Evidence of Copying Must Be Considered In Obviousness Analysis

05 November 2019 PharmaPatents Blog
Author(s): Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

In Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that failed to take into account evidence of copying in its obviousness analysis. The Federal Circuit emphasized that “where there is evidence of actual copying efforts, that evidence is always relevant.”

The Patent and Copying At Issue

The patent at issue was Liqwd’s U.S. Patent No. 9,498,419, directed to methods for bleaching hair. The independent claim at issue recited a method of bleaching hair using a formulation comprising maleic acid and a bleaching formulation.

L’Oreal challenged the validity of the patent in a Post-Grant Review proceeding before the PTAB. In response to L’Oreal’s obviousness assertions, Liqwd presented evidence that L’Oreal had copied its invention, as objective indicia of non-obviousness. The evidence included declarations and supporting records indicating that Liqwd had disclosed its then-unpublished patent application to L’Oreal under a non-disclosure agreement.

The PTAB Decision

The PTAB found that the evidence showed that “L’Oreal would not have developed products using maleic acid without having access to Liqwd’s confidential information.” Nevertheless, the PTAB “determined the evidence of copying was irrelevant as a matter of law because Liqwd had not shown that L’Oreal copied a specific product.” Rejecting Liqwd’s other arguments, the PTAB held that the prior art cited by L’Oreal rendered the claims obvious.

The Federal Circuit Decision

The Federal Circuit decision was authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll.

The Federal Circuit addressed the Iron Grip Barbell case relied upon by the PTAB, and acknowledged that the decision in that case stated that “copying requires the replication of a specific product.” The Federal Circuit explained that that language stemmed from the principle that, to establish copying, “more is needed than merely showing that similarity exists between the patent and the competitor’s accused product.” The Federal Circuit reviewed its body of precedent on copying and concluded:

In each case, the question of legal relevancy was determined by whether there was actual evidence of copying efforts as opposed to mere allegations regarding similarities between the accused product and a patent; the focus was not whether the copying efforts involved a “specific product.”

The Federal Circuit noted further that access to a granted patent or published article describing the invention has been used to support a finding of copying.

The Federal Circuit concluded that, because the PTAB had found that “L’Oreal used maleic acid because of L’Oreal’s access to Liqwd’s confidential information,” it erred in disregarding that evidence when making its obviousness determination. The Federal Circuit therefore vacated the PTAB decision, and remanded with instructions for the PTAB to “consider this evidence in its obviousness analysis.”

The Limits Of A Non-Disclosure Agreement

In addition to shedding more light on the value of evidence of copying in an obviousness analysis, this case highlights the risks of disclosing an invention to a possible competitor. Here, it appears that L’Oreal was considering purchasing Liqwd’s technology when the confidential information was disclosed. According to the Federal Circuit opinion, L’Oreal “lost interest” in that transaction, but went on to “develop its own products.”

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.