DCT
2:23-cv-00274
CLO Virtual Fashion Inc v. Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CLO Virtual Fashion Inc. (South Korea)
- Defendant: Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Linctex) (People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fenwick & West LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00274, E.D. Tex., 06/14/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States. The complaint further alleges personal jurisdiction based on Defendant conducting business in Texas and placing its products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that they would be sold in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Style3D Studio software infringes three patents related to user interface features for 3D virtual garment design and measurement.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of 3D computer-aided design for the fashion industry, enabling the creation and simulation of virtual clothing from 2D patterns.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant used unlicensed or "cracked" versions of Plaintiff's software to develop its competing product. It also references legal proceedings initiated by Plaintiff in China, which included a court-authorized raid on Defendant's offices on May 10, 2023. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents on June 7, 2023, prior to filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-04-27 | Priority Date for ’773 and ’355 Patents |
| 2019-08-19 | Priority Date for ’448 Patent |
| 2020-08-04 | ’773 Patent Issued |
| 2021-03-02 | Date of Alleged Linctex Facebook Advertisement |
| 2022-01-11 | ’448 Patent Issued |
| 2022-08-09 | ’355 Patent Issued |
| 2023-05-10 | Alleged Court-Authorized Raid of Defendant's China Office |
| 2023-06-07 | Plaintiff Sent Pre-Suit Notice Letter to Defendant |
| 2023-06-13 | Defendant Allegedly Refused Delivery of Notice Letter |
| 2023-06-14 | Complaint Filed; Defendant Accepted Delivery of Letter |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,733,773 - "Method and apparatus for creating digital clothing," issued August 4, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes usability challenges in "free sewing" for virtual garments. While free sewing gives users autonomy, it requires them to manually ensure that two fabric segments intended to be sewn together are of equal length. Inaccuracies can lead to compromised virtual garments, and it can be difficult for a user to recognize when the length difference between segments is too large for a realistic sewing simulation (Compl. ¶43; ’773 Patent, col. 1:34-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by providing a user interface that assists in matching segment lengths. The method involves detecting the user's cursor, displaying a "candidate ending point" on a second segment that would make its length "substantially equal" to a first selected segment, and providing visual feedback on the length difference ('773 Patent, col. 2:32-62). This automates the length-matching process, reducing the potential for user error (Compl. ¶45).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the virtual garment creation process by simplifying a manually intensive and error-prone task (Compl. ¶54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('773 Patent, col. 14:40-15:10; Compl. ¶77).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- [a] setting a first selected segment to be sewn on a pattern;
- [b] setting a second selected segment, which includes inputting a starting point;
- [c] detecting a current cursor position;
- [d] displaying a "candidate ending point" on the second segment to make its length substantially equal to the first segment's length;
- [e] connecting the starting point to a "present point" on the second segment based on a first reference value;
- [f] moving the present point to the candidate ending point based on a second reference value;
- [g] displaying a difference value between the first segment's length and a line formed by the cursor;
- [h] selecting the present point as an ending point in response to user input; and
- [i] setting a section between the starting and ending points as the second selected segment.
U.S. Patent No. 11,410,355 - "Method and apparatus for creating digital clothing," issued August 9, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’355 patent, which shares a common specification with the ’773 patent, addresses the same usability issues in "free sewing" related to matching segment lengths and providing user feedback (Compl. ¶¶38, 43; ’355 Patent, col. 1:34-59).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is also a user-interface-driven method for improving free sewing. Claim 1 of this patent specifically recites displaying length and difference values in a "first color" when the segments are substantially equal and in a "second color" when they are substantially different, thereby providing clear visual cues to the user about the sewing relationship ('355 Patent, col. 15:1-12; Compl. ¶99).
- Technical Importance: This invention focuses on enhancing user experience and accuracy through dynamic, color-coded visual feedback during the virtual sewing process (Compl. ¶54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’355 Patent, col. 14:45-15:12; Compl. ¶99).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- [a] setting a first selected segment;
- [b] setting a second selected segment, which comprises:
- [b.1] setting a starting point;
- [b.2] determining a present point based on cursor position;
- [b.3] moving the present point to a candidate ending point to make the segments' lengths substantially equal;
- [b.4] selecting the present point as the ending point based on user input; and
- [b.5] setting the section between the start and end points as the second segment.
- [b.6] displaying at least one of the lengths or the difference value in a "first color" when the lengths are substantially equal; and
- [b.7] displaying at least one of the lengths or the difference value in a "second color" when the lengths are substantially different.
U.S. Patent No. 11,222,448 - "Method and apparatus for measuring measurement of two-dimensional pattern corresponding to three-dimensional virtual clothing," issued January 11, 2022
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses the technical problem that measurements taken directly on a 3D virtual garment can be inaccurate representations of the underlying 2D fabric pattern due to simulated stretching, folding, and draping (Compl. ¶58). The invention provides a method for accurately measuring distances on the 2D pattern itself, including functionality to account for measurements that span across two or more separate pattern pieces (Compl. ¶¶59, 120; ’448 Patent, col. 1:54-2:7).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’448 Patent, col. 17:61-18:6).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses the "Point-to-Point measure function" in Style3D. It alleges this feature receives user-selected points on a 2D pattern, determines attributes such as whether the points are located on the same or different pattern pieces, and outputs a length measurement that is changed to account for the separation between pieces (Compl. ¶¶121-125).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's virtual design program, Style3D Studio ("Style3D") (Compl. ¶67).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes Style3D as software for creating digital clothing that includes a "Free Sewing" mode and a "Point-to-Point measure function" (Compl. ¶¶79, 121). Plaintiff alleges that Style3D is a competing product developed using "cracked" versions of Plaintiff's own software and marketed using Plaintiff's proprietary digital avatars (Compl. ¶¶22-25). For instance, the complaint provides a screenshot from a video allegedly demonstrating the "Free Sewing" mode in Style3D (Compl. ¶79, Fig. 1). The complaint also asserts that Defendant markets Style3D as a software ecosystem that enables fashion designers to work with real-time 3D simulation (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,733,773 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] setting a first selected segment by inputting the first selected segment to be sewn on a first segment on a pattern | In "Free Sewing" mode, the user selects a segment on a pattern piece to serve as the first segment to be sewn. | ¶79 | col. 4:37-43 |
| [d] displaying a point on the second segment as a candidate ending point of the second selected segment to make a length of the second selected segment substantially equal to a length of the first selected segment | Style3D displays a candidate ending point, identified with a blue dot, where the displayed length difference between the first and second segments is "0.00." A screenshot in the complaint illustrates this feature (Compl. ¶83, Fig. 6). | ¶83 | col. 6:35-45 |
| [f] moving the present point to the candidate ending point, in response to the difference between the present point and the candidate ending point being less than a second reference value | The complaint alleges that the cursor's representative point "snaps to the candidate end point" based upon a calculation when it is nearby. | ¶85 | col. 6:49-55 |
| [g] displaying a difference value between the length of the first selected segment and a length of the line | As the user moves the cursor to define the second segment, the software displays numerical values for the length of the first segment and the current length of the second segment, along with their difference. | ¶86 | col. 7:6-14 |
| [h] selecting the present point as an ending point of the second selected segment, in response to a user input | When the user performs a mouse click, the software selects the current point as the ending point for the second segment and indicates the selection by displaying the resulting line in orange. | ¶87 | col. 5:57-60 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites two separate steps involving "a first reference value" (element [e]) and "a second reference value" (element [f]). The complaint alleges a general "snap" functionality. A potential point of contention may be whether the accused software's single "snap" action performs the two distinct comparison steps required by the claim language.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the software's cursor "snaps" to the candidate point. A technical question is what evidence exists to show that this "snap" constitutes "moving the present point to the candidate ending point" as recited in element [f], rather than simply selecting the pre-calculated candidate point when the cursor is within a certain proximity.
11,410,355 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [b.3] moving the present point to a candidate ending point... wherein the candidate ending point is determined to make a second length of the second selected segment substantially equal to a first length... | Style3D displays a candidate ending point, identified by a blue dot, at a position that makes the second segment's length equal to the first, as indicated by a "0.00" difference value display. | ¶105 | col. 6:49-55 |
| [b.6] wherein, when the second length is substantially equal to the first length, at least one of the first length, the second length and a difference value... is displayed in a first color | The complaint alleges that when the lengths are equal (difference is "0.00"), Style3D displays the difference value in blue. A screenshot purports to show this functionality (Compl. ¶109, Fig. 16). | ¶109 | col. 7:27-35 |
| [b.7] wherein, when the second length is substantially different from the first length, at least one of the first length, the second length and the difference value... is displayed in a second color... | The complaint alleges that when the lengths are different, Style3D displays the difference value in red, which it characterizes as "the warning sign." A screenshot purports to show the difference value displayed in red (Compl. ¶109, Fig. 15). | ¶109 | col. 7:27-35 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the construction of "substantially equal" and "substantially different." The dispute may focus on whether the software's binary display (blue for "0.00" difference, red for any non-zero difference) maps to these claim terms, or if the terms imply a range or threshold.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused software's color change function as claimed? For example, does it display the "first length" and "second length" values themselves in different colors, or only the "difference value," as alleged? The claim requires "at least one" of these to be displayed in the specified color.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- For the ’773 and ’355 Patents:
- The Term: "substantially equal"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the condition for identifying the "candidate ending point" and for triggering the "first color" display in the ’355 patent. Its definition will determine whether the accused software, which the complaint alleges meets this condition when a length difference is exactly "0.00," falls within the claim scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose as enabling a user to "easily adjust the length... to match that of another's," which may suggest a functional meaning that is not limited to a mathematically exact match ('773 Patent, col. 1:60-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures that illustrate this concept show a displayed difference value of "-0.00," implying an exact or near-exact match is contemplated by the invention ('773 Patent, Fig. 7). The complaint's allegations are also premised on an exact "0.00" match (Compl. ¶83).
- For the ’355 Patent:
- The Term: "substantially different"
- Context and Importance: This term governs when the "second color" (the alleged "warning sign") is displayed. The scope of this term, particularly in relation to "substantially equal," is central to the infringement analysis for claim 1 of the ’355 patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background describes providing a "warning sign" when the length difference is "too large," which suggests that "substantially different" could mean a difference exceeding a certain functional threshold for creating wrinkles ('355 Patent, col. 1:52-56). The complaint appears to equate any non-zero difference with this term (Compl. ¶109).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses displaying a warning "in response to the difference value being greater than a reference value," which could be used to argue that "substantially different" requires the difference to exceed a specific, non-zero threshold, not just any de minimis deviation from equality ('355 Patent, col. 2:63-65).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents-in-suit. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions and promotional materials, such as online tutorials for the "Free Sewing" and "Point-to-Point Measure" features, that instruct users on how to use Style3D in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶89, 110, 126). The contributory infringement allegations assert that Style3D is especially made for infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶90, 111, 127).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter via email and FedEx on June 7, 2023, identifying the patents. It further alleges that Defendant refused delivery on June 13, 2023, but accepted delivery on June 14, 2023, and that Defendant's infringement has been willful since at least June 7, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶93, 114, 130).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "substantially equal" and "substantially different" be construed to read on the accused software's functionality, which allegedly displays one color for an exact "0.00" length difference and another color for any non-zero difference? The outcome of claim construction for these terms may be dispositive.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of procedural mapping: does the accused software's "snap-to-point" function perform the distinct, sequential steps required by claim 1 of the ’773 patent—particularly the two separate comparisons to different reference values—or is it a single, indivisible operation that does not map onto the claimed method?
- A third central issue will relate to knowledge and intent. The allegations of copying via "cracked" software and the specific timeline of the pre-suit notice letter and its alleged refusal will be critical evidence for the claims of willful and indirect infringement, potentially elevating the dispute beyond a technical disagreement over claim scope.