DCT
2:17-cv-01882
Styku LLC v. Fit3d Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Styku, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Fit3D, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLP
- Case Identification: Styku, LLC v. Fit3D, Inc., 2:17-cv-01882, C.D. Cal., 03/08/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper because Defendant Fit3D offers products for sale to residents of the Central District of California and maintains its principal place of business in California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Styku seeks a declaratory judgment that its 3D body scanning products do not infringe Defendant Fit3D's patent, and further seeks to have the patent declared invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology involves 3D body scanners that capture a user's physical dimensions to create a digital avatar and extract measurements, primarily for the fitness and apparel industries.
- Key Procedural History: This action was initiated by Styku following receipt of a cease and desist letter from Fit3D. The complaint alleges an extensive prior business relationship between the parties, including that Fit3D conducted a trial of Styku's technology and had access to Styku's patent-pending concepts. Styku alleges Fit3D copied its technology and failed to disclose Styku's own prior art patent application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the prosecution of the patent-in-suit. The complaint notes that the asserted patent's claims were amended during prosecution to require a "backend system" to process depth images, a feature Styku claims its products do not possess.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-08 | Priority Date for Styku's alleged prior art ('783 Publication) |
| 2011-06-13 | Filing Date for Styku's alleged prior art patent application ('783 Publication) |
| 2013-05-03 | Priority Date for '442 Patent |
| 2013-05-03 | Fit3D files provisional patent application |
| 2014-05-03 | '442 Patent application filed |
| 2014-01-01 | Styku launches MyBodee product with on-device processing |
| 2016-12-27 | '442 Patent Issued |
| 2017-03-08 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,526,442 - “System and Method to Capture and Process Body Measurements,” Issued December 27, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes prior art body measurement methods as being either manual and error-prone (e.g., tape measures) or reliant on expensive, complex scanning systems that do not provide online data storage and aggregation for tracking changes over time (’442 Patent, col. 1:11-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system architecture where one or more body scanners capture a "plurality of depth images" of a user. These raw images are sent to a "backend system" (e.g., a cloud server), which performs the computationally intensive tasks of generating a 3D avatar and extracting body measurements from it. This data is then stored in a repository, allowing users to track their progress via a web platform (’442 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-24). The architecture is depicted in Figure 1, showing scanners (102) communicating with a backend server stack (104).
- Technical Importance: This approach decouples the complex data processing from the local scanning hardware, which could theoretically allow for less expensive scanner devices while centralizing the processing and storage for consistency and accessibility.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts that all claims of the ’442 Patent are invalid and not infringed (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 56). The independent claims are 1, 8, and 10.
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- one or more body scanners, each configured to capture a plurality of depth images of a user;
- a backend system, coupled to each scanner, configured to:
- receive the plurality of depth images,
- generate a three-dimensional avatar based on the depth images, and
- generate body measurement data based on the avatar;
- a repository to associate and store the user's body measurement data; and
- an interface to retrieve the data and display an avatar.
- Independent Claim 8 (System): A system similar to Claim 1, but with a "first interface" for inputting measurement requests and a "second interface" for projecting future user body measurement data.
- Independent Claim 10 (Method): A method of capturing and processing body measurements comprising steps that largely mirror the functions of the system in Claim 1, including providing a backend system that receives depth images and generates an avatar and measurements.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Styku's 3D body scanning systems, including its "MyBodee" product (Compl. ¶40).
Functionality and Market Context
- Styku's products are 3D body scanners used in the fitness and fashion industries (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41). The complaint contains a visual illustration of an early version of the MyBodee product, showing a tablet and a stand-mounted sensor (Compl. ¶40, Exhibit U).
- Critically, the complaint alleges that in 2014, Styku redesigned its system architecture so that all processing of 3D data—including mesh creation and measurement extraction—is performed locally on the scanner device itself (Compl. ¶40).
- According to the complaint, only the final processed avatar and measurements are subsequently uploaded to Styku's backend system for storage and user access, not the raw "plurality of depth images" for processing (Compl. ¶40). This change was allegedly made to improve user experience by reducing wait times, and occurred years before the ’442 patent issued (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 50). Another visual shows a later version of the product, which uses a USB-controlled turntable and a cloud system for "authentication, data storage, and data distribution" (Compl. ¶41, Exhibit V).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff (Styku) alleges non-infringement. The following table summarizes Styku's primary argument for why its products do not meet a key limitation of the asserted patent claims, as presented in the complaint.
'442 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Plaintiff's Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a backend system... configured to receive the plurality of depth images, generate a three dimensional avatar of the user based on the plurality of depth images, and generate body measurement data of the user based on the avatar | The complaint alleges that Styku's products perform all processing of depth images, avatar generation, and measurement extraction on the local device. It alleges the backend system only receives the final processed avatar and measurements for storage, and does not receive the "plurality of depth images" to perform the generation steps itself. | ¶40, ¶49, ¶50 | col. 9:4-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central dispute appears to be the scope of the "backend system" limitation. The key question is whether this limitation is met if the backend system receives the results of processing (the final avatar and measurements) rather than the inputs for processing (the "plurality of depth images").
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the court may be to determine the precise nature of the data transmitted from Styku's local device to its cloud server. What evidence distinguishes the "plurality of depth images" required by the claim from the "final processed avatar and measurement data" that Styku alleges it uploads? (Compl. ¶40).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a backend system... configured to receive the plurality of depth images, generate a three dimensional avatar..., and generate body measurement data..."
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the centerpiece of the dispute. Styku's non-infringement argument rests entirely on its contention that its architecture performs these functions locally, not on the backend (Compl. ¶40). The complaint also alleges that this precise limitation was added during prosecution to overcome prior art, potentially making its interpretation critical for both infringement and validity (Compl. ¶¶ 46-49). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction appears dispositive of the non-infringement claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "backend system" should be read broadly to encompass any architecture where a remote server performs a critical role. The patent describes the backend system in general terms, for example as potentially using the Amazon Cloud Computing stack, without exhaustively detailing the data transfer protocols ('442 Patent, col. 4:25-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a sequence of functions: the backend system receives the images, generates the avatar, and generates the measurements. Language in the specification describes this flow, stating the scanner sends the body mesh to the backend, where measurements are then "extracted from the body mesh" ('442 Patent, col. 4:37-43, FIG. 2). This supports an interpretation where the processing itself must occur on the backend, which aligns with Styku's alleged non-infringing design. The prosecution history, as alleged by Styku, may provide strong support for this narrower reading (Compl. ¶¶ 48-49).
VI. Other Allegations
- Inequitable Conduct: The complaint makes a significant allegation of inequitable conduct against Fit3D (Compl. pp. 23-24). It alleges that Fit3D and its named inventor, Greg Moore, were aware of Styku's technology through business negotiations and a product trial prior to filing for the ’442 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 32-35). The complaint alleges that Fit3D copied Styku's backend processing concept and then, with intent to deceive the USPTO, failed to disclose Styku's published patent application (the '783 Publication) as material prior art during prosecution (Compl. ¶¶ 51-52, 61).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Does the claim limitation requiring a "backend system" to "receive the plurality of depth images" and perform avatar and measurement generation cover an architecture where this processing occurs on a local device and only the final results are sent to a server for storage? The case may turn on whether "receiving depth images" is an essential prerequisite for the backend's function.
- A second central issue will be one of invalidity and enforceability: The complaint raises significant factual questions about the patent's origin and prosecution. The court will need to consider whether, as alleged, the patented invention was derived from Styku's own prior technology and whether the defendant's alleged failure to disclose Styku's prior art to the USPTO rises to the level of inequitable conduct, which could render the entire patent unenforceable.