DCT
2:20-cv-04071
Syte Visual Conception Ltd v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Syte-Visual Conception Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-04071, D.N.J., 04/13/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond has a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the visual search feature in Defendant’s mobile application infringes a patent related to analyzing an image for its color properties and overlaying product search results based on those colors.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses visual search for e-commerce, enabling consumers to use a mobile device's camera to find products that color-coordinate with an object in the physical world.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is part of a family that includes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,117,143 and 8,744,180, originating from provisional applications filed in 2011. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-01-24 | '182 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2016-08-09 | '182 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-04-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,412,182 - System and process for automatically finding objects of a specific color
Issued August 9, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art color-matching systems as deficient, noting that they either require users to subjectively compare images side-by-side or provide results non-visually, such as via an SMS text message, which does not allow for immediate visual confirmation by the user (’182 Patent, col. 1:24-64; Compl. ¶26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user captures an image of a "reference object" with a mobile device. The system conducts a "color analysis" to identify the object's "Main Colors" and "color harmonics" (e.g., complementary, analogous colors). It then queries a database for items matching these color properties and displays the results as a real-time "overlay on top of" the original captured image, providing immediate visual context (’182 Patent, col. 2:19-31, col. 7:46-50).
- Technical Importance: The claimed technical improvement focuses on providing real-time, in-context visual feedback by overlaying search results directly onto the user's original image, which is presented as an advancement over prior methods that returned results separately from the source image (’182 Patent, col. 1:50-64; Compl. ¶27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 14 (computer readable medium), and 15 (system) (Compl. ¶30, ¶49).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- using at least one hardware processor for executing a code for:
- identifying at least one visual object image captured using a client terminal;
- conducting a color analysis to identify at least one of a color combination and color harmonics data in said at least one visual object;
- querying an image database against said data to select at least one stored image;
- as a real time feedback to said querying, adding said at least one stored image as an overlay on top of at least part of said at least one visual object;
- wherein said color harmonics data comprises a member of a group consisting of: said visual object's Complementary Color, Analogous Colors, Triadic Colors, Split-Complementary Colors, Tetradic Colors, and Square Colors.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "BB&B mobile app with the visual search feature and overlay" (Compl. ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the mobile app allows a user to take a picture of an object, such as a piece of furniture, using a mobile device (Compl. ¶38). This image is allegedly sent to a remote server for analysis, which then returns product recommendations from Defendant's catalog based on the color of the object in the image (Compl. ¶38, ¶40). The complaint includes a screenshot from the app showing the "Analyzing" phase after an image of a chair is captured (Compl. p. 12). The complaint further alleges that the visual search technology is provided by a third-party, Slyce Acquisition Inc., and that Defendant and Slyce operate as a "joint enterprise" to provide the functionality (Compl. ¶6, ¶47-48).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'182 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifying at least one visual object image captured using a client terminal | The BB&B mobile app allows a user to capture an image of an object (e.g., a couch) using a mobile phone/device (Compl. p. 12). | ¶38 | col. 11:50-51 |
| conducting a color analysis to identify at least one of a color combination and color harmonics data in said at least one visual object | The app identifies or causes to be identified the color of the captured visual object. | ¶39 | col. 11:52-54 |
| querying an image database against said at least one of a color combination and color harmonics data to select at least one stored image | The app queries a remote image database and selects stored images of products based on a color search of the captured object. | ¶40 | col. 11:55-57 |
| as a real time feedback to said querying adding said at least one stored image as an overlay on top of at least part of said at least one visual object | The app overlays search results on the searched object image; the complaint alleges this is satisfied by displaying results that can be swiped down to view the original image juxtaposed with the results (Compl. p. 15). | ¶43 | col. 11:58-61 |
| wherein said color harmonics data comprises a member of a group consisting of: ... Analogous Colors ... Triadic Colors ... | Upon information and belief, the app returns search results that have "analogous harmonic colors" and "triadic harmonic colors" relative to the original object, as shown in screenshots of the search results (Compl. pp. 13-14). | ¶41, ¶42 | col. 11:62-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim requires adding the stored image "as an overlay on top of" the original visual object. The complaint alleges this is met when search results are displayed on a screen that can be swiped to "juxtapose" the results with the original image (Compl. ¶43). This raises the question of whether a swipe-away results screen, rather than a literal superimposition of images, falls within the scope of the "overlay on top of" limitation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges, "on information and belief," that the app's results correspond to specific "color harmonics" such as "analogous" and "triadic" (Compl. ¶41-42). A central technical question is what evidence will be presented to show that the accused system performs analysis based on the specific, rule-based color theory relationships defined in the patent (e.g., geometric positions on a color wheel) versus a more general color similarity or machine learning algorithm that does not explicitly calculate "harmonics."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "overlay on top of"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art that allegedly only showed results separately. The infringement theory depends on the accused app's user interface—which displays results on a screen that can be swiped to reveal the original image—meeting this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the "feedback report 140 may comprise various forms" (’182 Patent, col. 7:46-47), which could be argued to support an interpretation not strictly limited to a pixel-over-pixel overlay.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself, "overlay on top of," and the specification's primary example that "the harmonic color(s) may be displayed on top of the original image" (’182 Patent, col. 7:47-49) may support a narrower construction requiring a literal superimposition of the result image onto the original captured image. The patent’s Figure 2, step 212, is explicitly labeled "Overlay on background," which also suggests a direct layering.
The Term: "color harmonics data"
Context and Importance: The claims require the system to identify and query based on specific "color harmonics." The infringement allegations depend on the accused app's algorithm using these defined color theory principles. Whether the accused system's functionality maps to the patent's specific definitions is a core technical dispute.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a general definition of "color harmonies" as "color combinations that are considered especially pleasing" (’182 Patent, col. 5:60-62). This could support an argument that any system designed to find aesthetically compatible colors is generating "harmonics."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides explicit, technical definitions for the specific types of harmonics recited in the claims, based on their geometric relationships on a color wheel (e.g., "analogous colors...are next to each other on the color wheel"; "triadic colors...are evenly spaced around the color wheel") (’182 Patent, col. 5:10-16). This evidence suggests the term is not a generic descriptor for "pleasing colors" but refers to these specific, structurally-defined relationships.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant instructs users on how to use the app in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶32). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the app is a material part of the invention, especially made for use in an infringing manner, and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge of the ’182 patent acquired no later than the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶29, ¶56). The allegations are based on continued infringement post-filing.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "overlay on top of," which the patent uses to distinguish itself from prior art, be construed to cover the accused app's user interface, where search results are displayed on a screen that a user swipes to reveal the original image?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence will be required to prove that the accused app's algorithm performs the specific, rule-based "color harmonics" analysis recited in the claims, as opposed to employing a generic visual similarity search that may produce coincidentally "harmonic" results?
- The complaint's assertion of infringement "jointly with Slyce" raises a question of liability: what facts will establish that Defendant directs and controls the performance of its third-party technology provider to the degree required to prove joint infringement for any steps of the claimed method performed by that provider?