Picking an Outfit Isn’t Patentable

A Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has recommended that the District Court grant defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss patent claims for a method of picking outfits, finding that the claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

Stylitics, Inc. v. Findmine, Inc. concerns a patented automated styler that

may include systems and/or methods for automatically generating a plurality of outfits that conform to one or more styles, and for presenting the generated outfits in a single presentation so that users may readily visualize different styles that can be created from pairing items of different item types in an outfit.

Stylitics, which owns the patent at issue, is an outfitting solution and digital merchandising technology company focused on “improving and enhancing the digital shopping experience for retailers and consumers.”

According to the judge,

Stylitics' Auto-Styler uses a proprietary system that generates and displays collages of high quality, on-brand outfits, each consisting of multiple well-proportioned, attractively arranged and appropriately sized complementary products.

FindMine entered the e-commerce industry several years after Stylitics and launched its own online styling and visual merchandising services and system, which it described as "Complete the Look."

As the judge noted,

In 2021, FindMine began pursuing a relationship with one of Stylitics' largest ecommerce retailer customers that, during the course of its partnership with Stylitics, had used the Stylitics Auto-Styler to display hundreds of thousands of shoppable outfit collages on its websites. … This customer asked FindMine to create an outfitting solution for its websites that looked and worked like Stylitics' system. … In response to this request, FindMine changed the manner in which it styled and displayed outfits to mimic the user-interface and collages generated by Stylitics' Auto-Styler technology.

The judge said that FindMine's system generated near-exact replicas of Stylitic's collages.

Stylitics sent FindMine a letter notifying it of the patent and demanding that FindMine cease and desist its unauthorized use of the patented technology.

FindMine denied infringement, and litigation ensued.

The judge noted that "Patents granted by the Patent and Trademark Office . . . are presumptively valid" and that "An alleged infringer challenging the validity of a patent 'must prove that the patent does not satisfy the prerequisites for issuance of a patent, including the requirements set forth in Section 101 of the Patent Act.'"

Section 101 of the Patent Act authorizes inventors to obtain patents for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.

Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, as the US Supreme Court held in the 2014 case of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l.

However, an invention that applies an abstract idea or law of nature "to a new and useful end" may be patent eligible.

The Supreme Court in Alice articulated a two-part test.

First, courts must "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea.

If so, then courts must determine whether any of the claims "transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."

In performing the first step of the Alice analysis, courts consider

whether the claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.

However, neither the US Supreme Court nor the Federal Circuit has defined what constitutes an “abstract idea.”

If the main thrust of the patent claims is a patent-ineligible concept, then courts must consider, under the second Alice step, whether the elements of the claims, both individually and "as an ordered combination" include an "inventive concept," sufficient to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application."

If the only possible "inventive concept is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques," then the patent will fail step two of the Alice test.

For example, implementing an abstract idea on a computer, without anything more, doesn’t make otherwise ineligible claims patentable.
FindMine argued that the patent at issue was invalid because all of its claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of recommending a clothing outfit.

According to FindMine, all the patented technology does is use generic computers to automate tasks that long have been done by human stylists.

The judge agreed, finding the patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of styling a clothing outfit.

The judge noted that

the idea of using a set of criteria to decide what clothing items to pair together and presenting the outfit in an appealing way is the essence of what a stylist does and something that human stylists have been doing for generations. Indeed, as Defendant points out, the '552 Patent acknowledges in its "Background" section that it is well known that a "purchaser considers . . . articles of clothing and/or clothing accessories in order to create an outfit with two or more items that conform to a certain style."

Thus, said the court, “To provide patent protection for these types of claims would risk preempting or monopolizing a mental process.”

The court cited previous cases disallowing patents "directed toward the abstract idea of automated matchmaking" and drawn to abstract idea of "human compatibility and matchmaking."

The court agreed with FindMine that "arranging clothing items on a computer instead of on a child's bed, hanger, mannequin, or in a printed advertisement does not make the abstract idea patent eligible."

It’s not enough, said the judge, that Stylitics claimed to improve the styling process through the use of computers.

Thus, the patent failed step one of the Alice test.

As for step two, FindMine argued that Stylitics merely used “general purpose computers and the Internet as a tool to perform the abstract idea of recommending clothing outfits."

Stylitics contended that its patent claims “require a non-conventional and non-routine style definition that defines a style-conforming outfit based on one or more rules.”

However, noted the court, “this process is something that long has been performed manually by stylists, albeit in a less efficient way.”

The court concluded, citing a Federal Circuit decision, that "[C]laiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying [an] abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept."