OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Lennon Image Technologies, LLC brings this action against Defendant Coty Inc. for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq., for allegedly violating its patent — United States Patent No. 6,624,843 (the “’843 Patent”). Before me is Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because Plaintiff makes out a plausible claim for infringement of the ’843 Patent, I deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss.I. Background1The ’843 Patent, entitled “Customer Image Capture and Use Thereof in a Retailing System,” was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 23, 2003. (Compl.7.)2 The underlying application that resulted in the ’843 Patent was filed on December 8, 2000, and this application takes precedence over an earlier application filed on December 10, 1999. (Id.) Plaintiff is the owner of the ’843 Patent and “owns all right, title, and interest in the ’843 Patent.” (Id.8.)The patented invention “allows apparel retailers and other purveyors of such items an opportunity to virtually ‘dress’ the potential customer in featured merchandise as a virtual ‘fitting.’” (Compl. Ex. 1, at 2:11-14; see also Compl.9.) “[A]pparel 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.” (Compl. Ex. 1, at 2:14-18.) The system “merge[s] video or still images of live, ordinary customers with video or still images of stored reference model images wearing the apparel” — it retrieves the “stored reference image” from a database and applies it to a digitized image of the customer’s body. (Id. at 2:29-34.)The “spirit and scope” of the invention is described in Claims 14, 17, and 18, amongst other claims. (Id. at 10:24-25; Compl.9.) Under Claim 14, the retailer “captur[es] the customer image” and “generat[es] a composite image comprising the customer image and one of at least one apparel style image corresponding to a potential purchase item,” thus “allowing the customer to assess the potential purchase item without having to try it on.” (Compl.9.) Under Claim 17, the method is the same as Claim 14 except that the retailer “detect[s the] presence of a person near a display” and “determine[s] that the person corresponds to the customer image” and displays the composite image in response to this determination. (Id.) Lastly, the method under Claim 18 is the same as under Claim 17 except that “the step of determining further comprises comparing biometric information of the person with the customer image.” (Id.)Defendant is in the business of selling cosmetic products, and engages in electronic commerce using, among others, the website http://www.sallyhansen.com. (Id.
10-11.) Defendant also owns, operates and/or directs the operation of a mobile cosmetics application called ManiMatch that can be downloaded on platforms including the Apple iTunes store (the “ManiMatch App”). (Id.12.) Visitors to Defendant’s website are provided with directions regarding how to access, download, and use the ManiMatch App. (Id.
