Zugara v. Revlon: AR Makeup Try-On Patent Action Dismissed With Prejudice
Zugara, Inc. brought a patent infringement claim against Revlon Consumer Products LLC in the Middle District of Florida, asserting US10482517B2 against Revlon’s augmented reality ‘Virtually Try-On’ lipstick and makeup features. The case closed with prejudice just 94 days after filing — a timeline that typically signals a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal.
AR beauty patent claim ends with prejudice in under 100 days
Zugara, Inc. filed suit against Revlon Consumer Products LLC on July 29, 2025 in the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 3:25-cv-00857), asserting infringement of US10482517B2. The asserted patent relates to augmented reality technology, and the accused products include Revlon’s ‘Virtually Try-On’ module for lipstick and makeup, as well as AR advertisement features enabling real-time camera-based virtual product application on a user’s face.
On October 31, 2025, Zugara filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law — Zugara cannot re-file the same claims against Revlon based on the same patent and accused products.
The 94-day lifespan is notably short for a patent infringement action, suggesting the parties likely reached an agreement — whether a license, covenant not to sue, or settlement — before any substantive court proceedings could develop. No financial terms, licensing arrangement, or fee award appear in the public docket, and the precise commercial resolution remains unknown from publicly available records.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 94 days
94 days — faster than the M.D. Florida median for patent cases, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 means for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to unilateral dismissal
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Adding ‘with prejudice’ converts the dismissal into a final judgment on the merits. The court here simply directed the clerk to close the case — consistent with purely ministerial processing of the plaintiff’s own filing.
Plaintiff-initiated, final dispositionWith prejudice: Zugara cannot re-assert these claims against Revlon
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Zugara is permanently barred from re-filing infringement claims based on US10482517B2 against Revlon’s accused AR try-on products in any U.S. federal court. This is a significantly stronger form of closure than a dismissal without prejudice, which would have preserved Zugara’s right to re-file within the statute of limitations.
Permanent bar on re-filingRevlon secured permanent resolution — on unknown terms
Revlon exits this litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning its AR try-on features face no further litigation exposure from Zugara under this patent. Whether Revlon paid a lump-sum license, granted a cross-license, or successfully negotiated a covenant not to sue is not disclosed in the public record. The engagement of Baker Botts LLP — a firm with deep patent litigation experience — suggests Revlon was prepared to defend vigorously if needed.
Full litigation release securedAR beauty tech: patent risk remains live for other operators
US10482517B2 survives this action fully intact — it was never challenged on validity. Other cosmetics brands and AR platform providers deploying virtual try-on features, live-camera makeup overlays, or AR-enabled ad units face ongoing exposure to this patent. The swift resolution suggests the patent may carry licensing value, and Zugara may pursue similar claims against other defendants in the beauty and AR advertising sector.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Zugara, Inc. | Company | Augmented reality technology licensor — holder of US10482517B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Revlon Consumer Products LLC | Company | Revlon Consumer Products LLC — global cosmetics brand with AR-enabled digital toolsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian R. Gilchrist | Attorney | Counsel for Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James F. McDonough , III. | Attorney | Counsel for Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski | Attorney | Counsel for Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristin M. Whidby | Attorney | Counsel for Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, & Gilchrist, PA | Law Firm | Representing Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Heninger Garrison & Davis LLC | Law Firm | Representing Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Zugara, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brenton Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Cook Bernstein | Attorney | Counsel for Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Sellars | Attorney | Counsel for Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Thane Bauz | Attorney | Counsel for Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen R. Senn | Attorney | Counsel for Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bernstein IP Strategy | Law Firm | Representing Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Peterson & Myers PA | Law Firm | Representing Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Peterson and Myers, P.A. | Law Firm | Representing Revlon Consumer Products LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely ministerial — it records Zugara’s unilateral invocation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and directs case closure. No judicial merits analysis, validity ruling, or claim construction is embedded in the text. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the operative legal consequence: it transforms the voluntary act into a final judgment, binding Zugara against re-asserting these specific claims against Revlon on the same patent. The order does not speak to any agreed terms between the parties.
US10482517B2 — augmented reality virtual try-on for cosmetics
US10482517B2, filed under application number US14/936444, covers augmented reality technology enabling users to virtually try on cosmetic products — such as lipstick and makeup — via live camera feeds in real time. The patent sits at the intersection of computer vision, AR overlay rendering, and e-commerce UX, a technology stack that has become foundational to beauty brand digital retail strategies over the past several years.
The commercial significance of this patent is amplified by the rapid adoption of AR try-on features across the cosmetics industry. Major brands including Sephora, L’Oréal, and numerous DTC beauty companies have built AR-enabled try-on into their apps and websites. US10482517B2 — having survived this action with its validity fully intact — represents a credible enforcement asset for any operator whose AR implementation falls within the claimed methods. Competitor risk assessment should extend beyond Revlon to any platform using live-camera AR for cosmetics recommendation.
Should you run an FTO against US10482517B2?
If your product team is building or has already deployed augmented reality virtual try-on features for cosmetics, skincare, or beauty products — including live-camera overlays, real-time colour mapping, or AR-enabled advertising units — US10482517B2 is a patent you need to evaluate. This case confirms Zugara is an active enforcer willing to sue established brands, and the patent emerged from this litigation with zero validity challenge on record.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your product’s feature set against the independent and dependent claims of US10482517B2, identify relevant prior art that could inform a design-around or IPR petition, and surface any continuation or related applications in Zugara’s portfolio that may present additional exposure. Run a structured FTO now to inform your product roadmap and litigation risk assessment before a demand letter forces reactive decision-making.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10482517B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar AR and cosmetics patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving augmented reality try-on and cosmetics technology patents litigated in U.S. federal district courts, with comparable enforcement and dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the AR beauty and cosmetics IP landscape
A 94-day with-prejudice close in M.D. Florida typically reflects commercial settlement — and confirms the patent is still in play.
US10482517B2 was never invalidated — exposure persists across the sector
Because the case ended before any validity challenge was filed or adjudicated, US10482517B2 carries its full presumption of validity. Any brand or platform deploying augmented reality virtual try-on for cosmetics — particularly live-camera overlays — should assess its FTO exposure against this patent now, not after receiving a demand letter.
Speed of resolution is a signal, not a guarantee of low value
Patent cases that close within 100 days are often read as weak-merits filings. But a with-prejudice dismissal equally suggests a paid resolution. Zugara’s deployment of three law firms — Allen Dyer, Heninger Garrison & Davis, and Rozier Hardt McDonough — signals serious litigation preparation, not a demand-letter shakedown.
Zugara v Revlon — key questions answered
Zugara, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Revlon Consumer Products LLC in the Middle District of Florida on July 29, 2025, asserting US10482517B2 against Revlon’s AR virtual try-on makeup features. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Zugara on October 31, 2025, just 94 days after filing, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) constitutes a final judgment on the merits. Zugara is permanently barred from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Revlon based on US10482517B2 and the accused AR try-on products. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, there is no opportunity to re-file within the limitations period.
US10482517B2 (application no. US14/936444) covers augmented reality technology for virtual cosmetics try-on, including live-camera real-time overlay of makeup products such as lipstick on a user’s face. The patent is relevant to AR try-on features deployed in beauty brand apps, websites, and digital advertising units.
No. The case closed before any validity challenge was adjudicated or even formally filed. US10482517B2 retains its full statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. The patent remains an active enforcement asset and Zugara is not precluded from asserting it against other defendants.
The dismissal with prejudice binds only Zugara and Revlon with respect to the accused products. Other companies deploying augmented reality virtual try-on features for cosmetics — whether in apps, websites, or AR ad units — remain exposed to potential enforcement of US10482517B2 by Zugara. The rapid resolution of this case does not diminish the patent’s enforceability against third parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.