istock-903857670_krblokhin
17 January 2018Patents

Federal Circuit sets aside decision in L’Oréal patent case

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has set aside a decision that rejected a patent injunction against L’Oréal USA.

Last year, hair treatment company Olaplex alleged that L’Oréal sold products that directly compete with Olaplex’s in the hair care market and sued L’Oréal for patent infringement before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

Olaplex claimed that, in 2014, it introduced a new hair care product category called “bond builders”.

Olaplex licenses US patent number 9,498,419 from Liqwd. The ‘419 patent covers a method of bleaching hair by applying a combination of bleaching formula with a formulation containing an active agent that reduces or repairs damage to the keratin proteins of hair.

The claims of the patent are limited to maleic acid (or its salts) as the active ingredient and further require that “the mixture does not contain a hair colouring agent”, according to the Federal Circuit.

Olaplex said that three of L’Oréal’s products directly infringed and induced infringement of the ‘419 patent by their use and instructions for use.

A preliminary injunction requested by Olaplex was denied in July 2017. The court ruled that L’Oréal’s products do not infringe Olaplex’s and that Olaplex  “failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claims”.

However, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the district court erred in its claim construction.

The focus of the dispute concerns the proper construction of the term “hair colouring agent”. L’Oréal argued that its mixture does not contain a hair colouring agent because the concentration is so diluted. However, Olaplex said that the term should mean “a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the colour or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection”.

Olaplex highlighted that hair colouring agents may not actually colour hair, while hair dye must.

According to the Federal Circuit, the district court said the mixture did not contain a hair colouring agent and therefore the construction excluded L’Oréal’s products.

The Federal Circuit ruled it does not agree with the district court’s denial for a preliminary injunction and that further proceedings will be conducted.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.

Today’s top stories

Patent cases to US districts courts decline in Q4 2017: study

Argentina seeks to simplify trademark processes

English court rules against easyGroup in EasyRoommate dispute

Ipan brings in new CEO

Mewburn Ellis hires partner in Munich

Complete our  Reader Survey and tell us what you think about WIPR for a chance win a corporate subscription worth £2450.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Patents
25 November 2016   Two hair treatment companies have named cosmetics company L’Oreal USA in a patent infringement lawsuit.
Patents
6 February 2018   Cosmetics brand L’Oréal secured a patent infringement win yesterday at the English High Court.
Patents
12 June 2018   The English High Court has said that Smartbond Step 1, a hair repair product sold by cosmetics brand L’Oréal, infringes a patent licensed by California-based Olaplex.