Askan v. Faro Technologies: 3D Scanning Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

This case involved three U.S. patents relating broadly to imaging and 3D scanning technology, a field experiencing rapid commercial growth and increased patent assertion activity. These patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

• • US10032255B2 — most recently issued of the three.
• • US8705110B2 — a foundational patent in the portfolio.
• • US9300841B2 — a continuation-range patent bridging the portfolio’s scope.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed on September 15, 2024, in the Middle District of Florida — a venue with considerable familiarity with technology and IP matters given Florida’s substantial tech-sector presence — the case ran 487 days from filing to closure.

The procedural trajectory is notable. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint, indicating the plaintiff had already attempted to cure deficiencies in the original pleading. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick handled the substantive review, issuing a Report and Recommendation on December 19, 2025, that recommended granting dismissal with prejudice. The presiding district court judge conducted an independent de novo review of the full record before adopting the recommendation without modification.

Critically, no party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation within the prescribed period. For patent litigators, this procedural posture — unopposed magistrate recommendations leading to with-prejudice dismissal — represents a significant strategic forfeiture.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court granted Faro Technologies’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice on January 15, 2026. No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was issued. The with-prejudice designation means the plaintiff cannot refile these same claims — a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The case was terminated through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss framework, meaning the court found the amended complaint legally insufficient on its face — before reaching claim construction, Markman proceedings, or any merits-based infringement analysis.

Dismissal at the amended complaint stage in patent cases typically signals one or more of the following deficiencies: insufficient pleading of direct infringement; failure to identify infringing acts with particularity; or jurisdictional or standing deficiencies. The plaintiff’s failure to object to the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation is analytically significant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a party who fails to object within 14 days may waive the right to appellate review of factual findings. By not objecting, the plaintiff effectively foreclosed meaningful appeal pathways, converting a potentially reviewable dismissal into a final, uncontested judgment.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces the heightened pleading standards courts apply in patent infringement actions following Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal. For individual inventor plaintiffs — particularly those proceeding without experienced patent litigation counsel — navigating the technical specificity required in modern patent pleadings presents a substantial barrier.

The with-prejudice dismissal also underscores that courts will not indefinitely permit amended pleadings that fail to correct fundamental deficiencies. When a plaintiff has already amended once and the resulting complaint still fails to state a claim, dismissal with prejudice is a well-established judicial response.