Askan v. Faro Technologies: 3D Scanner Point Cloud Patents — Defendant Wins on Merits
Inventor Yoldas Askan brought a three-patent infringement action against Faro Technologies, targeting the FARO Focus Premium, Focus Core, Stream app, and Sphere platform over unfiltered raw point cloud data imaging. The Florida Middle District Court entered final judgment for Faro after 405 days of litigation, leaving all three patents unenforced.
Inventor’s three-patent 3D scanning case ends in full defense verdict
Yoldas Askan, an individual inventor, filed suit on May 18, 2023 in the Middle District of Florida against Faro Technologies, Inc., a publicly traded manufacturer of industrial 3D measurement hardware and software. The complaint asserted three U.S. patents — US10032255B2, US8705110B2, and US9300841B2 — all directed to aspects of 3D scanning technology, specifically the handling of unfiltered, raw point cloud data and noise in resulting images. The accused products encompassed the FARO Focus Premium, FARO Focus Core, the FARO Stream mobile app, and the FARO Sphere cloud platform.
The case closed on June 26, 2024, with the court entering final judgment in favor of Faro Technologies on the merits. A defendant merits judgment at the district court level typically reflects either a successful motion for summary judgment or a favorable claim construction ruling that eliminated infringement, though the specific procedural mechanism is not specified in the public docket excerpt. Askan received no relief on any of the three asserted patents, and Faro’s products were effectively cleared of the alleged infringement claims.
The 405-day duration suggests the case moved through at least initial claim construction briefing before resolution, which is consistent with a summary judgment outcome following a Markman hearing. What drove the merits determination — claim scope, non-infringement, or validity — remains unclear from the public record. For Faro, the judgment provides a clean litigation record on these specific patents, though Askan retains the patents and could potentially assert them against other parties absent any invalidity finding binding on third parties.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 405 days
405 days — above median for patent cases resolved without trial in M.D. Florida
Judgment for Faro: what a merits defense verdict means for both sides
Judgment on the merits: a full defendant victory, not a procedural exit
A judgment on the merits for the defendant is one of the strongest outcomes a patent defendant can achieve at the district court level. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, this ruling resolves the substantive dispute — meaning the court found Faro did not infringe, or that the patents were invalid, or both. The plaintiff cannot simply refile the same claims; res judicata principles bar re-litigation of the same cause of action between these parties.
Full merits resolutionAskan’s three patents survive but are unenforced against Faro
Askan loses all asserted claims against Faro Technologies. Critically, unless the court’s order included a finding of invalidity, the three patents — US10032255B2, US8705110B2, and US9300841B2 — remain in force and could be asserted against other parties. However, any adverse claim construction ruling would be persuasive (though not binding) precedent in future disputes. Askan’s path to appeal remains open within the standard 30-day window.
Patents survive; enforcement blockedFaro clears its flagship 3D scanner products of these specific claims
Faro Technologies emerges with a merits judgment protecting the Focus Premium, Focus Core, Stream app, and Sphere platform from these three patents. This result is binding between the parties and provides Faro with a strong defensive record. If Faro is deemed a prevailing party — which a merits judgment strongly supports — it may seek attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if the case is found exceptional, adding further downside risk for Askan.
Products cleared; fee motion possible3D scanning IP landscape: individual inventor actions against large vendors remain high risk
This outcome is consistent with a broader pattern in which individual inventors asserting broad point cloud and 3D scanning patents face significant headwinds against well-resourced defendants with dedicated IP counsel. Faro’s use of multiple law firms — Berger Singerman and Nelson Mullins — signals a layered defense strategy. For competitors operating in the LiDAR, 3D scanning, and point cloud processing space, this judgment reduces (but does not eliminate) the enforceability risk of these specific patents.
Reduced enforcement risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Yoldas Askan | Individual | Individual inventor and patent holder — holder of US10032255B2, US8705110B2, and US9300841B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Faro Technologies, Inc. | Company | Faro Technologies, Inc. — industrial 3D measurement hardware and software manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yoldas Askan | Attorney | Counsel for Yoldas AskanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ashley B. Summer | Attorney | Counsel for Faro Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John A. Bauer | Attorney | Counsel for Faro Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lloyd Garrett Farr | Attorney | Counsel for Faro Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicolette Corso Vilmos | Attorney | Counsel for Faro Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Berger Singerman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Faro Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP | Law Firm | Representing Faro Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The judgment is entered ‘in favor of Defendant Faro Technologies and against Plaintiff Yoldas Askan’ pursuant to the court’s own order — language consistent with a court-initiated ruling rather than a consent decree or settlement. This phrasing confirms a judicial determination on the substantive merits. For Faro, the order is immediately preclusive as to the asserted claims. For Askan, the absence of explicit invalidity language in the verdict excerpt suggests the patents may remain technically enforceable against third parties, though any adverse claim construction is now part of the public record.
US10032255B2, US8705110B2 & US9300841B2 — 3D scanner point cloud imaging patents
The three asserted patents — US10032255B2 (App. No. 15/043492), US8705110B2 (App. No. 13/532691), and US9300841B2 (App. No. 14/166840) — form a family of innovations directed at 3D scanning technology, specifically the capture, transmission, and processing of raw, unfiltered point cloud data. Point cloud data is the foundational output of LiDAR and structured-light scanners, representing spatial coordinates of scanned surfaces. Noise in point clouds — spurious or inaccurate data points — is a central engineering challenge in the sector, making these patents commercially relevant to any manufacturer or software developer operating in industrial metrology, construction documentation, or autonomous systems.
Faro Technologies is one of the most prominent players in the commercial 3D measurement market, with the Focus series representing its flagship terrestrial LiDAR scanner line. The FARO Sphere cloud platform and Stream mobile application extend the ecosystem into data management and field capture. The assertion of three related patents covering core point cloud processing functionality against this product suite suggests Askan believed his inventions read broadly on Faro’s data pipeline architecture. For competitors in the 3D scanning space — including Leica, Trimble, Matterport, and emerging LiDAR startups — these patents remain a potential enforcement vector unless the court’s order included invalidity findings.
Should your team run an FTO against US10032255B2, US8705110B2 & US9300841B2?
Any company developing or commercialising 3D scanning hardware, LiDAR sensors, or point cloud processing software — particularly products that capture or transmit raw, unfiltered spatial data — should assess exposure to this three-patent portfolio. The defendant-side win in this case does not constitute an invalidity ruling binding on third parties, meaning these patents remain enforceable. Teams building scan-to-BIM pipelines, autonomous vehicle perception stacks, or mobile mapping solutions should prioritise FTO review of this family before product launch or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map these three patent families against your product’s technical architecture in hours rather than weeks. Eureka can identify claim elements most likely to read on specific point cloud capture and noise-processing implementations, surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag related continuations or divisional applications that could extend the enforcement risk beyond these three granted patents. Proactive clearance is significantly cheaper than litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10032255B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 3D scanning and point cloud patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving 3D scanner, LiDAR, and point cloud processing patents litigated in U.S. district courts — with outcomes, claim construction rulings, and defendant strategies.
What this case signals for the 3D scanning and LiDAR IP landscape
A full merits defense verdict against an individual inventor’s three-patent portfolio has direct implications for point cloud technology competitors and IP counsel.
Merits judgments create persuasive claim construction records for the sector
Any claim construction positions adopted by the M.D. Florida court — even if not published as a formal Markman order — may surface in Faro’s briefing and inform how other courts interpret these patents. Competitors holding similar point cloud noise-filtering IP should monitor any post-judgment filings for scope guidance.
Faro’s dual law firm strategy signals a defence template for the sector
Deploying both Berger Singerman (local Florida counsel) and Nelson Mullins (national IP litigation firm) is consistent with a coordinated claim construction and summary judgment strategy. Defendants in similar 3D scanning patent cases may find this layered approach effective against individual inventor plaintiffs asserting multiple patents.
Askan v Faro — key questions answered
The Middle District of Florida entered final judgment in favor of Faro Technologies and against plaintiff Yoldas Askan on June 26, 2024. The judgment was on the merits, meaning the court resolved the substantive infringement dispute rather than dismissing on procedural grounds. All three asserted patents were left unenforced against Faro’s accused products.
Askan asserted three U.S. patents: US10032255B2 (App. No. 15/043492), US8705110B2 (App. No. 13/532691), and US9300841B2 (App. No. 14/166840). All three relate to 3D scanning technology, specifically the capture and processing of raw, unfiltered point cloud data and associated noise in resulting images.
The accused products were the FARO Focus Premium, FARO Focus Core (terrestrial LiDAR scanners), the FARO Stream mobile application, and the FARO Sphere cloud platform. The infringement theory centred on these products’ production of unfiltered, raw point cloud data generating images with noise.
Based on the public verdict language, the court entered judgment on infringement grounds without explicitly declaring the patents invalid. This suggests the patents — US10032255B2, US8705110B2, and US9300841B2 — may remain in force and could potentially be asserted against third parties. However, any adverse claim construction from this litigation would be persuasive precedent in future proceedings.
As the prevailing party on the merits, Faro Technologies is eligible to seek attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if it can demonstrate the case was ‘exceptional.’ Factors courts consider include the objective strength of the infringement contentions, the quality of pre-suit investigation, and litigation conduct. The public record does not indicate whether Faro has filed or intends to file such a motion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.