IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D.N.Y.: Jury must decide whether Chinese companies infringed 3D scanning software patents, (Apr 21, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The Chinese companies failed to prove that two patents are directed to an ineligible abstract idea, and a jury must decide patent validity.

In an infringement case related to patents for 3D scanners and 3D scanning software owned by a company in Luxembourg, Artec Europe, against two companies in China, the federal district court in Brooklyn, New York has concluded that a jury trial is needed to determine patent validity. The court concluded that the Chinese companies—Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd.; and Shenzhen Jimuyida Technology Co. Ltd.—failed to prove that the patents are directed to an ineligible abstract idea and that a jury must decide patent validity because genuine factual disputes exist. The court also limited the testimony of an expert witness for the Chinese companies based on an erroneous opinion during claim construction (Artec Europe S.A.R.L. v. Schenzen Creality 3D Technology Co., LTD., No. 1:22-cv-01676-OEM-CHK (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2026)).

Artec Europe S.À.R.L. (Artec), a Luxembourg-based company, owns three patents related to 3D scanners and 3D scanning software. Artec owns U.S. Patent 7,768,656 (the ’656 Patent); U.S. Patent 8,488,129 (the ’129 Patent”); and U.S. Patent 10,962,357 (the ’357 Patent). The ’656 and ’129 Patents relate to systems and methods for scanning, measurement, and capture of objects, while the ’357 Patent relates to data-collection feedback. Artec filed suit alleging patent infringement against two companies based in China: Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd.; and Shenzhen Jimuyida Technology Co. Ltd. The Chinese companies moved for summary judgment and Artec moved to preclude certain testimony of a technical expert for the defendant Chinese companies.

Literal infringement. The court first concluded that the Chinese companies did not literally infringe the ’357 Patent. The court recognized that the capability of a product or system to practice a claimed method does not support the finding of infringement. An expert for the patent holder performed only a static analysis of the accused products’ source code, without actually executing the code. This supports the conclusion that the accused products do not practice the claimed method. Literal infringement requires that every claim limitation is found in the accused products. Thus, the Chinese companies are entitled to summary judgment on the claim of literal infringement of the ’357 Patent.

Patent validity. The court concluded, however, that the Chinese companies failed to prove that ’656 and ’129 Patents are directed to an ineligible abstract idea under Alice step one and that a jury must decide patent validity. Claim 1 of the ’656 Patent includes multiple limitations that provide structure to the asserted claim, namely, the use of a light projector, the use of a “slide with a slide pattern located on a slide surface,” and the slide pattern’s composition of “coded elements” characterized by a parameter that “defines a spatial or temporal distribution of an amplitude of a wavelength” of structured light. These claim limitations undercut the contention that the ’656 Patent is directed to an abstract idea. The ’129 Patent discloses an object capturing system combined with, integrated with, and otherwise attached to or otherwise positioned alongside a display device, with a corresponding method for capturing an object near a display device. In an opinion on the functionality of the accused products’ preview mode, an expert for the patent owner Artec put forth a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the preview mode provides what can be characterized as providing a “reference” position and orientation. Because the Chinese companies have not proven, as a matter of law, that the ’656 Patent and the ’129 Patent are directed to an abstract idea, and genuine issues of material fact exist, a jury must decide validity of the ’656 and ’129 Patents. Thus, the court denied the motion for summary judgment as to validity of the ’656 and ’129 Patents.

Expert testimony. Finally, the court partially limited the testimony of the Chinese company’s expert witness. The court concluded that the expert’s opinion during claim construction was erroneous. Thus, the expert’s testimony that was found to be in error was inadmissible as lacking a reliable foundation. But the expert’s alternative invalidity opinion, drawn from the patent owner’s own infringement theory, is permissible.

Accordingly, the court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion for summary and the motion to exclude expert testimony.

The Case is No. 1:22-cv-01676-OEM-CHK.

Judge: Merchant, O.

Attorneys: Amanda Kate Greenspon (Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP) for Artec Europe S.A.R.L. Michael S. Devincenzo (King & Wood Mallesons LLP) for Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd.

Companies: Artec Europe S.A.R.L.; Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd.

Cases: Patent NewYorkNews TechnologyInternet