Arbor Systems LLC v. Ethan Allen Retail Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Arbor Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Ethan Allen Retail, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00676, E.D. Tex., 07/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe patents related to systems and methods for using mobile device cameras to generate three-dimensional models of objects for product fitting and visualization.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using common consumer devices, like smartphones, to capture and model physical objects, enabling applications such as virtual try-on for apparel and custom product fitting in e-commerce.
• Key Procedural History: The front page of U.S. Patent No. 10,891,785 indicates it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier patent in its family. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,891,785 - Systems and methods for fitting product

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need in fields like clothing and footwear for methods to capture a user's anatomy in three dimensions without requiring specialized and expensive hardware like structured light or laser scanners ( Compl. Ex. 1, '785 Patent, col. 1:7-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a standard mobile device camera to capture images of a body part alongside a reference object of known dimensions. Software then generates a 3D model from these images, which can be used to select a best-fit product or to visualize a product variation on the user in an augmented reality view (’785 Patent, col. 1:24-34; Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to make custom product fitting and virtual try-on more accessible for online commerce, potentially reducing product returns due to improper sizing (’785 Patent, col. 2:40-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to “Exemplary ’785 Patent Claims” identified in an exhibit not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12). Claim 1, as a representative independent claim, includes the following essential elements:

• A method for rendering reality for an object.
• Using a mobile device with an accelerometer and a camera.
• Performing motion tracking and learning in an environment of the object with accelerometer and camera data.
• Selecting a pattern or color from product or service variations.
• Blending the pattern or color of the object and the environment.
• Displaying the color on the object as a reality view.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 9,836,883 - Systems and methods for fitting product

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same technical problem as the ’785 Patent: the expense and hardware requirements of existing 3D scanning systems for capturing user anatomy for product fitting (Compl. Ex. 2, ’883 Patent, col. 1:7-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where images of a user's anatomical portion are captured with a mobile camera. The system then generates a 3D model by selecting the "closest" pre-generated deformable 3D model from a library and matching points from that model to the user's images. This updated model is then used to select a best-fit product (’883 Patent, col. 1:25-34; Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: The use of a deformable model library is intended to create physically accurate 3D representations with minimal computational resources, avoiding the need to store millions of unique 3D models (’883 Patent, col. 4:9-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to “Exemplary ’883 Patent Claims” identified in an exhibit not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶21). Claim 1, as a representative independent claim, includes the following essential elements:

• A method for fitting a subject.
• Pre-generating one or more 3D models for an anatomical portion.
• Capturing images of a user anatomical portion using a mobile camera.
• Performing dimension determination with motion tracking, area learning and depth sensing.
• Generating an updated model by selecting a closest pre-generated 3D model and matching points on it to predetermined points on the user anatomical portion.
• Selecting a pattern or color from product variations.
• Blending the pattern or color onto the 3D model.
• Displaying the color on the anatomical portion.

The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the “Exemplary Defendant Products” referenced in claim chart exhibits attached as Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint, the specific products, their technical functionalities, and their market context cannot be described based on the provided documents.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement but relies entirely on claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶17-18, ¶26-27). The complaint asserts narratively that these charts demonstrate how the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without the charts, a substantive analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Procedural Questions: A threshold procedural question is whether the complaint's exclusive reliance on un-filed exhibits for its substantive infringement allegations provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the pleading standards established by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
  • Technical Questions: Without details on the accused products, any technical dispute remains speculative. However, litigation will likely focus on the specific software processes used by the accused products. For the ’785 Patent, this may involve whether the accused system performs "motion tracking and learning." For the ’883 Patent, this may involve whether the accused system uses a library of "pre-generated 3D models" as opposed to other modeling techniques.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’785 Patent

• The Term: "motion tracking and learning in an environment"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and defines the core data capture and analysis step. Its construction will be critical to determining whether a simple image-capture process infringes, or if a more sophisticated process involving environmental analysis over time is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from mere static photography.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary broadly describes capturing images of an anatomical portion and a reference object using a mobile camera, which could suggest a less complex process (’785 Patent, col. 1:26-29).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes using a "wide angle lens and an infrared sensor" and determining dimensions via "motion tracking, area learning, and depth sensing of objects," which could support a narrower construction requiring specific hardware capabilities or advanced sensor fusion algorithms (’785 Patent, col. 2:46-51).

’883 Patent

• The Term: "selecting a closest pre-generated 3D model"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in claim 1 and is central to the patent's method of generating an accurate model efficiently. The dispute will likely concern what constitutes a "pre-generated model" and how "closest" is determined. The definition will dictate whether the claim reads on systems that use a single, universal template versus those that search a discrete library of different shapes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to cover any system that starts with a standard digital template and morphs it to fit user data, without requiring a library of multiple distinct templates.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes constructing a "library of deformable 3D model of feet" and forming "a plurality of deformable master models... for each of discrete sizes," suggesting a required step of selecting from a pre-existing, varied collection (’883 Patent, col. 4:5-18).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. The basis for inducement is Defendant’s alleged sale of the accused products and distribution of "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶24-25). The complaint states that evidence for these instructions is contained in the un-filed Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but lays the groundwork for post-suit willfulness. It alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant continues to infringe "Despite such actual knowledge" (Compl. ¶14-15, ¶23-24). The prayer for relief requests damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which provides the statutory basis for enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 6, ¶F).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A threshold issue will be one of procedural sufficiency: does the complaint, which bases its infringement counts entirely on un-filed exhibits, provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief, or will the defendant be able to challenge the pleading's adequacy at the outset of the case?
• A central question of claim scope for the ’883 patent will be whether the process of "selecting a closest pre-generated 3D model" requires a system to search a discrete library of distinct models, as described in the specification, or if it can be construed to cover systems that use a single, highly deformable template.
• A key technical question for the ’785 patent will concern augmented reality implementation: does the accused system perform the claimed "blending" of a pattern on an object as a "reality view," and does this require a live, interactive video overlay, or can it be read on a system that generates a static, composite image?