On October 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made decision in Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. On January 31, 2017, L’Oreal USA, Inc. filed a petition for post-grant review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) regarding a patent belonging to Liqwd, Inc. The patent belonging to Liqwd, Inc. is U.S. Patent No. 9,498,419 (“the ‘419 patent”), and relates to formulations and methods of treating hair, skin, or nails. L’Oreal posited that claims 1-6, 8, and 10 of the ‘419 patent were anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,044,986 (“Ogawa”). L’Oreal also posited that claims 1-8 and 10 were obvious in view of Ogawa or in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0189034 (“Kitabata”) in combination with German (“Berkemer”) and Korean (“KR ‘564”) Patent Publications. Upon review, the Board determined that the ‘419 patent was not anticipated by Ogawa but determined that the ‘419 patent was obvious in view of Ogawa, Berkemer, and KR ‘564. Thus, the Board determined that claims 1-8 and 10 were invalid because they are obvious in view of the prior art.

The Board also weighed evidence relating to objective indicia of non-obviousness, particularly long-felt need and copying. The Board determined that there was no long-felt need satisfied by the ‘419 patent. In regard to copying, the Board determined that L’Oreal did in fact copy Liqwd, stating that L’Oreal would not have been able to develop products containing maleic acid without access to Liqwd’s confidential information disclosed in an unpublished application (“the ‘885 patent application). However, the Board decided that the factual finding of copying was irrelevant as a matter of law because Liqwd did not provide a specific product showing proof of copying. Liqwd appealed the Board’s obviousness decision. The Federal Circuit vacates the obviousness decision for the Board’s error in disregarding the evidence of copying on the part of L’Oreal. The Federal Circuit remands the case to the Board for further analysis.


Naturally, the Federal Circuit performed an analysis of all the Board’s final determinations, as described below:

1.     Objective Evidence: Indicia and Copying. In the appeal before the Federal Circuit, Liqwd argues that the Board erred in its determination that L’Oreal’s copying of Liqwd’s unpublished ‘885 patent application did not qualify as an objective indicium of non-obviousness. The Board determined that L’Oreal adopted the use of maleic acid in its formulations because of L’Oreal’s access to the ‘885 patent application, but the Board disregarded this finding in its obviousness determination. L’Oreal responds to Liqwd’s argument stating that because Liqwd did not present a specific product containing the maleic acid, there is no evidence of copying by L’Oreal. The Federal Circuit concludes that the Board’s dismissal of the evidence of copying was error. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that objective indicia of copying may be the most probative evidence of non-obviousness. The Federal Circuit holds that more evidence than simply showing similarities between two competitors’ products is needed to prove copying, which is a major factor in the Federal Circuit’s disagreement with the Board.

The Federal Circuit tries to avoid treating instances of mere patent infringement as copying simply because the claims of a patent are similar to a competitor product. In the event that objective evidence of copying is presented to show non-obviousness, it must be proven that a nexus exists between the evidence and the claimed features of the invention. In this particular case, evidence of actual copying by L’Oreal was present, and so that evidence must be held relevant in an obviousness determination.

2.     Obviousness Determination: Remand to the Board. The evidence of copying presented to the Board included a L’Oreal email referring to a non-disclosure agreement and a planned meeting in May 2015 involving Liqwd’s founder and inventors involved with the ‘419 patent. During that meeting, L’Oreal was provided with a copy of the then-confidential ‘885 patent application, which disclosed the method of using maleic acid. The purpose of the meeting was L’Oreal’s interest in purchasing Liqwd’s technology, but this interest was subsequently lost. However, L’Oreal’s later use of maleic acid proved to the Board, and to the Federal Circuit as well, that L’Oreal copied Liqwd’s method. Because the Board dismissed this finding of evidence of copying, the Federal Circuit affirms Liqwd’s contention that the Board erred and that this evidence is indeed relevant to an obviousness determination.

For the reasons above, the Federal Circuit does not affirm the Board’s final determination that claims 1-8 and 10 of the ‘419 patent are invalid due to obviousness. The Federal Circuit vacates the Board’s obviousness decision and remands the case to the Board to complete a subsequent obviousness analysis and consider the evidence of copying. The Federal Circuit requires that all pieces of evidence be fully considered, and each be given its appropriate weight in this case.


Objective evidence, such as indicia of copying, should always be fully considered and given the appropriate weight when anticipation or obviousness analyses are being conducted. Indicia of copying may be able to prove the non-obviousness of a claim or set of claims in a patent. Objective evidence of copying need not solely be in the form of a particular product and may be indicated via copying efforts. In this particular case, the copying efforts were indicated by the presentation of emails, meeting discussions, and disclosure of confidential information. It should also be understood that infringement is not a clear indication of copying. While a competitor product may infringe on a patent’s claims, there must be clear evidence of copying efforts, which cannot be coincidental, as may be in the case of infringement.

Full Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. decision can be read here: 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed throughout this blog are the views and opinions of the individual author(s) and/or contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of our firm, CIONCA IP Law. P.C.


  • Marin11/18/2015 6:11:11 PM

    PTAB Decisions Give Examples of Patent Eligible Subject Matter

  • Marin11/18/2015 6:15:40 PM

    Covered Business Method Claims Are Not Required to Particularly Target Financial Industry

  • Marin11/18/2015 7:31:35 PM

    When Is a Thesis Prior Art?

  • Marin11/19/2015 2:13:05 PM

    An Innovator’s Dilemma: Design or Utility Patent?

  • Marin1/28/2016 9:10:56 PM

    How Unpredictability Can Affect Obviousness Challenges

  • Marin1/28/2016 9:15:16 PM

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Two Decisions as Precedential

  • M. Cionca and I. Kim2/4/2016 5:55:16 PM

    Software Inventions Are Still Patentable!

  • Marin Cionca2/16/2016 6:34:53 PM

    In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable

  • I. Kim PhD2/26/2016 8:47:51 PM

    The U.S. Supreme Court Will Review Claim Construction Standards and Institution Decision Reviewability.

  • Iris Kim, PhD3/25/2016 8:34:14 PM

    Challenging a Claim’s Validity with Different Standards of Claim Construction

  • Marin Cionca5/17/2016 8:57:23 PM

    Patent Claims Rejection Based on Inherency

  • Iris Kim, PhD6/1/2016 7:04:50 PM

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Five More Decisions as Precedential

  • Marin Cionca9/6/2016 9:26:12 PM

    Patent Case Law: New Example of Software as Patentable Subject Matter

  • Marin Cionca9/15/2016 9:47:39 PM

    Patent Law Alert: Federal Circuit Opens Door for More Software Patents

  • Marin Cionca2/21/2017 12:30:52 AM

    Software Patent Law Update: Federal Circuit Finds Graphical User Interface Patentable

  • Marin Cionca4/25/2017 9:48:49 PM

    Monetization of Patents: How to Make Money with Patents

  • CIONCA - Staff6/15/2017 5:32:14 PM

    Patent Law: Challenging the Patent Claim Definiteness Requirement

  • CIONCA - Staff6/28/2017 8:26:07 PM

    Patent Law: Conditions Precedent May Expose Method Claim to Broad Interpretation During Prosecution

  • CIONCA - Staff8/9/2017 5:39:58 PM

    Patent Case Study: The Novelty Of An “Invention” Is NOT Enough To Make It Patentable

  • CIONCA Staff8/20/2017 3:16:11 PM

    CIONCA on Patents: Think Twice Before Suing for Patent Infringement and Fight Back when Unreasonably Sued

  • staff9/15/2017 9:33:30 PM


  • staff9/27/2017 5:00:12 PM

    Claim Indefiniteness During Patent Pre-Issuance: Define Your Invention, Not Just Your Audience

  • staff9/27/2017 5:12:07 PM

    CIONCA - Patent and Trademark Law Attorney

  • Staff9/28/2017 7:27:22 PM


  • Staff11/3/2017 4:20:04 PM

    An Introduction to Provisional Patent Applications

  • 11/10/2017 6:47:44 PM

    An Introduction to Design Patent Applications

  • 11/17/2017 1:24:20 PM

    An Introduction to Patent Searches

  • 12/1/2017 8:01:27 PM

    An Introduction to Patent Cooperation Treaty Applications

  • 12/26/2017 6:04:25 PM

    CIONCA Sets Foot in San Francisco

  • 1/2/2018 7:47:09 PM

    The Lanham Act: Disparagement Provision Violates the First Amendment

  • CIONCA Team1/17/2018 8:12:06 PM

    A Fork in the Road: Production or Protection?

  • CIONCA Team2/16/2018 4:07:48 PM

    Fashion and Intellectual Property

  • 3/8/2018 1:25:46 PM

    Proceed with Caution: Consider Carefully when Narrowing Claims for Allowance

  • 3/20/2018 12:50:05 PM

    Andrei Iancu - New Director of the USPTO

  • CIONCA Staff4/13/2018 9:10:04 PM

    It Take Two to Tango: Knowles v. Iancu, a Standing Dispute in a PTAB Decision

  • CIONCA Staff4/20/2018 5:25:25 PM

    USPTO Changes Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility in View of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.

  • 5/4/2018 7:37:51 PM

    The Hague System for Protection of International Designs

  • CIONCA IP5/17/2018 9:54:58 PM

    Marin Cionca Presents at OCIPLA May 2018 Luncheon

  • 7/3/2018 7:44:33 PM

    Impax Laboratories Inc. v Lannett Holdings Inc. on Claim Invalidation

  • Marin Cionca7/31/2018 6:50:05 PM

    My patent expired? Can I still sue for patent infringement?

  • Staff8/16/2018 4:24:01 PM

    Correcting or Changing a Patent After Issue Through the Central Reexamination Unit

  • Staff8/31/2018 7:26:58 PM

    Patent Claim Interpretation By Federal Circuit's on Facebook's Contiguous Image Layout

  • CIONCA Team Member9/17/2018 4:33:20 PM

    Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion: Federal Circuit’s Decision in In re: Detroit Athletic Co.

  • Marin Cionca10/1/2018 7:42:12 PM

    Can I Register a Color as a Trademark or Service Mark?

  • CIONCA Team Member10/16/2018 6:50:31 PM

    A Double-Edged Sword: Benefit of Priority or Longer Patent Term

  • CIONCA Team Member11/19/2018 1:07:51 PM

    The Appeals Process

  • Marin Cionca12/8/2018 8:35:06 PM

    IP Assets - Procurement, Enforcement, Monetization

  • CIONCA Team Member12/18/2018 6:12:48 PM

    Schlafly v. The Saint Louis Brewery: The Registration of Merely a Surname

  • CIONCA Team Member1/4/2019 4:12:21 PM

    In re: Tropp: New Matter in a Continuation Can Be Relevant to Written Description Requirement

  • Marin Cionca1/23/2019 9:45:30 PM

    Patent Law Alert: All Sales of the Invention, Including Secret Sales May Invalidate a Patent

  • CIONCA Team Member2/5/2019 7:22:27 PM

    TiVo Puts Tivoli on Pause: TTAB’s Decision in TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC

  • CIONCA Team Member2/19/2019 7:12:46 PM

    Revised Guidance by USPTO on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claims

  • Marin Cionca3/1/2019 9:36:50 PM

    USPTO Director Andrei Iancu Visits Orange County!

  • CIONCA Team Member3/21/2019 3:49:43 PM

    Defining Inherency: A Decision in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

  • CIONCA Team Member4/3/2019 7:25:37 PM

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Designates Three Decisions Precedential

  • Marin Cionca4/17/2019 3:48:33 PM

    What Qualifies as Proper Use in Commerce Claim in a USPTO Trademark Application?

  • CIONCA Team Member5/7/2019 7:13:41 PM

    The Federal Circuit Defines a Technological Invention

  • CIONCA Team Member5/20/2019 8:25:57 PM

    PTAB Designates Cases as Precedential

  • Marin Cionca6/11/2019 8:43:17 PM

    Can I Successfully License My Invention?

  • CIONCA Team Member6/27/2019 7:41:52 PM

    Obviousness in a Single Prior Art Instance: Game and Technology Co., LTD., v. Activision Blizzard INC., Riot Games, INC.

  • CIONCA Team Member7/5/2019 2:22:42 PM

    In re: Global IP Holdings LLC: Broadening Claims Through Reissue Applications

  • CIONCA Team Member8/5/2019 2:29:33 PM

    Is Speculation Enough Evidence for an Appeal?: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation

  • CIONCA Team Member8/19/2019 7:46:17 PM

    In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC: Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinction

  • CIONCA Team Member9/4/2019 7:20:46 PM

    Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission: Objective Boundaries

  • Marin Cionca9/27/2019 9:32:48 PM

    Can an Online Patent Attorney File My Patent?

  • CIONCA IP10/7/2019 5:44:50 PM

    A Decision in Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC

  • CIONCA IP10/16/2019 1:28:13 PM

    To Use or Not to Use: The Statutory Period of Trademark Nonuse Prior to Presumed Abandonment

  • 11/15/2019 8:15:11 PM

    Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.: Objective Indicia and Copying

  • Marin Cionca12/9/2019 8:07:20 PM

    A “glove” approach to patent claim construction

  • CIONCA IP 12/31/2019 4:29:41 PM

    The Chamberlain Group, INC. v. One World Technologies, INC.

  • CIONCA IP 1/9/2020 4:43:58 PM

    The Bigger Picture: TTAB’s Decision in In re James Haden, M.D., P.A.

  • CIONCA IP 1/15/2020 4:47:19 PM

    FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC: Presumption of Nexus

  • Marin Cionca2/9/2020 7:46:10 PM

    Analogous Prior Art or Not? A critical patent obviousness question

  • CIONCA IP3/10/2020 7:45:30 PM

    Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc.

  • CIONCA IP3/16/2020 8:43:10 PM

    GS CleanTech Corporation v. Adkins Energy, LLC: Inequitable Conduct


Marin Cionca, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

USPTO Reg. No. 63899



About CIONCA® IP Law firm: We are an Orange County, CA based boutique intellectual property firm with a focus on patent and trademark application, prosecution, opinion, licensing and IP enforcement services, offering its IP services primarily at flat fee rates. We serve local OC clients, as well as clients throughout US and international clients.


Let’s talk!

We’d love to hear from you…we just need a little info
about your plans to take over the world!

P.S…Feel free to call us! (800)985-9198