Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 30 PagelD #: 9305
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 9305
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ROBOTICVISIONTECH,INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C. A. No. 22-cv-1257-GBW
`
`ABBINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan R. Hoeschen, Emily S$. DiBenedetto, SHAW KELLER
`LLP, Wilmington DE; J.C. Rozendaal, Micheal E. Joffre, William H. Milliken, Kristian
`Caggiano Kelly, Anna G. Phillips, STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.,
`Washington D.C.
`
`Counselfor Plaintiff
`
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gregory S.
`Bombard, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Boston, MA; Andrew Sommer, GREENBERG
`TRAURIG LLP, McLean, VA
`
`Counselfor Defendant
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Date: June 26, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 30 PagelD #: 9306
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 9306
`
`
`
`WILLIAMS
`REGORYB.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Before the Court is RoboticVisionTech, Inc. (“RVT”) and ABB Inc’s. (“ABB”) joint
`
`request for construction of United States Patent Nos. 8,095,237 (the “’237 patent”), 6,816,755 (the
`
`“°755 patent”), and the 7,336,814 (the “’814 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). See
`
`D.I. 98. The Asserted Patents generally relate to systems and methods for 3D vision guided
`
`robotics using a single camera. See generally, e.g.,°755 patent 1:7-30. The Court has reviewed
`
`the parties’ briefing, D.1. 98, and construes the claimsat-issue as set forth below.
`
`IL
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“<TThe claims of a patent define the invention to whichthe patenteeis entitled the right to
`
`exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation
`
`omitted); Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(same). “[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1324. The Court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources “in
`
`light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.” Jd. The ultimate question of the proper
`
`construction of a patent is a question of law, although “subsidiary factfinding is sometimes
`
`necessary.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 326-27 (2015); see Markman
`
`v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996) (“the construction of a patent .
`
`.
`
`. is
`
`exclusively within the province of the court.”).
`
`“The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by a person ofordinary skill in the art whenread in the context of the specification and
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 30 PagelD #: 9307
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 9307
`
`prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). The “‘only two exceptions to this general rule’” are (1) when a patentee
`
`defines a term or (2) disavowal of “‘the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or
`
`during prosecution.’” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citation omitted).
`
`The Court “‘first look[s] to, and primarily rel[ies] on, the intrinsic evidence,” which
`
`includes the claims, written description, and prosecution history and “‘is usually dispositive.”
`
`Personalized Media Comme’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation
`
`omitted). “[T]he specification ‘
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`“‘[TJhe specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the
`
`patenteethat differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.’ When the patentee acts as its
`
`own lexicographer, that definition governs.” Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316). However, “‘[the Court] do[es] not read
`
`limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” MasterMine Software,
`
`Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted)). The “written
`
`description .
`
`.
`
`. is not a substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language.”
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The Court “should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if it is in evidence.”
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 32 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370;
`
`Cont’! Cirs., 915 F.3d at 796 (same). The prosecution history may “‘demonstrat[e] how the
`
`inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 4 of 30 PagelD #: 9308
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 9308
`
`prosecution... .” SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317).
`
`The Court may “need to look beyondthe patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic
`
`evidencein orderto understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in
`
`the relevant art during the relevant time period.” Teva, 574 U.S. at 331. “Extrinsic evidence
`
`consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and
`
`inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 980; Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1317 (same). Extrinsic evidence may be useful, butit is “less significant than the intrinsic
`
`record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Cont’ Cirs., 915 F.3d at
`
`799 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, “[p]atent documents are written
`
`for persons familiar with the relevant field .... Thus resolution of any ambiguity arising from the
`
`claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the
`
`context of the invention.” Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
`
`see Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 372 U.S. 898, 899 (2014) (explaining that patents are
`
`addressed “to those skilled in the relevant art”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 5 of 30 PagelD #: 9309
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 9309
`
`I.
`
`AGREED-UPON TERMS
`
`The parties agree on the construction for the following twenty-seven (27) terms. D.I. 98.
`
`“transformation”
`
`“camera space”
`
`reed Construction —
`
`“three-dimensional rotation & translation
`between two spaces”
`
`“a reference frame defined with respect
`to a point on, and therefore rigid to, the
`camera”
`
`‘
`
`°237 patent, claims 1,|
`2, 9-11, 14, 15, 17,
`20, 21,.25°753
`patent, claims 1, 6, 8,
`15, 18, 19
`
`°237 patent, claims 1,|
`2, 9-11, 14, 15, 17,
`20, 21, 25 7755
`patent, claims1, 8,
`18, 19
`
`19
`
`“‘a reference frame defined with respect to
`°237 patent, claims 2,|
`“training space”
`9, 20, 25 °755 patent,|a point on the calibration template, and
`claims 1, 18
`aligned to its main axes”
`
`“teaching object”
`
`“calibration object”
`
`“object space”
`
`°237 patent, claims
`12, 13,21
`
`“object used for teaching”
`
`°237 patent, claims 2-|
`5, 7-11, 20, 25
`
`’237 patent, claims 1,|
`12, 14, 17, 20,25
`°755 patent, claims 1,
`8, 18, 19
`
`“object used for calibration”
`
`“a reference frame defined with respect to,
`and therefore rigid to, the object”
`
`
`
`“object frame” °237 patent, claims|“areference frame defined with respect
`15-17 °755 patent,
`to a point on, and therefore rigid to, the
`claims 1, 6, 8, 15, 18,|object”
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 6 of 30 PagelD #: 9310
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 9310
`
`~
`
`“position the cameraso thatit
`appears orthogonal to the object”
`
`°755 patent, claims 1,|
`8, 18, 19
`
`“position the camera sothatit appears at a
`right angle to the object”
`
`°755 patent, claims
`18, 19
`
`Claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(6).
`
`
`“tool”
`
`“the tool the robot is using for performing
`°237 patent, claims
`the handling, cutting or other robotic
`10, 11, 15 °755
`
`
`
`operations, having an operating end or
`patent, claims 1, 6, 8,
`
`
`
`‘end-effector’”
`15, 18, 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“a reference frame defined with respect to
`°237 patent, claims
`tool space” or“tool frame
`a point on, and oriented along the
`10, 11, 15
`reference frame”
`
`
`
`direction of the end-effector and therefore
`rigid to, the tool”
`
`
`
`“a reference frame defined with respect to a
`°755 patent, claims 1,
`
`point on, and oriented along the direction
`8, 18, 19
`
`
`of the end-effector and therefore rigid to,
`
`the tool”
`,
`
`
`
`
`“robot space”
`°755 patent, claims 1,|
`“a reference frame defined with respect to
`8, 18, 19
`a point on the robot and therefore rigid to
`
`the robot”
`
`
`
`
`tool’ position”
`°755 patent, claims 1,
`8, 18,19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘calibration means for calibrating
`means for
`e camera...” “
`
`
`eaching the object features . . .”
`“means for carrying out object
`finding and positioning .. .”
`
`“means for calibrating the camera. .
`.” AND “means for estimating a
`ipose of a target object...”
`
`No construction necessary; not the same as
`“tool frame.”
`
`
`°237 patent, claims
`20-28
`
`
`Claimsdo not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(6).
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 7 of 30 PagelD #: 9311
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 9311
`
`°755 patent, claims 7,
`17
`
`“position and orientation’
`
`>
`
`°814 patent, claims 1,
`, 13, 19, 23, 25- 29,
`3, 35, 38
`
`“object used for training”
`
`“intrinsic parameters”
`
`’237 patent, claims 2,
`8, 20, 25 °755 patent,
`claims 1, 8, 18, 19
`
`“parameters intrinsic to camera, such as
`focal length, image center, real pixel size,
`and radial and tangential distortion ofthe
`camera lens.”
`"
`
`9
`
`814 patent, claims 1,
`, 13, 19, 23, 33
`
`“determining a numberof additional views
`to be obtained based onat least all of the
`following:
`
`training object identified.”
`
`“determining a numberofadditional
`iews to be obtained basedatleast
`in part on the number of image
`sensors, the numberof features
`identified, the numberof features
`having an invariant physical
`relationship associated thereto, and
`a type ofthe invariant physical
`relationship associated with the
`eatures, sufficient to provide a
`system of equations and unknowns
`here the number of unknowns is
`not greater than the numberof
`
`(1) the numberof image sensors,
`(2) the numberoffeatures identified,
`(3) the numberof features having an
`invariant physical relationship
`associated thereto, and
`(4) the type of invariant physical
`relationship associated with the
`features.
`
`The numberof additional viewsis
`sufficient to provide a system of equations
`and unknowns where the number of
`unknownsis not greater than the numberof
`equations.”
`
`“determining a numberofadditional
`views to be obtained based onatleast all
`of the following:
`(1) the number of image sensors
`acquiring at least one image, and
`(2) the numberof features of the
`
`2
`“determining a number of additionall’814 patent, claim 35
`iews to be obtained basedat least
`in part on the number of image
`sensors acquiring at least one image
`and the numberoffeatures of the
`training object identified”
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 8 of 30 PagelD #: 9312
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 9312
`
`‘local model”
`
`°814 patent: claims 23,
`27, 28, 33, 35, 37, 38
`
`A model that contains information about
`certain features and that corresponds to an
`image sensor.
`
`“extrinsic parameters”
`
`Parameters describing the camera’s
`position and orientation.
`
`“finding the ‘Object Space to
`Camera Space’ transformation in
`
`Not indefinite.
`
`314 patent, claim 7
`
`Notindefinite. Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`“processor-readable medium storing
`instructions for facilitating machine-
`ision of objects having invariant
`physical relationships between a
`number of features on the objects,
`
`’237 patent, claims 1,
`17, 20, 24, 25, 28;
`°755 patent, claims8,
`19; 814 patent, claims
`7, 22, 28, 29, 33, 38
`
`The object that the robot will be
`manipulating or otherwise interacting with
`after calibration.
`
`[Equations or inequalities
`
`°814 patent, claims 5,
`11, 17, 20, 24, 36
`
`Notindefinite. Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`“112 4 4 issues”
`
`?237 patent, claims 14,
`22-23, 26, 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 9 of 30 PagelD #: 9313
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 9313
`
`I.
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`The following ten (10) terms are in dispute, require construction, and are construed as set
`
`forth below for the following reasons:
`
`1. “Preamble: “A [method] useful in three-dimensional pose estimation for use
`with a single camera mounted to a moveable portion of a robot” (°237 patent,
`claim 1)”
`
`
`“Preamble: “A
`[method] useful in
`three-dimensional
`pose estimation for
`use with a single
`camera mounted to
`a moveable portion
`of a robot” (°237
`patent, claim 1)
`
`Preambleis not -
`limiting.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, which does
`not exclude methods
`that use more than
`one camera or those
`that are not used in
`three- dimensional
`pose estimation.
`
`claimed method.
`
`limiting.
`
`Excludes
`methods that use
`more than one
`camera and those
`that are not used
`in three- .
`dimensional pose
`estimation(i.e.,
`estimating
`position and
`orientation of
`object)
`
`Preamble is
`limiting.
`
`Plain and
`ordinary
`meaning, which
`does not exclude
`methods that use
`more than one
`camera or those
`that are not used
`in three-
`dimensional
`pose estimation.
`
`A single camera
`must perform
`each step of the
`
`Theparties dispute whether claim 1 of the °237 patent covers methods that use more than
`
`one camera, or are used for tasks other than three-dimensional pose estimation.
`
`ABBarguesthat the preambleis limiting, and requires that the method of claim 1 of the
`
`°237 patent (1) employ a single camera, and (2) be used in three-dimensional pose estimation. D.I.
`
`98 at 8. RVT disagrees, and argues that the preamble is not a limitation, because it merely indicates ~
`
`that the claimed methodis useful for 3D-pose estimation using a single camera. Jd. In other words,
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 10 of 30 PagelD #: 9314
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 9314
`
`RVTargues, “choosing to add more cameras or choosingto use the method for 2D-pose estimation
`
`does not take the method outside the scope of this open-ended comprising claim.” Jd.
`
`The Court agrees with ABB that the preamble is limiting. The invention describedin the
`
`°237 patent is “a method and apparatus for single image three dimensional vision guided robotics”
`
`using a single camera. See, e.g., D.I. 76-6, 15, 52-53 (“Applicants’ claims are directed to methods
`
`... that employ single camera three-dimensional (3-D) vision for robotic guidance.”). The “single
`
`camera” that captures the “single image” is recited only in the preamble. Also, many of the
`
`dependent claims of the ’237 patent rely on the “single camera” recited in the preamble for
`
`antecedent basis. Thus, the preamble is limiting because it is necessary to give “life, meaning, and
`
`vitality” to the claims. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that a single camera must be used to perform each limitation
`
`of the claimed method. Both parties appear to agree that the claimed method requires that one
`
`camera perform each limitation of the claimed method. Compare D.I. 98 at 19 (RVT’s Reply)
`
`(“One ofskill in the art would understand the claim to cover a multi-camera system wherein one
`
`or more ofthe cameras uses the claimed single-camera methodinstead of a stereo vision method.”)
`
`with id. (ABB’s Sur-Reply) (“A process with additional stepsis still within the claim scope. What
`
`—
`
`is not within the claims—to use RVT’s phrasing—are methods using ‘cameras in the plural’ or
`
`‘two cameras.’”). However, the parties disagree with respect to whether that limitation is properly
`
`reflected in the parties’ proposed constructions. RVT argues that ABB’s construction reads out
`
`methods that add more cameras (even if one of those cameras practices the claimed single-camera
`
`method), while ABB argues that RVT’s proposed construction does not require a single camera to
`
`practice each limitation of the claimed method. Accordingly, to make clear that the claimed
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 11 of 30 PagelD #: 9315
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 9315
`
`method (1) requires a single camera to perform each step of the claimed method, but (2) is not
`
`limited to only those methods that employ a single camera, the Court construes the preamble as
`
`“Plain and ordinary meaning, which does not exclude methods that use more than one camera or
`
`those that are not usedin three-dimensional pose estimation. A single camera must perform each |
`
`step of the claimed method.”!
`
`2. “a single camera operable to capture a numberof imagesof a calibration object”
`(°237 patent, claims 20, 25)
`Eee
`
`
`
`Clam.
`ae
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PE “a single camera
`
`Excludes
`Plain and ordinary
`
`operable to capture|meaning, whichis apparatuses that
`
`anumber of images|that there must be have more than|meaning, which
`
`
`of a calibration “one camera that can|one camera. is that there
`
`object” ("237 patent,|capture one or more must be “one
`claims 20, 25)
`images of a
`camera that can
`calibration object.”
`capture one or
`more images of
`a calibration
`object.”
`
`But it does not
`exclude apparatuses
`that have other
`cameras.
`
`But it does not
`exclude
`apparatuses that
`have other
`cameras.
`
`For the reasons stated above (§III.1), the Court adopts RVT’s proposed construction of “a
`
`single camera operable to capture a number of imagesof a calibration object.” The claims
`
`‘ The Court is not convinced by ABB’s argumentthat the preamble “excludes methodsthat ... are not
`used in three- dimensional pose estimation(i.e., estimating position and orientation of object).” While the
`preamble explains that the claimed methodis useful for 3D pose estimation, nothing in the plain language
`of the claim suggests that the claimed method can be used only for 3D pose estimation. See generally
`°237 patent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 12 of 30 PagelD #: 9316
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 9316
`
`require the apparatus to possess a single camera that performseachofthe steps ofthe claimed
`
`method, but do not exclude apparatuses that contain multiple cameras.
`
`3. Preamble: “A method of [system for] three-dimensional handling of an object by
`a robot using a tool and one camera mounted on the robot” (’755 patent, claims
`
`1, 8, 18, 19) Preamble: “A
`
`Preambleis
`Preamble is
`Preambleis not
`
`method of [system|limiting. limiting. limiting.
`
`for] three-
`A single camera
`Excludes
`Plain and ordinary
`dimensional
`
`handling of an meaning, which does|methods/systems|must perform
`
`
`object by a robot not exclude methods|that use more each limitation
`
`using a tool and one|or systemsthat use than one camera|of the claimed
`
`camera mounted on|more than one and do not usea_|method.
`the robot” (755 camera or do not use|tool.
`
`patent, claims 1,8,|a tool.
`18, 19)
`
`The Court agrees with ABB that the preamble ofthe ’755 patentis limiting. D.I. 98 at 20-
`
`21. The preamble recites “a robot using a tool and one camera mounted on the robot,” and the
`
`claimsrely on the “tool” and “camera” for antecedent basis. E.g., 755 patent, claim 1. Thus, the
`
`preamble is limiting becauseit is necessary to give “life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims.
`
`Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). And, for the same reasons describedin §III.1 of
`
`the Court’s Opinion with respect to the ’237 patent, the Court finds that the claimed methodofthe
`
`°755 patent requires a single camera to perform eachstep ofthe claimed method, but is notlimited
`
`to only those methods that employ a single camera.
`
`The Court does not find it necessary to specify that the claimed method “excludes
`
`methods/systems that
`
`... do not use a tool.”
`
`The plain language of the claims recite
`
`methods/systemsthat use a tool. E.g., claim 1 (“calibrating the camera by finding,” inter alia, “the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 13 of 30 PagelD #: 9317
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 9317
`
`position of the camera relative to the tool of the robot (‘hand-eye’ calibration)”). As a result,
`
`incorporating that limitation into the Court’s construction ofthe preamble is unnecessary, because
`
`it would be redundant. Accordingly, the Court construes the preamble as limiting, and specifies
`
`that “a single camera must perform each limitation of the claimed method.”
`
`4. “an image” and “the image”in the carrying out step (iii) (°755 patent, claims1,
`8, 18, 19)
`
`features.
`
`| Multiple images
`Plain and ordinary ~
`
`image”in the '|meaning, whichis | more than one maybe taken as
`
`
`carrying out step
`“an image” butit
`image.”
`part of the
`(ili) (’755 patent,
`doesnot limit the
`“carrying out
`
`claims 1, 8, 18,19)|claim to only one step (iii),” but a
`image.
`single image
`must be used to
`locate the at
`least six
`
`The object finding and positioning step of the invention described in the ’755 patent
`
`involves capturing an imageof a target object, using that imageto identify multiple featuresofthe
`
`object, and calculating the object location as the transformation between the ‘object space’ and the
`
`‘camera space.’
`
`/d., 8:1-33. Because the invention uses only a single camera, the robot moves
`
`around the object until it can obtain an image from which a sufficient number of features can be
`
`identified. E.g., ’755 patent, 10:51-53. Once enough features are identified, “the positions of
`
`features from the image” are used to compute “the object location as the transformation between
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 14 of 30 PagelD #: 9318
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 9318
`
`the ‘object space’ and ‘camera space.’”? Jd., 10:54-58, Thus, the transformation is computed
`
`using feature positions from one image taken by the one camera.
`
`The claims require “at least 6 visible features” to be identified from “an image.” See id.,
`
`claim 1. The relevant portion of claim 1 (step iii)), for example, states:
`
`iii) carrying out object finding and positioning by
`
`a) positioning the robot in a predefined position above the bin containing the
`object and capturing an imageofthe object;
`
`b) if an insufficient numberof selected features are in the field of view, moving
`the robot until at least 6 features can be located;
`
`c) with the positions of features from the image and their corresponding
`positions in “Object Space” as calculated in the training step, computing the
`object location as the transformation between the “Object Space” and “Camera
`Space”
`
`°755 patent, claim 1. The parties dispute whether the claims require that those “at least 6 features”
`
`be identified from a single image. RVT argues that “the term ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance means
`
`‘one or more.’”(citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008)). RVT also arguesthat the claim language contemplates “the camera mov[ing] and tak[ing]
`
`successive images of the object until it captures enough features (as recited in limitations(iii)(a)
`
`and (b)).” D.I. 98 at 23. ABB disagrees, and arguesthat the method allowsfor “capturing multiple
`
`images until an acceptable one is found,” but requires that “step (iii)’s computations are performed
`
`using only one image.” Jd. at 24.
`
`The Court agrees with ABBthat step iii)’s computations are performed using only one
`
`image, and that multiple images can be captured until a suitable single image is found. “Baldwin
`
`2 The “object space”is “the 3D position of each feature relative to a coordinate systemrigid to
`the object,” id., 2:2-4, and the “camera space”is “a reference frame defined with respect to a
`point on, and therefore rigid to, the [one] camera 16.” Id., 3:63-64.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 15 of 30 PagelD #: 9319
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 9319
`
`does not set a hard and fast rule that ‘a’ always meansone or more than one.” Harari v. Lee, 656
`
`F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Instead, the Court reads the limitation in light of the claim and
`
`specification to discern its meaning. Jd. (citing Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99
`
`F.3d 1098, 1105-06 (Fed.Cir.1996)). “When the claim language and specification indicate that
`
`‘a’ means one and only one,it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-
`
`ended ‘comprising’ claim.” Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d at 1341.
`
`The claims of the ’755 patent indicate that the features are identified using a single image.
`
`E.g., 755 patent, claim 1. The claims recite a method for computing the object location as the °
`
`transformation between the “Object Space” and “Camera Space” by “capturing an image ofthe
`
`object”and using “the positions of features from the image.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court is
`
`not persuaded by RVT’s argumentthat step iii.b) contemplates using multiple images because step
`
`iii.b) does not explicitly recite that all 6 features must be identified in one image. The specification
`
`describes the steps “[t]o carry out object finding and positioning,” id., 8:1-2, specifies that “an
`
`image of the object [] is snapped,” id., 8:7, and that “[t]he position (in the image [] and in the
`
`Object Space) of the found features (at least 6) are used to calculate the transformation between
`
`the Object Space and the Camera Space.” Jd., 8:17-20. Thus, the specification shows that the
`
`patentee used “an image” and “the image”in the claimsto refer to a single image. Jd.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes “an image” and “the image”in the carrying out steps of
`
`claims 1, 8, 18, 19 of the ’755 patent as: “Multiple images may be taken as part of the ‘carrying
`
`outstep (iii),’ but a single image must be used to locate the at least six features.”
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 16 of 30 PagelD #: 9320
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 9320
`
`5.
`
`“numberof imagesensors” (’814 patent, claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 23, 24, 33, 35,
`
`structured light.
`
`Plain and
`Plain and ordinary
`“number of image
`
`
`sensors” (814 vision (i.2., using|ordinarymeaning, which is
`patent, claims 1,5,|“one ormoreimage|two cameras and|meaning, which
`
`7,11, 13, 17, 23, 24,|sensors.” This parallax to is “one or more
`
`33, 35, 36)
`limitation does not
`determine 3D
`image sensors.”
`exclude stereo vision|coordinates of
`or parallax.
`features) and
`
`ABBarguesthat “the claims should notbe interpreted to encompassthe use of stereo vision
`
`and structured light for machine vision because the ’814 patent disparages and disclaims those
`
`solutions.” D.I. 98 at 26. RVT disagrees, and argues that the claims merely require “acquiring a
`
`number of imagesofa first view of a training object from a number of image sensors.” Jd. at 25
`
`(citing ’814 patent). As a result, RVT argues, “the limitation does not exclude stereo vision or
`
`parallax, as long as the system also acquires images from one or more image sensors.” Jd. at 26.
`
`It is unclear to the Court whether ABB’s argumentis (1) that the methodsof stereo vision
`
`andstructured light are excluded from the scope ofthe claims(i.e. that the invention is not directed
`
`towards a method or system that determines 3D features using stereo vision or structuredlight), or
`
`(2) that the scope of the claims does not include methods and systems that perform the claimed
`
`invention, while also incorporating other methods or systemsthat use stereo vision and structured
`
`light.
`
`The Court agrees with ABB that the °814 patent disparages “stereo camera pairs” and
`
`“structured light” as having “many drawbacks,” being “impractical for industrial applications,”
`
`and being inaccurate, costly, and complex. See ’814 patent, 1:46-53, 1:64-24. The specification
`
`also explains that the invention described in the ’814 patent seeks to “eliminate[] the need for
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 17 of 30 PagelD #: 9321
`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 9321
`
`stereo camera pairs and the need for the use of structured light” to “increase accuracy, simplify
`
`setup and maintenance and reduce hardware costs.” Jd., 2:8-10, see also id., 2:29-34. Thus, the
`
`Court agrees with ABB to the extent that ABB argues that the claims of the ’814 patent do not
`
`encompass methods or systems that use stereo vision orstructured light to perform the limitations
`
`of the claimed method or system. However, the Court finds that methods or systems that perform
`
`the claimed invention, but also incorporate stereo vision or structured light are not outside the
`
`scope of the claims. See D.I. 98 at 20-21 (“A process with additional stepsis still within the claim
`
`scope.”).
`
`The Court declines to include RVT’s proposed construction of “[t]his limitation does not
`
`exclude stereo vision or parallax,” because such languageis likely to confuse the jury. Stereo
`
`vision and parallax are functions of how a set of cameras are configured, rather than properties of
`
`the cameras themselves. Compare ’814 patent, 1:35-45 (discussing stereo configuration) with
`
`7:58-63 (“The image sensors [] may take any of a variety of forms capable of capturing or
`
`acquiring a two-dimensional image of the object []. In typical applications the image sensors[]
`
`will take the form a video cameras or digital still cameras.”). Accordingly, the Court construes
`
`the term “number of image sensors” as its plain and ordinary meaning, which is “one or more
`
`image sensors.”
`
`6. “determining [a] transformation for the target object based at least in part on a
`position of at least some of the located features using only the single captured
`image” (’237 patent, claim 1)
`“determining an object space-to-camera space transformation based at least in
`part on a position of at least some of the located features in solely the capture
`image”(°237 patent, claim 20)
`“determining an object space-to-camera space transformation based at least in
`part on a position of at least some of the located features using the captured
`image without any additional captured images” (’237 patent, claim 25)
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 9322
`
`Determining an
`object space-to-
`camera space
`transformation
`for the target
`object based at
`least in part on
`the position ofat
`least some of the
`located features
`using no more
`than one
`captured image.
`
`Determining
`object space-to-
`camera space
`transformation
`cannot use
`
`Plain and
`ordinary
`meaning, which
`is “determining.
`.
`. an object
`space-to-camera
`space
`transformation
`for the target
`object based at
`least in part on a
`position ofat
`least some of the
`located features
`using only the
`single captured
`image.”
`
`Determining
`object space-to
`camera space
`transformation
`can use multiple
`images but at
`least one image
`must identify the
`position of each
`of the located
`features.
`
`multiple images. Case 1:22-cv-01257-GBW Document 161 Filed 06/26/24 Page 18 of 30 PagelD #: 9322
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, which is
`“determining ... an
`object space-to-
`camera space
`transformation for
`the target object
`based at least in part
`on a position ofat
`least some of the
`located features
`using only the single
`captured image.”
`
`determining [a]
`transformation for
`the target object
`basedat least in part
`on a position of at
`least someof the
`located features
`using only the single
`captured image”
`(237 patent, claim
`1)
`“determining an
`object space-to-
`camera space
`transformation
`basedat least in part
`on a position of at
`least some of the
`located features in
`solely the capture
`image” (°237 patent,
`claim 20)
`“determining an
`object space-to-
`camera space
`transformation
`ba