DCT
6:21-cv-01227
Lennon Image Tech LLC v. Chanel Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lennon Image Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Chanel Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01227, W.D. Tex., 11/24/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Chanel has "several regular and established places of business in this District," including specific retail locations in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website-based virtual makeup try-on tool infringes a patent related to methods for capturing a customer's image and creating a composite image with an apparel item for a virtual fitting.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of augmented reality retail applications, which allow consumers to visualize products on themselves before purchase.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent survived post-grant challenges. Specifically, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a "Decision on Appeal" in 2017 confirming the patentability of numerous claims, and an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate was issued in 2018. This history may be raised to counter arguments that the patent is invalid over prior art considered during those proceedings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-10 | ’843 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-09-23 | ’843 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-09-22 | PTAB Decision on Appeal concerning the ’843 Patent |
| 2018-09-26 | Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued for the ’843 Patent |
| 2021-11-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,624,843 - “Customer Image Capture and Use Thereof in a Retailing System”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the time-consuming process of physically trying on clothes in a retail setting as a key problem. It also notes the limitations of then-existing "virtual model" systems, which used generic computer simulations rather than a customer's actual image, providing "virtually no detail regarding the customer's actual appearance." (’843 Patent, col. 1:17-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method to "virtually 'dress' the potential customer" by capturing a customer's actual image and electronically merging it with a "reference image" of an apparel item. (’843 Patent, col. 2:12-20). The resulting "composite image" is displayed to the user, allowing them to assess how the merchandise would look on their own body without physically trying it on. The system architecture, as depicted in Figure 1, includes an image capture system, a controller, databases for storing images, and an image display system. (’843 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described technology aimed to create a more realistic and personalized virtual shopping experience than generic avatar-based systems, thereby reducing customer shopping time and potentially lowering the rate of merchandise returns. (’843 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint primarily asserts infringement of claim 18, which is dependent on claims 17 and 14. Independent claim 14 is the base claim. (Compl. ¶10, 35).
- The essential elements of independent claim 14 are:
- A method for manipulating a customer image comprising:
- capturing the customer image;
- generating a composite image comprising the customer image and one of at least one apparel style image corresponding to a potential purchase item;
- displaying the composite image thereby allowing the customer to assess the potential purchase item without having to try it on; and
- storing the customer image,
- wherein the step of generating the composite image further comprises retrieving the customer image in response to a request for the composite image.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the patent. (Compl. ¶35).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Chanel Virtual Try-On Tool," a web-based feature available on Defendant's website. (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Instrumentality is a software tool that allows website visitors to virtually try on cosmetic products. (Compl. ¶17, 19). The tool accesses the camera on a user's computer or mobile device to capture a live video feed or a still image of the user's face. (Compl. ¶25). As shown in a screenshot of the user interface, the tool then digitally overlays selected makeup products, such as different shades of lipstick, onto the user's image in real time. (Compl. p. 7). This function allows customers to see how various cosmetic products appear on their own face before making a purchase through the website. (Compl. ¶22, 27). The complaint provides a visual that shows the tool asking for permission to use the device's camera to enable the try-on experience. (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’843 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for manipulating a customer image corresponding to a customer... | The Chanel Virtual Try-On Tool allegedly provides a method for manipulating a customer image. | ¶24 | col. 11:32-34 |
| capturing the customer image; | The tool accesses a user's device camera to capture the user's image for the virtual try-on. | ¶25 | col. 6:9-14 |
| generating a composite image comprising the customer image and one of at least one apparel style image corresponding to a potential purchase item; | The tool is alleged to generate a composite image by digitally applying a selected makeup product (the "apparel style image") onto the captured customer image. A screenshot labels these distinct elements. | ¶26, p. 7 | col. 8:50-59 |
| displaying the composite image thereby allowing the customer to assess the potential purchase item without having to try it on; | The tool displays the resulting image of the user with the virtual makeup applied, allowing the user to assess the product's appearance. | ¶27 | col. 9:22-26 |
| storing the customer image, | The complaint alleges the customer image is stored on the user's device, Chanel's servers, or both. | ¶28 | col. 6:60-61 |
| wherein the step of generating the composite image further comprises retrieving the customer image in response to a request for the composite image. | It is alleged that when a user selects a product to try on (a "request"), the tool retrieves the stored customer image to generate the new composite view. | ¶28 | col. 8:61-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A principal dispute may arise over the scope of the term "apparel style image". The complaint alleges that digital representations of makeup products meet this limitation. The defense may argue that the patent, with its extensive focus on "clothing," "garments," and "virtual 'fitting'," limits the term to clothing items and does not extend to cosmetics.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation of infringing claim 18 requires "comparing biometric information." (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges this is met by comparing the "size and/or shape of the customer's facial features, such as lips." (Compl. ¶33). A technical question is whether the facial feature mapping used by the accused tool to overlay a digital effect performs the function of "comparing biometric information" as that term is used in the patent, which also discusses using biometric software for identity validation. (’843 Patent, col. 6:41-46).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "apparel style image"
- Context and Importance: The resolution of the case may depend heavily on the construction of this term. Infringement turns on whether a digital representation of a makeup product can be considered an "apparel style image."
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides a broad definition: "As used herein, apparel includes clothing, accessories or any other items for which customer purchase decisions are typically based in part upon how the item appears when used by the customer." (’843 Patent, col. 2:15-19). Plaintiff may argue that makeup is an "accessory" or "any other item" whose purchase is based on appearance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's context is overwhelmingly focused on clothing. The background, summary, and detailed embodiments repeatedly reference "clothing styles," "garments," a "virtual 'fitting'," and models on a "runway." (’843 Patent, col. 1:17-26, col. 2:12-15, col. 5:55-60). A party could argue that this consistent usage limits the scope of "apparel" to physical garments and accessories, excluding consumable cosmetics.
The Term: "comparing biometric information" (from dependent claim 18)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint specifically accuses infringement of claim 18, which adds this limitation. The validity of this infringement theory depends on whether the accused tool's function meets the claim's requirement.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific definition for this term, potentially allowing for an interpretation that includes any analysis of biological characteristics. The complaint's theory that this includes comparing the "size and/or shape of the customer's facial features" could fall under a broad reading. (Compl. ¶33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses using "biometrics identification software" to achieve a "valid event" by detecting a "full face comprising eyes, a nose, mouth, etc." (’843 Patent, col. 6:41-46). One could argue this context implies a comparison for purposes of identity verification or validation, a potentially more specific function than the facial mapping required to simply overlay a digital effect.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis is that Chanel allegedly encourages infringement by making the Accused Instrumentality available to its customers and "providing links and directions... as well as providing instructions on its proper use and operation." (Compl. ¶36).
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks treble damages for willful infringement. (Compl. p. 12, ¶(d)). The body of the complaint does not allege facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent, such as a prior notice letter.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "apparel style image", which is defined broadly but used in the context of virtual clothing fittings, be construed to cover the digital application of cosmetic products in the accused virtual try-on tool?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional interpretation: Does the accused tool's use of facial feature detection for the purpose of applying a graphical overlay constitute "comparing biometric information" as required by claim 18, or does the claim, in the context of the patent, require a more specific comparison related to identity validation?
- A key strategic question concerns the impact of post-grant review: How will the patent’s survival of both an appeal at the PTAB and an ex parte reexamination influence the court’s analysis of the defendant’s anticipated validity challenges, particularly those based on art or arguments already considered by the USPTO?