US 11222448

Summary of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,448 B2

Verified against live search results (USPTO/PTAB records, E.D. Tex. docket, and press reports), which I prioritize over training data where they differ.

Core bibliographic data

Abstract (from the patent)

A method and apparatus for measuring a measurement of a two-dimensional (2D) pattern receives a plurality of points in a space in which a 2D pattern of clothing is displayed, determines an attribute of an area in which the points are included, measures a length of a line segment using the points based on the determined attribute of the area, and outputs the length of the line segment.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The claims section was not fully reproduced in the source text provided, so I rely on (a) the specification's summary, and (b) the verbatim quotation of claim 1 in the PTAB IPR2024-00980 petition (Ex. 1001 at 17:58–18:5). The patent appears to have both an independent method claim (claim 1) and an independent apparatus claim (per the summary, the apparatus claim reciting UI/processor/output device), plus dependent claims covering specific area attributes, arc measurement, strain-rate adjustment, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim.

• Independent method claim (claim 1, verbatim per IPR petition): A method of taking a measurement of a 2D pattern: (1) receive a plurality of points in a space in which a 2D clothing pattern is displayed; (2) determine attributes of the areas in which the points are located, indicating at least whether the points are in the same pattern piece or different pattern pieces; (3) determine a length of a line segment using the points based on those area attributes, changing the determined length to account for separation between pattern pieces when the points are in different pattern pieces; and (4) output the length. In plain terms: the invention measures fabric lengths on the flat 2D pattern rather than on deformed 3D virtual clothing, and when the two measured points sit in different pattern pieces, it subtracts the "gap" (the connection line crossing empty space between pieces) so the reported length corresponds to the assembled garment.

• Independent apparatus claim (per specification summary): An apparatus comprising a user interface (UI) to receive the plurality of points in the 2D-pattern display space, a processor to determine the attribute of the area containing the points and to measure the line-segment length based on that attribute, and an output device to output the length. In plain terms: the corresponding system/device implementation of the same measurement method.

• Dependent claim themes (per specification): five area-attribute categories (same pattern piece; two different pattern pieces; outer arc of the same pattern piece; pattern piece-to-empty space; all-empty space); first/second/third/fourth/fifth attribute measurement rules; recalculation when a point is moved; outer-arc length calculation from two mutually perpendicular line segments; strain-rate-based deformation of the measured length; and mesh/polygon mapping of points.

Litigation / PTAB status (with uncertainty noted)

• District court: CLO Virtual Fashion Inc. v. Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (Style3D/Linctex), E.D. Tex., No. 2:23-cv-00274, filed June 14, 2023, asserting this patent along with US 10,733,773 and US 11,410,355. Per PatSnap and press reports, the case was dismissed with prejudice on February 19, 2026 (Docket No. 322, joint motion) following a settlement; Linctex reportedly admitted infringement and validity of the three patents. (Note: some press reports are dated late August 2026; treat the exact settlement-announcement date with minor uncertainty.)
• PTAB/IPR: IPR2024-00980 (Zhejiang Lingdi v. CLO Virtual Fashion) challenged claims 1–4 and 14–18. Google Patents metadata labels it "Not Instituted – Merits," and the available PTAB decision excerpt ("Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the proposed combination of prior art would disclose each element of claim 1") is consistent with a denial of institution. However, one RPX record lists "Institution: 10/25/2024"; I could not fully reconcile these two characterizations, so the institution outcome should be verified against the PTAB docket directly.
• CAFC 2026 dockets: My searches returned no Federal Circuit appeal docket for this patent number. I found no indication of a CAFC 2026 appeal; the only identified proceedings are the E.D. Tex. case (now dismissed) and the PTAB IPR. If a CAFC appeal exists, it was not surfaced by the searches I ran, and I would flag that as unverified rather than assert its absence definitively.