Future Brightens for Quinn Emanuel Hair Treatment Case
Judge Joseph Bataillon says he will enjoin L'Oreal from marketing products that infringe a patent held by Olaplex LLC—notwithstanding a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding the patent invalid.
May 07, 2019 at 05:47 PM
3 minute read
Getting an injunction isn't easy in the post-eBay v. Mercexchange era.
But getting one on a patent that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has declared invalid—that is saying something.
A Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan team led by partner Joseph Paunovich pulled off the feat last week for Santa Barbara, California-based startup Olaplex LLC in a hard-fought battle with beauty giant L'Oreal USA Inc. The dispute is over what Olaplex calls “the holy grail of hair product development”—its bond-building products that repair the breakage caused by bleaching.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said last week that he will order three competing L'Oreal products off the shelves. He agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon that the products likely infringe Olaplex's 9,498,419 patent. He also found that the patents will likely be found valid at trial, notwithstanding a PTAB decision last July to the contrary.
“Olaplex has made a strong case supporting validity at this point,” Battailon wrote. So long as the PTAB's decision remains on appeal, it “does not have preclusive effect as to this action unless and until the appeal is resolved,” he wrote.
The Federal Circuit is slated to hear the PTAB appeal this week. Olaplex has already had some success there: The appellate court ruled last year that now-retired U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson had construed Olaplex's patent too narrowly, and that Olaplex stood a good chance of winning an injunction under the proper construction. Now it has.
“It's been a long and hard-fought battle,” Quinn Emanuel partner Joseph Paunovich said Monday. “We're very happy to get this result.”
L'Oreal and Olaplex are the No. 1 and 2 players in the product space, Paunovich said. But it's a long way down, in terms of resources, from L'Oreal, which reported about $30 billion in sales last year, to Olaplex, which was formed in a Santa Barbara, California, garage and still numbers fewer than 30 employees.
L'Oreal is represented by Paul Hastings and Richards, Layton & Finger. They “heavily urged” Fallon to follow the PTAB's lead, Bataillon wrote in his order. L'Oreal told Fallon the PTAB decision and other developments had “unraveled” Olaplex's case.
“We're still a small startup company,” Olaplex Chief Legal Officer Tiffany Walden said Monday. “Getting this infringer off the market” will help Olaplex reclaim market share and grow its brand.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmazon Sellers: Walmart Marketplace Supports Organized Retail Crime
3 minute readLead Generator Wins $11.6M Verdict in 'David and Goliath' Contract Trial
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250