DCT

4:23-cv-00865

Select Research Ltd v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00865, E.D. Tex., 07/26/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants maintain a regular and established physical place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misappropriated trade secrets, breached non-disclosure agreements, and committed fraud and copyright infringement related to Plaintiff's proprietary 3D body scanning and composition analysis technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using 3D body models, generated from scanners or 2D photographs, to calculate health metrics and enable custom-fit clothing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a Second Amended Complaint. It alleges that a prior patent infringement lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against Defendants on October 15, 2020, was voluntarily dismissed on February 10, 2021. The current complaint asserts that this dismissal was fraudulently induced by Defendants' false representations and concealment of their own patenting activities related to the disputed technology. Notably, the present complaint does not assert any claims for patent infringement, focusing instead on trade secret, contract, and other tort claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-14 ’671 Patent Priority Date
2013-02-12 U.S. Patent 8,374,671 ('671 Patent) Issues
2015-02-16 NDA 1 signed between Plaintiff and Body Labs
2015-02-26 Plaintiff discloses alleged trade secrets to Body Labs
2017-04-28 ’501 Patent Priority Date
2017-09-01 Amazon acquires Body Labs (approx. date)
2017-10-25 Plaintiff notifies Amazon of alleged breach of NDA 1
2018-05-03 NDA 2 signed between Plaintiff and Amazon EU
2018-05-15 Plaintiff discloses alleged trade secrets to Amazon EU
2020-08-27 Amazon launches "Halo" product
2020-10-15 Plaintiff files prior patent infringement litigation against Amazon
2020-12-01 Amazon launches "Made for You" product (approx. date)
2021-02-10 Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses prior litigation
2023-04-18 U.S. Patent 11,631,501 ('501 Patent) Issues
2023-06-13 U.S. Patent 11,676,728 ('728 Patent) Issues
2024-07-26 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

Although no patent infringement claims are asserted, the complaint frames the misappropriated trade secrets and technology through the lens of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,374,671 and 11,631,501.

U.S. Patent No. 8,374,671 - "Health Indicator," issued February 12, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that the Body Mass Index (BMI) is a crude health metric because it relies only on height and weight, failing to account for a person's actual body shape, build, or composition (e.g., muscle versus fat) ('671 Patent, col. 1:29-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a three-dimensional model of a person, obtained from a body scanner, to calculate the volumes of different body parts (e.g., abdomen, torso). A health indicator is then calculated based on the ratio between these volumes, providing a more nuanced health assessment that considers body shape and mass distribution ('671 Patent, col. 2:22-31). This part-volume analysis is intended to provide a more representative indicator of health risk than BMI ('671 Patent, col. 6:40-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology offered a method to quantify and analyze body shape and volume distribution as a health risk factor, moving beyond the limitations of one-dimensional metrics like weight and height (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 11,631,501 - "Body Composition Prediction Tools," issued April 18, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the practical limitations of dedicated 3D body scanners, which are not widely accessible to the public, thereby hindering the broad application of volumetric health analysis ('501 Patent, col. 9:1-4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a 3D body model is generated from two or more standard 2D digital photographs, such as those taken with a smartphone. This 3D model, along with demographic information, is then used to predict body composition metrics (e.g., visceral fat) and health indicators by referencing a body composition database ('501 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:7-24:49). Figure 6 of the patent illustrates a smartphone (60) sending images to a cloud server (2, 4) for processing.
  • Technical Importance: This approach makes 3D body scanning and analysis accessible through ubiquitous consumer devices, enabling scalable consumer-facing health and e-commerce applications (Compl. ¶13, ¶79).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies Amazon’s "Halo" and "Made for You" products and services as incorporating the allegedly misappropriated technology (Compl. ¶174).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Amazon Halo: This product line includes a "Body" feature with a "Body Slider" function. The complaint alleges this feature performs 3D body scanning and body composition analysis and is "identical in function and form" to technology developed by Body Labs after it had received confidential disclosures from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶148).
  • Amazon "Made for You": This service provided custom-fit clothing by creating a 3D model of a customer from two photographs taken on a standard smartphone (Compl. ¶134). The complaint alleges this service is a "direct copy" of an application and system that Plaintiff disclosed to Amazon employees under a non-disclosure agreement (Compl. ¶135).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not allege patent infringement and therefore makes no specific allegations mapping accused product features to patent claim elements. Instead, the complaint alleges that the technology underlying the '671 and '501 Patents was protected as a trade secret and that Defendants misappropriated this technology in breach of contractual and other legal duties.

The core of the technical dispute, as framed by the complaint, centers on two main functionalities:

  1. Volumetric Health Analysis: The complaint alleges that Body Labs, prior to its acquisition by Amazon, was unable to calculate body fat from its 3D models (Compl. ¶42, fn. 1). After receiving confidential information from Plaintiff about its Body Volume Index (BVI) technology, Body Labs allegedly developed a "Body Volume software component" that was a "direct copy of SRL's BVI product" (Compl. ¶52-53). A visual provided in the complaint, sourced from a Daily Mail article, depicts Body Labs' graphic of six human figures, each with a calculated total body volume ("V = 80.3 L," etc.), which Plaintiff presents as evidence of this alleged copying (Compl. ¶51). This technology is now allegedly used in the Amazon Halo "Body" feature (Compl. ¶148).

  2. 2D-to-3D Model Generation: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff disclosed its "2-D digital image to 3-D scan system" to Amazon personnel under a non-disclosure agreement in 2018 (Compl. ¶79). It further alleges that Amazon's "Made for You" service, which used smartphone images to create models for custom clothing, was a "direct copy" of this disclosed technology (Compl. ¶134-135).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the complaint does not assert any patent claims, analysis of claim term construction is not applicable.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Trade Secret Misappropriation: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff possessed trade secrets, including proprietary 3D scan files and know-how for generating a "body volume avatar" and implementing an online system to process 2D images into 3D models (Compl. ¶37). It alleges these were protected via NDAs (Compl. ¶40, 46, 77). The complaint alleges misappropriation occurred when Body Labs breached its NDA and developed products based on the secrets (Compl. ¶50-53), and when Amazon, after acquiring Body Labs and entering its own NDA, used the secrets in its "Halo" and "Made for You" products (Compl. ¶148, 135).
  • Copyright Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in unauthorized duplication and creation of derivative works based on Plaintiff's proprietary 3D scan data files (Compl. ¶162, 224).
  • Willful/Malicious Conduct: The complaint alleges Defendants' misappropriation was willful and malicious (Compl. ¶177). The factual basis includes allegations that Body Labs' misappropriation continued after being confronted by Plaintiff in 2015 (Compl. ¶53-56), and that Amazon had knowledge of Plaintiff's rights through direct disclosures and its acquisition of Body Labs (Compl. ¶69-70). The complaint further alleges that both MPI (a Body Labs partner) and Amazon filed their own patent applications on the technology with non-publication requests in an alleged "attempt to conceal the filing" from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶96, 104, 107).
  • Fraud: A central allegation is that Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiff to dismiss a prior patent infringement lawsuit in 2021 by falsely representing a willingness to negotiate while concealing their own patenting activities based on the allegedly stolen technology (Compl. ¶229-231, 158).

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

  • A central factual question will be one of derivation versus independent development: Can Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the functionality in Amazon's "Halo" and "Made for You" products was derived directly from the specific information disclosed under the NDAs, as opposed to being the result of parallel or independent innovation by Body Labs and Amazon?
  • A key legal and factual issue will be the scope and secrecy of the "trade secrets": The case may turn on whether the allegedly misappropriated information—such as the concept of using volumetric ratios for a health index or a system for creating 3D models from 2D images—qualifies as a protectable trade secret, or if it constitutes general industry knowledge or information that was effectively disclosed to the public through Plaintiff's own patents.
  • A critical question of intent and causation will surround the fraud claim: Did Amazon's communications regarding settlement of the 2020 litigation constitute false representations made with the intent to deceive, and did Plaintiff detrimentally rely on these representations when it dismissed its earlier patent suit?