DCT
6:22-cv-01164
Perfect Corp v. Lennon Image Tech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Perfect Corp. (California)
- Defendant: Lennon Image Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01164, W.D. Tex., 11/10/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Perfect Corp. asserts venue is proper because Defendant Lennon Image Technologies has sued Perfect's customers in the Western District of Texas and has asserted the patent-in-suit in at least two other cases within the district, thereby submitting to the court's jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its virtual try-on software product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,624,843 and that the patent is invalid, following lawsuits filed by Defendant against Plaintiff's customers.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns virtual try-on technology, a feature used in e-commerce to allow consumers to digitally preview how apparel, cosmetics, or other accessories might appear on them before purchase.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies Defendant as a "patent assertion entity" that has sued at least 24 companies over the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff notes that it is indemnifying its customers who have been sued, including Chanel, Target, and Estee Lauder. The complaint also references an ongoing Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by the Plaintiff against the patent-in-suit. Public records, but not the complaint itself, indicate that a prior ex parte reexamination proceeding resulted in the cancellation of several original claims, including the primary independent claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-10 | '843 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-09-23 | '843 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-01-12 | Lawsuit filed by Lennon vs. Conde Nast Publications Inc. |
| 2015-02-13 | Lawsuit filed by Lennon vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc. |
| 2017-02-17 | Lawsuit filed by Lennon vs. Coty Inc. |
| 2020-02-20 | Lawsuit filed by Lennon vs. The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. |
| 2021-12-24 | Lawsuit filed by Lennon vs. Chanel, Inc. (referenced as basis for current action) |
| 2022-11-10 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by Perfect Corp. |
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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,624,843, "Customer Image Capture and Use Thereof in a Retailing System", issued September 23, 2003.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the time-consuming nature of physically trying on different clothing styles and colors in a retail setting and notes the limitations of existing "virtual models," which provided poor approximations of a customer's actual appearance (ʼ843 Patent, col. 1:15-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-based system that captures an actual image of a customer and merges it with a stored "reference image" of an apparel item to generate a "composite image" ('843 Patent, Abstract). This composite image, displayed on a screen, allows the customer to see how the apparel might look on their own body without physically trying it on, aiming for a more realistic virtual fitting experience (ʼ843 Patent, col. 2:12-39). The system envisions capturing both the customer and reference images in similar, controlled environments to improve the quality of the final composite image (ʼ843 Patent, col. 2:39-49).
- Technical Importance: The technology sought to enhance the realism of the virtual try-on experience by using a customer's actual captured image, as opposed to the computer-generated simulations or avatars common at the time ('843 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of all claims of the '843 Patent ('Compl. ¶29). The analysis below focuses on the original independent claim, which is foundational to the patent.
- Independent Claim 1 (Original): An apparatus for manipulating a customer image, comprising:
- a controller;
- an image capture system, coupled to the controller, that captures the customer image of the customer and provides the customer image to the controller;
- a database, coupled to the controller, for storing the customer image and at least one apparel style image corresponding to a potential purchase item; and
- an image display system, coupled to the controller, for displaying a composite image comprising the customer image and any one of the at least one apparel style images.
- The complaint does not reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action seeking non-infringement of all claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is "Plaintiff Perfect's YouCam / virtual try-on Product" (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the YouCam product as technology that Perfect Corp.'s customers, such as Chanel, Target, and Estee Lauder, license and integrate into their websites (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). This integration provides virtual try-on functionality to the end-users of those websites (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that Lennon's lawsuits against these customers are based on the functionality provided by Perfect's product (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on how the YouCam product operates. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart from Lennon but instead presents Perfect Corp.'s affirmative arguments for non-infringement. These arguments are summarized below in the claim chart format, reflecting the core of the non-infringement count.
'843 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality (per Perfect Corp.) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a database... for storing... at least one apparel style image corresponding to a potential purchase item | Plaintiff Perfect's Product does not have an "apparel style image." | ¶24 | col. 10:35-37 |
| an image display system... for displaying a composite image comprising the customer image and any one of the at least one apparel style image | As the product lacks an "apparel style image," it "cannot meet either the 'apparel style image' or 'composite image' limitations." | ¶24 | col. 10:38-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The primary dispute appears to center on whether the digital representations of products (e.g., makeup colors, accessory models) used by Perfect's YouCam software constitute an "apparel style image" as that term is used and described in the '843 Patent.
- Technical Question: A key factual question will be whether the YouCam product's method of operation aligns with the claimed architecture. Specifically, does it combine a "customer image" with a separate and distinct "apparel style image" to generate a "composite image," or does it employ a different technique, such as overlaying a digital rendering or augmenting the customer image in a way that does not meet the claim limitations?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "apparel style image"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute, as Perfect's primary non-infringement argument is that its product does not have or use such an image (Compl. ¶24). The definition of this term may be dispositive.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "apparel" broadly as "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). This could support an interpretation that includes cosmetics or other non-clothing items.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the creation of reference images by capturing "models, having a variety of body sizes... wearing corresponding sizes of the selected apparel item" and then "editing out the extremities of the models (e.g., head, hair, hands, legs etc)" ('843 Patent, col. 5:13-29). This may support a narrower construction requiring an image derived from a physical item worn by a human model.
The Term: "composite image"
Context and Importance: This term's meaning is dependent on the construction of "apparel style image." If Perfect's product is found not to use an "apparel style image," it cannot, by definition, create the claimed "composite image" (Compl. ¶24).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the composite image as combining "elements unique to the customer (i.e., face, hair, hands, legs, etc.) taken from the customer's captured image combined with the image of the apparel" ('843 Patent, col. 8:54-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the composite image to be comprised of two distinct inputs: "the customer image" and "any one of the at least one apparel style image" ('843 Patent, col. 10:41-43). This language may support a narrow reading that excludes technologies that modify a single customer image with digital effects rather than merging two separate image files.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Lennon's suits against its customers are interpreted by Perfect "to allege that it is Plaintiff Perfect's Product that Defendant Lennon contends infringes the '843 Patent and that Plaintiff Perfect is at least inducing and contributing to the infringement" (Compl. ¶17). Perfect asserts that because there is no direct infringement, it cannot be liable for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint, a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, makes no allegations regarding willfulness.
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 the patent repeatedly describes in the context of edited photographs of models wearing physical garments, be construed to cover the digital product representations (e.g., computer-generated cosmetic shades) allegedly used by the accused "YouCam" software?
A second central issue will be one of technical operation: Does Perfect's software function by combining two distinct image sources—a captured "customer image" and a stored "apparel style image"—as the patent claims require, or does it use a fundamentally different process, such as real-time digital augmentation, that falls outside the claimed method?
A significant procedural question is the impact of post-grant proceedings: Given that an ex parte reexamination cancelled the original independent claims and a separate IPR is underway, a threshold issue will be identifying which claims remain in force and form the actual basis of the dispute between Lennon and Perfect's customers, a point not fully clarified in the complaint.