Lennon Image Technologies v. Chanel — Virtual Try-On Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Lennon Image Technologies sued Chanel over its Virtual Try-On Tool, asserting US patent US6624843B2 covering digital image try-on technology. After 803 days of litigation in the Western District of Texas, the parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, settling on undisclosed terms.
Virtual try-on patent clash settled after 803 days in W.D. Texas
On November 24, 2021, Lennon Image Technologies, LLC filed suit against Chanel S.A, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-01227), asserting infringement of US6624843B2. The accused product was Chanel’s Virtual Try-On Tool, accessible via chanel.com, which allows users to preview makeup products on a digital likeness. The patent at issue covers digital image processing techniques enabling virtual cosmetic application on a user’s image.
The case closed on February 5, 2024, when the court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Dismissal. All claims asserted by Lennon against Chanel and all counterclaims asserted by Chanel against Lennon were dismissed with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, strongly suggesting a private financial or licensing resolution underpins the dismissal.
At 803 days, the case ran well beyond what might be expected for a straightforward early resolution, suggesting meaningful litigation activity — including likely discovery and claim construction proceedings — before settlement. The mutual with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future re-litigation of the same claims by either party. The specific settlement terms remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to dismissal in 803 days
803 days — longer than the median patent case resolved by dismissal in W.D. Texas
Joint dismissal with prejudice — settlement agreement sealed
Joint motion for dismissal with prejudice
A joint motion signals that both plaintiff and defendant agreed to end the litigation. Dismissal ‘with prejudice’ means the claims are extinguished permanently — Lennon Image Technologies cannot reassert the same patent claims against Chanel in a future action. This is the standard vehicle for closing a case after a private settlement has been reached, without disclosing settlement terms on the public record.
Bars re-litigation on same claimsCourt retains jurisdiction — settlement almost certain
The dismissal order expressly states that the court retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the parties’ settlement agreement. This language is a strong indicator that a confidential financial or licensing arrangement was reached. Without this clause, retention of jurisdiction would be unnecessary. The specific terms — including any royalty, lump-sum payment, or licensing grant — are not publicly disclosed.
Private settlement underpins dismissalEach party bears its own costs — no prevailing party
The order requires each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This mutual cost allocation is typical in settled patent cases and avoids any inference as to which party held the stronger litigation position. It also signals that neither party sought or obtained an ‘exceptional case’ finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would have enabled a fee-shifting award against the opposing side.
No § 285 fee-shiftingChanel’s counterclaims also dismissed with prejudice
The dismissal covers not only Lennon’s infringement claims but also all counterclaims Chanel had asserted. Common counterclaims in patent infringement cases include invalidity and non-infringement declarations. Their with-prejudice dismissal means Chanel cannot pursue those counterclaims independently in the future. This mutual extinguishment reinforces the finality of the settlement and eliminates any residual invalidity cloud that a standalone counterclaim might have created.
Invalidity counterclaims also closedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lennon Image Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6624843B2, virtual image try-on technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chanel S.A, Inc. | Company | Chanel S.A, Inc. — global luxury fashion and beauty brand operating chanel.com virtual try-onSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher M. Joe | Attorney | Counsel for Lennon Image Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric W. Buether | Attorney | Counsel for Lennon Image Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth P. Kula | Attorney | Counsel for Lennon Image Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dakota Paul Kanetzky | Attorney | Counsel for Chanel S.A, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Geoffrey Mark Godfrey | Attorney | Counsel for Chanel S.A, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Cook Bernstein | Attorney | Counsel for Chanel S.A, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick J. McKeever | Attorney | Counsel for Chanel S.A, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Hawkins | Attorney | Counsel for Chanel S.A, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal order grants a joint motion, confirming bilateral agreement. The with-prejudice standard for both claims and counterclaims permanently bars re-litigation of the same issues by either side. The court’s explicit retention of jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is legally significant: it means any breach of the undisclosed settlement terms can be enforced directly in the same district court without new proceedings, giving both parties ongoing recourse.
US6624843B2 — digital virtual try-on and image overlay technology
US6624843B2, filed under application number US09/733197, covers digital image processing methods that enable virtual cosmetic or product application on a representation of a user’s likeness. The technology underpins interactive try-on experiences widely deployed in beauty e-commerce — where a user’s face or image is rendered with simulated makeup or accessories in real time or near-real time. The patent’s priority date places it among early-generation innovations in this space, predating the mass-market AR tools now standard across luxury and mass-market beauty platforms.
As virtual try-on becomes table-stakes infrastructure for beauty retail — deployed by brands from Chanel to Sephora to L’Oréal — foundational image-rendering patents carry outsized strategic value. Any company operating a try-on feature built on third-party SDKs or proprietary pipelines faces potential exposure if their implementation overlaps with the claim scope of US6624843B2 or its family members. The Chanel litigation demonstrates that even well-resourced defendants may find settlement commercially preferable to multi-year validity challenges.
Should your virtual try-on product be cleared against US6624843B2?
If your company operates an AR or digital try-on feature — whether for cosmetics, eyewear, apparel, or accessories — US6624843B2 is a patent your IP and product teams should have on their radar. The Chanel case shows that the patent has been asserted against a commercially deployed, consumer-facing try-on tool. Brands deploying white-label or proprietary virtual try-on solutions should confirm whether their implementation falls within the patent’s claim scope before launch or expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid claim-level analysis of US6624843B2, surfacing the specific claim elements most likely to read onto modern image-rendering pipelines. Eureka’s claim monitoring function can also alert your team if continuation or divisional applications in the same family publish or grant — extending your clearance horizon beyond the granted patent to capture prosecution-stage risk before it crystallises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6624843B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar virtual try-on and image-rendering patent cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the virtual try-on IP landscape
Virtual try-on technology is increasingly valuable to beauty and luxury brands — and increasingly targeted by patent assertions.
Virtual try-on features carry real patent litigation exposure
This case confirms that AR and digital image try-on tools deployed on e-commerce platforms are active litigation targets. Any beauty, fashion, or retail brand operating a virtual try-on feature should treat freedom-to-operate analysis on image-rendering patents as a baseline compliance step, not an optional exercise.
W.D. Texas remains a plaintiff-favoured venue for patent assertions
Filing in the Western District of Texas is a deliberate strategic choice by patent plaintiffs. The docket’s velocity and plaintiff-friendly history make early settlement more likely before claim construction. Defendants facing suit there should assess case-transfer motions under the post-Waco reform landscape as an early tactical option.
Lennon v Chanel — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion on February 5, 2024. All of Lennon’s infringement claims and Chanel’s counterclaims were extinguished. Each party bears its own costs. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce an undisclosed settlement agreement, suggesting a private resolution was reached.
Lennon asserted US6624843B2 (application no. US09/733197), a patent covering digital image processing methods for virtual cosmetic try-on. The accused product was Chanel’s Virtual Try-On Tool at chanel.com/us/makeup/virtual-makeup-try-on.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same patent claims against the same defendant. In this case, Lennon Image Technologies cannot assert US6624843B2 against Chanel again. Chanel’s counterclaims — typically seeking invalidity or non-infringement declarations — were also dismissed with prejudice.
The dismissal order states the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. This is standard practice when a case resolves via private settlement — it allows either party to return to the same court to enforce settlement terms without initiating fresh proceedings, without disclosing those terms publicly.
Lennon Image Technologies was represented by Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, with attorneys Christopher M. Joe, Eric W. Buether, and Kenneth P. Kula. Chanel was represented by Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Perkins Coie LLP, with attorneys including Dakota Paul Kanetzky, Geoffrey Mark Godfrey, Matthew Cook Bernstein, Patrick J. McKeever, and Ryan Hawkins.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.