point cloud data set based on an "average based distance value."
    • Perform one or more iterations to create a "noise free and smoothed representation."
    • Output the final processed data set.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶35

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Faro 3D Focus Premium Flash range of scanners" Compl. ¶17

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as 3D laser scanners that are made, used, and sold by the Defendant Compl. ¶¶ 7, 16 The core of the allegation is that these scanners, either through their own operation or in conjunction with associated software, practice the patented methods for generating smooth images from point cloud data Compl. ¶17 The complaint alleges that FARO derives a competitive advantage from using this patented technology Compl. ¶21 The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of the accused scanners' software.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused scanners practice all the steps or contain all the elements of at least claim 1 of both the ’841 and ’255 Patents Compl. ¶¶ 17, 28, 34 It references illustrative claim charts in Exhibits 1 and 2, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. In the absence of specific element-by-element mappings, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint’s narrative.

The narrative theory for the ’841 Patent (a method claim) is that the use of the accused Faro scanners inherently performs the claimed steps of iteratively processing point cloud data to generate a smoothed image Compl. ¶¶ 17, 28 The theory for the ’255 Patent (a system claim) is that the accused Faro scanners themselves, comprising a scanner and a processor running the smoothing software, constitute the infringing system Compl. ¶¶ 17, 34

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be evidentiary. What proof can be presented to show that the specific algorithms implemented in the accused scanners perform the multi-step iterative process recited in the claims? This includes demonstrating the calculation of an "error bar" and the conditional application of a "weighted average" or "fractional change" based on whether a pixel's deviation from its neighbors is within that bar.
  • Technical Question: The case may present a technical question of operational correspondence. Do the noise-reduction methods in the accused scanners operate in a fundamentally different manner from the claimed invention? The analysis may focus on whether the accused software performs all claimed steps, or if it omits a step or performs it in a way that is technically distinct from the process detailed in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "error bar"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the claimed method, defining the threshold that dictates how each pixel's distance value is adjusted. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused products' noise-filtering thresholds meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "error bar" as representing the "uncertainty in measured distance" derived from an "error function," which "can be a percentage of the measured distance, a linear function, piecewise linear or be more complex" ’255 Patent, col. 6:11-25 This language may support a construction that covers a wide range of calculated noise thresholds.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes determining the "error function" through a specific process of "collating the error widths observed for objects at known distance intervals, having various surface RGB values and facing the scanner at various angles" ’255 Patent, col. 6:12-18 This could support a narrower construction limited to error thresholds derived from such specific empirical characterization.

• The Term: "weighted average value"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the specific calculation performed when the difference between a pixel and its neighbor is found to be within the "error bar". Whether the accused product's averaging technique meets this limitation will be a key point of infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify a formula. A party might argue that any averaging method that is not a simple arithmetic mean could be considered "weighted."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific formula for a "loop count weighted average": "new_distance_value=((Current_distance_value*loop_count)+Changed_distance_value)/(loop_count+1)" ’255 Patent, col. 9:30-34 This explicit definition may be used to argue that the term is limited to this specific type of calculation, which gives increasing weight to the existing value as the iterative loop progresses.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads inducement of infringement, alleging that FARO makes and sells the accused scanners to customers with "knowledge of the infringement" and with the "specific intent to encourage its customers to infringe" the patents Compl. ¶¶ 54, 62
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff "previously informed FARO of the '841 Patent and its relevance" and similarly for the '255 Patent Compl. ¶¶ 55, 63 It further alleges that FARO continued its conduct after the "termination of earlier related cases" Compl. ¶24, suggesting knowledge from prior legal interactions.

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

• A central issue will be one of algorithmic correspondence: What evidence will demonstrate that the noise-reduction software in FARO's scanners performs the specific, multi-step iterative process recited in the claims, including the calculation of an "error bar" and the distinct conditional actions (e.g., "weighted average" vs. "predefined fraction" change) based on that bar's threshold?
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Will the claim term "weighted average value", which is described with a specific formula in the patent's embodiment, be construed broadly enough to encompass the particular averaging techniques implemented by the accused scanners, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation that places them outside the scope of the claims?
• Finally, a key factual question regarding damages and willfulness will be the nature and timing of the alleged pre-suit notice and the "earlier related cases" mentioned in the complaint, which could establish when the Defendant's potential liability for willful infringement began.