In a decisive first-instance ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed all patent infringement claims brought by Select Research, Ltd. against Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliated entities, including Body Labs, LLC, Amazon EU S.à.r.l., and Amazon.com Services, LLC. Filed on September 27, 2023 and closed just 307 days later on July 30, 2024, the case centered on three patents — US11631501B2, US11676728B2, and US8374671B2 — covering body composition analysis, body scanning, and body volume calculation technologies allegedly embodied in Amazon’s Halo health platform. Chief Judge Sean D. Jordan signed the order directing dismissal of all plaintiff claims.

This dismissal carries meaningful implications for IP strategists operating in the digital health and body-measurement technology space. Companies developing body-scanning hardware, health-data aggregation apps, or wearable health indicators should closely monitor the claim scope of these patents, which remain in force despite the litigation’s conclusion. The outcome signals that plaintiffs asserting body-scanning IP against vertically integrated technology companies face substantial procedural and substantive hurdles, and underscores the importance of pre-litigation claim mapping against sophisticated, multi-entity defendants like Amazon.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The three patents at issue — US11631501B2, US11676728B2, and US8374671B2 — collectively cover systems and methods for capturing, processing, and analyzing human body measurements using cameras, scanners, and computing devices to generate body composition and volume data. Key claims encompass body composition databases, body volume calculators, and the integration of health-indicating devices with first and second computing devices, technologies that map closely to Amazon Halo’s smartphone-based body scan and wearable health features. These inventions have real-world applications in personalized health monitoring, fitness tracking, and apparel sizing, making them strategically significant across consumer health tech and e-commerce.

• • US11631501B2
• • US11676728B2
• • US8374671B2

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Gillam & Smith, LLP; Merchant & Gould PC (lead: Donald R. McPhail)
Defendant Counsel: Hueston Henningan, LLP (CA); Hueston Henningan LLP (Newport Beach); Latham & Watkins LLP; The Dacus Firm PC (lead: Christina Marie Von der Ahe)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs for its streamlined docket management and plaintiff-friendly procedural history, though recent years have seen defendants mount increasingly successful early dispositive motions there. As a first-instance district court matter presided over by Chief Judge Sean D. Jordan, the case never reached a jury trial or appellate review, meaning all substantive and procedural decisions rested with the trial court alone — a posture that placed significant weight on early motion practice.

The case resolved in 307 days — approximately ten months — a pace that falls within the shorter-to-mid range for patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting the matter was resolved on motion rather than proceeding to a full Markman hearing and trial. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed,’ and the court’s order explicitly dismissed all of Select Research’s claims against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, denied all remaining relief, and directed the clerk to close the civil action. The absence of disclosed damages or injunctive relief awards is consistent with a dismissal on dispositive motion grounds rather than a merits verdict, though the specific legal basis of the dispositive ruling — whether grounded in invalidity, non-infringement, eligibility, or standing — is not specified in the public record.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Eastern District of Texas dismissed all of Select Research, Ltd.’s patent infringement claims against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by Chief Judge Sean D. Jordan on July 30, 2024. No damages were awarded to the plaintiff, no injunctive relief was granted, and all remaining relief requested by Select Research was denied. The case was closed without a determination on the merits of infringement or validity being publicly disclosed in the available record.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The court’s dismissal of Select Research’s infringement action rested on grounds set forth in the Memorandum Opinion, and the following legal and procedural factors are instructive in understanding how this outcome arose.

• The verdict cause is recorded as an Infringement Action, meaning Select Research asserted that Amazon’s Halo platform — including the app, wearable, body scanner, body composition database, and body volume calculator — directly infringed one or more claims of US11631501B2, US11676728B2, and US8374671B2.
• The case was terminated by dismissal rather than a jury verdict or bench trial ruling, which typically indicates the court granted a dispositive motion such as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or a motion for summary judgment — though the specific procedural vehicle is not identified in the available public record.
• Amazon’s defense involved four attorneys across four law firms — Hueston Hennigan LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, and The Dacus Firm PC — reflecting a well-resourced, multi-front defense strategy that is characteristic of Big Tech defendants employing parallel invalidity, non-infringement, and eligibility arguments.
• The inclusion of Body Labs, LLC as a co-defendant is particularly notable given Amazon’s acquisition of that company specifically for its 3D body-modeling technology, suggesting Select Research’s infringement theory targeted the technical origins of Amazon Halo’s body-scanning functionality.

Legal Significance

1. The dismissal reinforces that patent holders asserting body-scanning and health-composition patents against vertically integrated technology platforms must survive rigorous early dispositive motion practice, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas where defendants increasingly use Rule 12 motions to challenge claim plausibility and § 101 eligibility at the pleading stage.
2. Because the case was resolved at the first-instance district court level without appellate review, the court’s Memorandum Opinion — while not binding precedent — may carry persuasive weight in subsequent body-scanning or health-data patent disputes, particularly those involving similar product architectures combining smartphone cameras, wearables, and cloud databases.
3. The multi-defendant structure naming Amazon.com, Inc., Body Labs, LLC, Amazon EU S.à.r.l., and Amazon.com Services, LLC signals that plaintiffs in health-tech patent cases are increasingly pursuing corporate families across jurisdictions, a strategy courts may scrutinize for proper claim mapping and per-defendant infringement specificity.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When drafting infringement contentions against multi-entity technology defendants, ensure each accused product and each defendant entity is mapped individually to specific patent claims — Amazon’s multi-subsidiary structure here likely required plaintiff to prove distinct infringing acts by each named entity.
• Given the dismissal outcome without trial, consider prioritizing claim construction positioning and § 101 eligibility proofing during prosecution of body-scanning patents, since Amazon-type defendants routinely challenge abstract idea characterizations of health-data processing claims at the pleading stage.
• The Eastern District of Texas venue selection, while still plaintiff-favorable in many contexts, increasingly yields early dismissals in cases against well-resourced Big Tech defendants; practitioners should evaluate IPR petition risk and § 101 vulnerability of asserted patents before filing in this district.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house IP teams at health-tech and wearable companies should monitor the docket for Amazon’s Memorandum Opinion and Order in this matter, as the court’s specific grounds for dismissal may reveal exploitable weaknesses or claim construction positions relevant to freedom-to-operate analysis of US11631501B2, US11676728B2, and US8374671B2.
• Portfolio managers at companies developing body-composition or scanning products should benchmark their own patent claims against Select Research’s three asserted patents to identify white-space claim strategies and assess whether continuation filings could capture design-around implementations used by Amazon’s Halo platform.

For R&D Teams:

• R&D teams building body-scanning, body-composition, or health-indicator products should conduct a targeted FTO analysis against US11631501B2, US11676728B2, and US8374671B2 — all three patents remain in force, and the litigation’s dismissal does not extinguish their enforceability against other parties.
• Engineering teams developing products that combine a camera-based body scanner with a health-indicating wearable device and cloud-based body composition database — an architecture closely mirroring the accused Amazon Halo stack — should document design choices that distinguish their implementation from the specific claim language of the asserted patents.