FreshLook Sues IRDB in Houston and Smartify in Marshall on an Image-Matching Communicative-Action Patent.

The complaints

The cases are FreshLook LLC v. IRDB LLC, No. 4:26-cv-09438 (S.D. Tex.), filed in the Houston Division, and FreshLook LLC v. Smartify CIC, No. 2:26-cv-00968 (E.D. Tex.), filed in the Marshall Division. Each is a five-page complaint for patent infringement filed October 26, 2026, ECF No. 1. The Eastern District of Texas docket lists Judge Rodney Gilstrap as the assigned judge, with the case referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Each complaint says FreshLook LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Mexico with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The IRDB complaint says IRDB LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Wyoming with an established place of business in Conroe, Texas. The Smartify complaint says Smartify CIC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom with an established place of business in London, United Kingdom. Both complaints are signed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC in Chicago, Illinois.

Jurisdiction and venue

Both complaints plead subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a), and personal jurisdiction because the defendant has engaged in systematic and continuous business activities in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there. The IRDB complaint pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) because IRDB has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there. The Smartify complaint pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) because Smartify is a foreign corporation. Each alleges that FreshLook has suffered harm in the district.

The '276 patent

Each complaint identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,900,276, titled "System and method for launching submitting-user-defined communicative action based on image matching," and says it issued on February 20, 2018, from an application filed on April 18, 2016. Each alleges that FreshLook is the assignee of all right, title and interest in the patent, including the right to enforce it. USPTO assignment records show the two named inventors assigning the application to Red Gun Technologies, Inc. in an assignment executed July 28, 2016 and recorded August 9, 2016 (Reel/Frame 039378/0317), and Red Gun Technologies assigning the patent to FreshLook in an assignment executed September 13, 2026 and recorded September 22, 2026 (Reel/Frame 076104/0739). The patent carries a 201-day term adjustment, and Google Patents lists an adjusted expiration date of November 5, 2036.

U.S. Patent 9,900,276 covers methods and a web server for launching communicative actions based on image matching. Independent claim 1 requires receiving a first image and one or more communicative actions from a first user, registering the image and those actions in an image repository, receiving a second image from a second user, determining whether the second image is substantially the same as the first image or is a photographic depiction of it, notifying the second user if there is no match, and launching the first user's registered communicative actions if there is a match. Independent claim 12 claims a web server whose processor is operative to perform corresponding steps. A certificate of correction issued May 5, 2026 changes the preambles of the claims that depend from claim 12 from "the method of" to "the web server of."

The infringement allegations

Each complaint pleads one count. Each alleges direct infringement of one or more claims of the '276 patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing exemplary defendant products identified in attached charts, and by employees' internal testing and use of those products. Each alleges, on information and belief, that numerous other devices that infringe the claims have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by the defendant and/or its customers, and alleges that service of the complaint, together with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement. Each alleges induced infringement at least since service of the complaint and the corresponding claim charts. The Smartify complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that Smartify has continued to sell the exemplary products and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users to use its products in a manner that infringes. Each complaint says Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the exemplary claims to the exemplary products. The claim charts, which identify the exemplary claims and products, are not on the public docket in either case.

The relief sought

Each prayer asks for a judgment that the '276 patent is valid and enforceable, a judgment that the defendant has infringed directly and indirectly one or more claims, an accounting of damages not presented at trial, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 for continuing or future infringement up until judgment with pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 with reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and further relief at law or in equity. Each complaint demands a jury under Rule 38(b).

What to watch next

Watch for service on IRDB LLC and on Smartify CIC, a United Kingdom corporation, and for answers or Rule 12 motions.