Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 57 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`EYESMATCH LTD., AND MEMOMI LABS
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Civil Action No. _________________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC, AND
`WHATSAPP INC.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs EyesMatch Ltd. (“EyesMatch”) and Memomi Labs Inc. (“Memomi”)
`
`(collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, file this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement against Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), Defendant Instagram, LLC
`
`(“Instagram”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Facebook, and Defendant WhatsApp Inc.
`
`(“WhatsApp”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Facebook (collectively “Defendants”), and allege as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a patent infringement action to end Defendants’ unauthorized infringing
`
`manufacture, use, sale, and/or offer to sell in the United States; importation into the United States
`
`without authority; and performance in the United States without authority every step of Plaintiffs’
`
`patented inventions by using products, services, devices, systems, and/or components of systems
`
`that embody Plaintiffs’ patented inventions.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs own all substantial rights and interest in the Asserted Patents described
`
`below, including the exclusive right to sue Defendants for infringement and recover damages.
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 57 PageID #: 2
`
`3.
`
`In violation of Plaintiffs’ rights in the Asserted Patents, Defendants make, use, sell,
`
`and/or offer to sell in the United States without authority; import into the United States without
`
`authority; and perform in the United States without authority every step of the patented inventions
`
`by using products, services, devices, systems, and/or components of systems that embody the
`
`patented inventions. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, monetary damages and prejudgment interest for
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff EyesMatch is incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands
`
`with its principal place of business in 19 Waterfront Drive, P.O. Box 3540, Road Town, Tortola,
`
`British Virgin Islands 1110.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Memomi is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with places of
`
`business at 228 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, California 94301 and 81 Derech Yavne
`
`St, Rehovot, Israel 7634114.
`
`6.
`
`Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its
`
`principal place of business at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`7.
`
`Instagram, LLC (“Instagram”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Facebook, is
`
`incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1601 Willow Road,
`
`Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`8.
`
`WhatsApp Inc. (“WhatsApp”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Facebook, is
`
`incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1601 Willow Road,
`
`Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Salvador Nissi Vilcovsky and Ofer Saban, the inventors of the patents asserted in
`
`this lawsuit, and the founders of EyesMatch and Memomi, are pioneers in the field of digital
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 57 PageID #: 3
`
`mirrors and related technologies for computerized appearance comparison.
`
`10.
`
`In 2004, well before the digital “selfie” became a universal form of self-expression
`
`in social media, Mr. Vilcovsky recognized that the proliferation of computing devices (e.g.,
`
`laptops, PDAs, mobile phones) integrated with cameras made possible a revolutionary “digital
`
`mirror”, enabled by appropriate software, that could both duplicate the functioning of a physical
`
`mirror, and greatly expand its capabilities. Mr. Vilcovsky recognized that, with a true digital
`
`mirror, users would want, inter alia, to: see themselves onscreen, as if they were looking in a
`
`mirror; “try on” different clothes, makeup, hairstyle or other appearance changes; digitally alter
`
`their body appearance; and share their digital mirror images with others. Based on these insights,
`
`EyesMatch filed patent applications which covered the fundamental use case of taking pictures in
`
`front of a digital mirror, adding digital effects, and sharing those images with others. While
`
`EyesMatch envisioned the digital mirror as a novel and unrealized way to capture, recall, compare,
`
`and share self-images, it recognized that its innovations had wide applicability to fields such as
`
`video calling and video conferencing.
`
`11.
`
`In 2012, Mr. Saban joined Mr. Vilcovsky in founding Memomi to productize the
`
`patented technologies. Together, they developed and patented further innovations in digital mirror
`
`and appearance comparison technologies, including: “smart” cameras that can follow subjects
`
`around a room from a stationary lens; “eye-matching” to keep a subject’s face centered in the field
`
`of view; and virtual pan and zoom.
`
`12.
`
`Today, Memomi’s patented products and technologies power a wide range of
`
`digital appearance comparison solutions that have been deployed by household names such as
`
`Sam’s Club, Walmart, Neiman Marcus , Luxottica , L’Oréal, Estee Lauder, Shiseido, DFS, Chanel,
`
`and LVMH, including virtual hair and makeup try-ons and virtual eyeglass fit and measurement.
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 4 of 57 PageID #: 4
`
`13. Memomi’s patented products have received widespread recognition for their
`
`innovative nature, including awards1 and acclamatory press coverage – demonstrating the novelty
`
`and non-conventional nature of the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit. For example, Allure
`
`magazine described Memomi’s “Memory Makeover” digital mirror for Neiman Marcus stores as
`
`“pure genius,”2 and Memomi’s digital mirror product has been featured on Good Morning America
`
`providing virtual makeup try-ons using the patented technologies.3
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://vimeo.com/133031019 (innovation competition held by Japanese department
`store Isetan Mitsukoshi); https://bold-awards.com/salute-the-boldest-of-the-bold/ (Bold Awards’
`“Boldest Innovator” award).
`2 https://www.allure.com/story/neiman-marcus-high-tech-mirrors. See also Tech Tackles the
`Fitting Room, https://www.racked.com/2017/4/19/15199318/tech-fitting-room (“How many
`times have you shared a dressing room selfie with friends to get their opinions? Now, says Scott
`Emmons, head of Neiman Marcus’s Innovation Lab, there is a better way. With a push of a
`button, a smart digital mirror in a Neiman Marcus fitting room can record how you look with a
`360-degree view. . . . You can also use this mirror to record multiple try-ons of an outfit and then
`stack them alongside each other to see which one you like best. Neiman Marcus uses proprietary
`technology from tech company Memomi for its digital mirrors.”); “How Neiman Marcus
`innovates to adapt,” https://nrf.com/blog/how-neiman-marcus-innovates-adapt (“The Neiman
`Marcus iLab successfully introduced the “memory mirror,” a digital mirror that can record a
`customer from different angles in the fitting room. The customer can then compare multiple
`outfits side-by-side or even solicit advice from friends on social media. The experiment was so
`well received that Neiman Marcus is working to expand the platform’s technology. A newer
`development is the memory makeover mirror, which allows a store’s beauty specialists to record
`makeup sessions with customers and then share a video tutorial so they can create the look at
`home.”); “Upscale stores try ‘smart’ mirrors to help customers shop,”
`https://nypost.com/2015/05/11/upscale-stores-try-smart-mirrors-to-help-customers-shop/ (“The
`patented MemoryMirror from a Palo Alto, California-based company called MemoMi is one of
`the most advanced in this so-called virtual dressing. . . .”).
`
`3 https://vimeo.com/217404337.
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 5 of 57 PageID #: 5
`
`https://www.allure.com/story/neiman-marcus-high-tech-
`mirrors
`
`
`
`https://www.racked.com/2017/4/19/15199318/tech-fitting-room
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`To the extent marking or notice was required by 35 U.S.C. § 287, Plaintiffs have
`
`complied with the requirements of that statute by marking Memomi’s products with the Asserted
`
`Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States of America, Title 35, United States Code.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Memomi is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`Defendant Facebook is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Facebook. Facebook
`
`has continuous and systematic business contacts with the State of Delaware and has committed
`
`acts of patent infringement within the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware. For example,
`
`Facebook, directly and/or through intermediaries (including advertising agencies and others),
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 6 of 57 PageID #: 6
`
`conducts and solicits business in the State of Delaware and attempts to derive benefit from
`
`residents of the State of Delaware by marketing, selling, offering for sale, making, and/or using its
`
`products and/or services, including the Facebook Messenger Application for mobile devices
`
`(“Messenger App”), the Facebook Application for mobile devices (“Facebook App”), and Portal
`
`by Facebook devices (“Portal”), in the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`20.
`
`As described herein, such acts constitute infringement occurring within the State of
`
`Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Instagram is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Instagram. Instagram
`
`has continuous and systematic business contact with the State of Delaware and has committed acts
`
`of patent infringement within the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware. For example,
`
`Instagram, directly and/or through intermediaries (including advertising agencies and others),
`
`conducts and solicits business in the State of Delaware and attempts to derive benefit from
`
`residents of the State of Delaware by marketing, selling, offering for sale, making, and/or using its
`
`products and/or services, including the Instagram Application for mobile devices (“Instagram
`
`App”), in the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`23.
`
`As described herein, such acts constitute infringement occurring within the State of
`
`Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant WhatsApp is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over WhatsApp.
`
`WhatsApp has continuous and systematic business contact with the State of Delaware and has
`
`committed acts of patent infringement within the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`For example, WhatsApp, directly and/or through intermediaries (including advertising agencies
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 7 of 57 PageID #: 7
`
`and others), conducts and solicits business in the State of Delaware and attempts to derive benefit
`
`from residents of the State of Delaware by marketing, selling, offering for sale, making, and/or
`
`using its products and/or services, including the WhatsApp Application for mobile devices
`
`(“WhatsApp App”), in the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`26.
`
`As described herein, such acts constitute infringement occurring within the State of
`
`Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`27.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), and
`
`1400(b) as to Facebook. Facebook is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and has
`
`committed acts of infringement in the District of Delaware. Facebook has committed acts of
`
`infringement by, among other things, marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, making,
`
`and/or using infringing products, including the Messenger App, the Facebook App, and Portal, in
`
`the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware.
`
`28.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and
`
`1400(b) as to Instagram. Instagram is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and
`
`has committed acts of infringement in the District of Delaware. Instagram has committed acts of
`
`infringement by, among other things, marketing, selling, distributing, offering for sale, making,
`
`and/or using infringing products, including the Instagram App, in the State of Delaware and the
`
`District of Delaware.
`
`29.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § § 1391(b) and (c), and
`
`1400(b) as to WhatsApp. WhatsApp is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and
`
`has committed acts of infringement in the District of the Delaware. WhatsApp has committed acts
`
`of infringement by, among other things, marketing, selling, distributing, offering for sale, making,
`
`and/or using infringing products, including the WhatsApp App, in the State of Delaware and the
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 8 of 57 PageID #: 8
`
`District of Delaware.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief and as further explained below, Defendants have been
`
`and are acting in concert, and are otherwise liable jointly, severally or otherwise for a right to relief
`
`related to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences
`
`related to the making, using, selling, offering for sale or otherwise distributing the Facebook Portal
`
`devices, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and Instagram apps in this District and
`
`elsewhere in the United States. In addition, this action involves questions of law and fact that are
`
`common to all Defendants.
`
`31.
`
`Facebook’s Form 10-Q filing to the Securities Exchange Commission for the period
`
`ending on June 30, 2020, uses the term “Family” to refer to “our Facebook, Instagram, Messenger,
`
`and WhatsApp products” and reports “estimates of the numbers of our daily active people (DAP),
`
`monthly active people (MAP), and average revenue per person (ARPP) (collectively, our ‘Family
`
`metrics’) based on the activity of users who visited at least one of Facebook, Instagram, Messenger,
`
`and WhatsApp (collectively, our ‘Family’ of products) during the applicable period of
`
`measurement.”
`
`See
`
`https://investor.fb.com/financials/sec-filings-
`
`details/default.aspx?FilingId=14302237. Upon information and belief, Facebook does not
`
`separately report revenue from the Accused Products in its filings to the Securities Exchange
`
`Commission, but rather reports combined revenue.
`
`32. Market analysis indicates that Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram and their
`
`respective products are viewed in the market as an integrated package with each of the products
`
`benefitting from substantial network effects.4
`
`
`4 See https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-youtube-and-instagram-secret-that-google-and-
`facebook-dont-want-you-to-know-2018-01-26 (accessed January 18, 2021) (“For some analysts,
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 9 of 57 PageID #: 9
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, between 2017 and the filing of this Complaint,
`
`Facebook migrated the Instagram and WhatsApp services from third party servers onto servers in
`
`Facebook’s own data centers.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Facebook not only “owns,” but also “operates” both
`
`Instagram and WhatsApp, such operation including the cooperative development, improvement,
`
`and/or support of their respective services.5
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, user information is shared between Facebook,
`
`Instagram and WhatsApp. For example, upon information and belief, Facebook “shares
`
`information about” Facebook’s users with Instagram and WhatsApp “to facilitate, support and
`
`integrate [the Instagram App’s and WhatsApp Messenger’s] activities and improve our services.”6
`
`Likewise, upon information and belief, Instagram processes information “to support Facebook,
`
`Instagram, Messenger and other products and features offered by Facebook (Facebook Products
`
`
`the question of breaking out revenue for Instagram is moot, however, because the company
`essentially sells ads for Facebook and Instagram as a single package. . . .”);
`http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/facebook-stock-price-analyst-interview-2017-8-
`1002276065 (accessed January 18, 2021) (“More and more people are spending more of their
`daily waking hours on Facebook. We estimate that across Facebook’s different properties -
`Facebook.com, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Instagram - users spend on average close to an hour
`every day. That metric was a lot lower two or three years ago. By having people spend more time
`on the sites or apps, they’re obviously consuming more content, more pages, and giving
`Facebook the ability to monetize against that content and pages.”);
`https://www.morningstar.in/posts/59194/3/5-global-stocks-you-can-invest-in.aspx (accessed
`January 18, 2021) (“Now that Facebook has emerged as the clear-cut social media leader, we
`believe that the company’s offerings, consisting mainly of Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and
`WhatsApp, have further strengthened network effects for the firm, where all of these platforms
`become more valuable to its users as people both join the networks and use these services.”).
`5 See https://www.facebook.com/help/111814505650678 (accessed January 18, 2021); see also
`https://help.instagram.com/155833707900388 (accessed January 18, 2021).
`
` 6
`
` See https://www.facebook.com/help/111814505650678 (accessed Jan. 18, 2021); see also
`https://help.instagram.com/155833707900388 (accessed Jan. 18, 2021).
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 10 of 57 PageID #: 10
`
`or Products).”7 Similarly, “[a]s part of the Facebook family of companies, WhatsApp receives
`
`information from, and shares information with, this family of companies [including Facebook].
`
`We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share
`
`with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our
`
`Services and their offerings.”8
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, WhatsApp and Instagram have endeavored to
`
`integrate their applications with Facebook from a technical standpoint including, but not limited
`
`to, the Instagram App allowing users to double-post Instagram Stories directly to Facebook from
`
`the Instagram App, the integration of Instagram Direct (messaging feature) with Facebook
`
`Messenger to allow cross-platform communication, and providing Portal the ability to pull photos
`
`from a user’s Instagram account to display in Portal’s SuperFrame feature and to allow a user to
`
`make calls with the user’s WhatsApp contact list.
`
`37.
`
`Accordingly, Facebook is acting in concert with WhatsApp and Instagram in
`
`connection with the provision of their photo and video capturing and sharing services, which are
`
`at issue in this action.
`
`38.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants may be joined in a single action for patent infringement,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 299(a).
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`39.
`
`On January 7, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,624,883 (the “883 Patent”), entitled “Devices, Systems and Methods of
`
`
`7 See https://help.instagram.com/155833707900388 (accessed Jan. 18, 2021).
`8 See https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/privacy-policy (accessed Jan. 20, 2021); see also
`https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/; https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000627/Looking-ahead-for-
`WhatsApp (accessed Jan. 18, 2021).
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 11 of 57 PageID #: 11
`
`Capturing and Displaying Appearances,” to Nissi Vilcovsky. A copy of the 883 Patent is attached
`
`to the Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`40. Memomi is the exclusive licensee of the 883 Patent, with the exclusive right to
`
`enforce the 883 Patent.
`
`41.
`
`EyesMatch is the owner of the remaining right, title, and interest in and to the 883
`
`Patent.
`
`42.
`
`The 883 Patent is directed to systems and methods for enabling appearance
`
`comparison with an interactive display station that is capable of operating in both a mirror mode
`
`and a display mode (or both modes simultaneously), including with virtual effects such as
`
`simulations of different user appearances such as hair styles or clothing. See, e.g., Ex. A (883
`
`Patent) at Abstract, 9:48-63.
`
`43.
`
`The elements claimed by the 883 Patent, taken alone or in combination, were not
`
`well-understood, routine or conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. Rather, the 883 Patent claims and teaches, inter alia, an unconventional way to use
`
`conventional camera and display devices to provide an improved system for appearance
`
`comparison, which was not present in the state of the art at the time of the invention.
`
`44.
`
`The written description of the 883 Patent describes, in technical detail, each of the
`
`limitations in the claims, allowing a person of skill in the art to understand what those limitations
`
`cover, and therefore what was claimed, and also understand how the non-conventional and non-
`
`generic ordered combination of the elements of the claims differ markedly from what had been
`
`performed in the industry prior to the inventions of the 883 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`As the specification explains, the claims of the 883 Patent are directed to addressing
`
`the shortcomings in a typical appearance comparison scenario such as shopping for clothes or
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 12 of 57 PageID #: 12
`
`makeup in which “Prior to making a decision [as to] which article to buy a customer may try on
`
`various articles (e.g., apparel, cosmetics) and/or pose with other articles (e.g., furniture), and may
`
`view for each trial a user-appearance in front of a mirror”. Ex. A (883 Patent) at 1:32-35. However,
`
`“since the customer may try on numerous articles” and may try them on a different times “the
`
`customer may not be able to recall his/her appearance for each trial and may therefore be required
`
`to repeatedly retry articles, e.g., items of apparels, previously tried on”. Ex. A (883 Patent) at 1:45-
`
`50. The claims of the 883 Patent are therefore directed at alleviating this “frustrating and inefficient
`
`shopping experience.” Ex. A (883 Patent) at 1:50-51
`
`46.
`
`The claims of the 883 Patent describe a technological solution to these problems by
`
`claiming an “interactive imaging and display station” comprising both a camera and a “mirror-
`
`display device,” such as a computer or mobile device, that is capable of “selectably operating in
`
`mirror mode, a display mode, or both a mirror and a display mode.” See e.g., Ex. A (883 Patent)
`
`at 3:46-53, Claims 1, 12. In the “mirror mode,” a subject is presented with a real-time mirrored
`
`view of themselves, while in the display mode of operation, prior mirror views may be recalled
`
`from storage and displayed to enable appearance comparison. This allows a user to compare
`
`appearance “simultaneously or sequentially” rather than having to, e.g., rely on the user’s own
`
`recollection, or solely by displaying images that are not live, and not mirrored. See Ex. A (883
`
`Patent) 4:30-36, Claim 1. By enabling a selectable mirror mode that presents mirror images either
`
`in place of, or alongside previously stored images, the claims are directed to a specific,
`
`unconventional improvement to the way computer and camera systems used for appearance
`
`comparison operate.
`
`47.
`
`The systems and methods covered by the asserted claims, therefore, differ markedly
`
`from the prior systems in use at the time of this invention, which, inter alia, lacked an interactive
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 13 of 57 PageID #: 13
`
`imaging and display station comprising both a camera and a mirror-display device, such as a
`
`computer or mobile device, that is capable of selectably operating in mirror mode, a display mode,
`
`or both a mirror and a display mode.
`
`48.
`
`The mirror-display device can be connected over a network with other mirror
`
`display devices such that the images may be shared or viewed at different locations. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. A (883 Patent) at 5:54-59, 6:53-60, Claims 8, 9. This allows a user to compare appearance
`
`without being locked down to a single device or location. The mirror-display device can also render
`
`“virtual effects” on the user’s appearance to simulate different looks by changing hair, clothing, or
`
`furniture. See Ex. A (883 Patent) at 9:48-63, Claim 17. This allows a user to compare appearance
`
`without having to change anything in real life. None of these elements, taken alone or in
`
`combination, were well-understood, routine or conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`49.
`
`On May 24, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,948,481 (the “481 Patent”), entitled “Devices, Systems and Methods of
`
`Capturing and Displaying Appearances,” to Nissi Vilcovsky. A copy of the 481 Patent is attached
`
`to the Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`50. Memomi is the exclusive licensee of the 481 Patent, with the exclusive right to
`
`enforce the 481 Patent.
`
`51.
`
`EyesMatch is the owner of the remaining right, title, and interest in and to the 481
`
`Patent.
`
`52.
`
`The 481 Patent is directed to systems and methods for enabling appearance
`
`comparison with an interactive display station that is capable of operating in both a mirror mode
`
`and a display mode. The interactive display station may be portable and/or connected over a
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 14 of 57 PageID #: 14
`
`network with another interactive display station that may display captured images of the user(s).
`
`See, e.g., Ex. B (481 Patent) at Abstract, 5:52-67, 6:12-25.
`
`53.
`
`The elements claimed by the 481 Patent, taken alone or in combination, were not
`
`well-understood, routine or conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. Rather, the 481 Patent claims and teaches, inter alia, an unconventional way to use
`
`conventional camera and display devices to provide an improved system for appearance
`
`comparison, which was not present in the state of the art at the time of the invention.
`
`54.
`
`The written description of the 481 Patent describes, in technical detail, each of the
`
`limitations in the claims, allowing a person of skill in the art to understand what those limitations
`
`cover, and therefore what was claimed, and also understand how the non-conventional and non-
`
`generic ordered combination of the elements of the claims differ markedly from what had been
`
`performed in the industry prior to the inventions of the 481 Patent. As the specification explains,
`
`the claims of the 481 Patent are directed to addressing the shortcomings in a typical appearance
`
`comparison scenario such as shopping for clothes or makeup in which “[p]rior to making a decision
`
`[as to] which article to buy a customer may try on various articles (e.g., apparel, cosmetics) and/or
`
`pose with other articles (e.g., furniture), and may view for each trial a user-appearance in front of
`
`a mirror”. Ex. B (481 Patent) at 1:29-32. However, “since the customer may try on numerous
`
`articles” and may try them on at different times “the customer may not be able to recall his/her
`
`appearance for each trial and may therefore be required to repeatedly retry articles, e.g., items of
`
`apparels, previously tried on”. Ex. B (481 Patent) at 1:42-47. The claims of the 481 Patent are
`
`therefore directed at alleviating this “frustrating and inefficient shopping experience.” Ex. B (481
`
`Patent) at 1:47-48.
`
`55.
`
`The claims of the 481 Patent describe a technological solution to this problem by
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 15 of 57 PageID #: 15
`
`claiming an “interactive imaging and display station” comprising both an “image-capturing
`
`device” (e.g., a camera) and a “mirror-display device,” such as a computer or mobile device, that
`
`is capable of “switching between at least a mirror mode of operation and a display mode of
`
`operation.” See e.g., Ex. B (481 Patent) at 3:44-51, Claims 1, 16. In the “mirror mode,” a subject
`
`is presented with a real-time mirrored view of themselves, while in the display mode of operation,
`
`prior mirror views may be recalled from storage and displayed to enable appearance comparison.
`
`This allows a user to compare appearance “simultaneously or sequentially” rather than having to,
`
`e.g., rely on the user’s own recollection, or solely by displaying images that are not live, and not
`
`mirrored. See Ex. B (481 Patent) 4:28-34, Claim 16. By enabling a selectable mirror mode that
`
`presents mirror images either in place of, or alongside previously stored images, and can be
`
`switched to a display mode, the claims are directed to a specific, unconventional improvement to
`
`the way computer and camera systems used for appearance comparison operate.
`
`56.
`
`The systems and methods covered by the asserted claims, therefore, differ markedly
`
`from the prior systems in use at the time of this invention, which, inter alia, lacked an interactive
`
`imaging and display station comprising both a camera and a mirror-display device, such as a
`
`computer or mobile device, that is capable of selectably operating in at least a mirror mode and a
`
`display mode.
`
`57.
`
`The mirror-display device can be connected over a network with other mirror
`
`display devices such that the images may be shared or viewed at different locations and the mirror-
`
`display device may be portable. See, e.g., Ex. B (481 Patent) at 5:52-57, 6:12-21, 6:50-55,
`
`Claims 6, 8, 9. This allows a user to compare appearance without being locked down to a single
`
`device or location. None of these elements, taken alone or in combination, were well-understood,
`
`routine or conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`EYESMATCH AND MEMOMI COMPLAINT
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00111-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/28/21 Page 16 of 57 PageID #: 16
`
`58.
`
`On March 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 (the “109 Patent”), entitled “Devices, Systems and Methods of
`
`Capturing and Displaying Appearances,” to Nissi Vilcovsky and Ofer Saban. A copy of the 109
`
`Patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C.
`
`59. Memomi is the exclusive licensee of the 109 Patent, with the exclusive right to
`
`enforce the 109 Patent.
`
`60.
`
`EyesMatch is the owner of the remaining right, title, and interest in and to the 109
`
`Patent.
`
`61.
`
`The 109 Patent is directed to methods of modifying a stream of images of a user
`
`captured by a camera, such that the images appear to be the reflection of a mirror, including by
`
`reversing, resizing, or mapping the image to adjust it against a reference image, or changing
`
`shading or illumination of the image. See, e.g., Ex. C (109 Patent) at Claims 1, 7, and 9.
`
`62.
`
`The elements claimed by the 109 Patent, taken alone or in combination, were not
`
`well-understood, routine or conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. Rath