PTAB

IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp v. Zugara Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Providing a Simulation of Wearing Items Such as Garments and/or Accessories
  • Brief Description: The ’517 patent discloses a virtual try-on (VTO) system that allows a user to simulate wearing items. The system generates a composite image by combining a live video feed of the user with a virtual representation of a wearable item, such as clothing or an accessory.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-15, and 18-19 are obvious over Lennon in view of Gray.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lennon (Patent 6,624,843) and Gray (Patent 8,438,081).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lennon disclosed the foundational elements of a VTO system, including capturing a live user image and overlaying virtual apparel to create a composite image for display. Lennon’s system was capable of merging live video of a customer with stored images of apparel and taught real-time generation of composite images based on biometric triggers like facial feature recognition. Petitioner contended that Gray complemented Lennon by disclosing a robust framework for an enhanced e-commerce experience, including features for personalized wardrobe management (a "virtual closet"), item customization, and integrated social networking tools. Gray’s interface explicitly included a "share button" and a "social network selection drop-down" to allow users to share outfits and receive feedback from their social contacts.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine the references to satisfy the well-understood commercial need to replicate the in-store shopping experience online. Lennon provided the core visual "try-on" functionality, while Gray provided the crucial social feedback and user engagement features that were becoming standard in e-commerce. Combining Gray’s interactive user interface and social sharing capabilities with Lennon’s VTO platform was presented as a predictable step to create a more comprehensive and engaging virtual retail solution.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved integrating known software components. Both Lennon and Gray relied on conventional graphical user interface (GUI) design and software-based image processing, and integrating Gray’s interactive GUI elements into Lennon’s VTO system would not have required any new hardware or complex algorithmic development.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-15, and 18-19 are obvious over the YouCam 3 Official Publications.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: YouCam 3 User’s Guide (User's Guide) and YouCam 3 YouTube Publication Video (Publication Video).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the YouCam 3 publications, which describe a commercial webcam software application, collectively disclosed all the core functionalities of the challenged claims. The references demonstrated a system that captured a live webcam video feed, performed real-time facial tracking to recognize the position and orientation of the user's face, and overlaid virtual wearable items (e.g., hats, masks) that dynamically moved with the user. The resulting composite video was rendered in real time. Furthermore, the YouCam 3 interface included graphically presented tools for direct photo and video uploads to social networking services like Facebook and YouTube, allowing users to share snapshots of themselves with virtual items.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSA would have been motivated to consult both the User's Guide and the Publication Video together, as they are complementary materials describing the same commercial product. The Publication Video provided a visual demonstration of the software in use, while the User's Guide provided the corresponding technical details and operational instructions. A POSA would have been further motivated to apply the disclosed technology to the virtual retail environment to meet the clear commercial demand for VTO systems. Adapting YouCam 3's existing augmented reality and social sharing features from novelty effects to virtual apparel was argued to be a predictable and obvious extension.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition contended that a POSA would have readily recognized the value of YouCam 3’s face tracking, AR composite imagery, and social media integration for e-commerce applications. The technical components described, such as image segmentation and object tracking, were well within the routine knowledge and capability of a POSA at the time, ensuring a high expectation of success in adapting the system for virtual clothing try-on without inventive ingenuity.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-15, and 18-19 of the ’517 patent as unpatentable.