L’Oreal prevails in anti-aging treatment clash
Dispute concerns two of the cosmetic giant’s best-selling brands | Arguments revolved around whether the French company could be sued in the US.
L’Oreal has avoided a lawsuit involving allegations that its blockbuster anti-wrinkle treatments were infringing, after a federal judge ruled that the litigation should not occur in the US.
Chief Judge Beryl Howel, yesterday, January 11, delivered a memorandum opinion and order at the US District Court for the District of Columbia in favour of the french cosmetics giant and its subsidiary, Vichy.
Glycobiosciences , a Canadian cosmetic and pharmaceutical company, sued the companies last May claiming that they had infringed two patented formulae covered by US patent numbers 9,821,005, and 10,322,142.
The complaint alleged that L’Oreal had infringed by selling three cosmetics under the name “ Revitalift”, while Vichy had done the same by releasing three products under its “ Liftactiv” brand.
Both products, said the complaint, “contain high concentrations of hyaluronic acid in a polymer matrix which includes a non-ionic polymer and are formulations that have all of the elements of one or more of the claims of the glyco patents and/or have formulae that are equivalent to the claimed formulas”.
L’Oréal moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service, and improper venue.
It held that the court lacked the power to adjudicate the dispute because L’Oréal SA is a French company whose contacts in the US are solely through L’Oréal USA, which operates as a separate legal entity and is not a party to the lawsuit.
According to defendants, L’Oréal SA lacked the requisite minimum contacts in the US to satisfy the requirements for personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
The judge held that it is a “hornbook” law that “a defendant outside a forum’s borders may be subject to suit” only if the defendant has “‘certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.
She noted that even if the plaintiff’s assertion that that L’Oréal SA does have an office in New Jersey, it failed to explain how that this singular office in one state is enough to evince that L’Oréal SA has“avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum[.]”
The plaintiff had not shown how large this office is, how many employees work at this office, or what this office even does for L’Oréal SA’s business, she added, concluding that L’Oréal SA does not have sufficient minimum contacts in the US to satisfy the requirements for due process.
She noted that in addition to “flunking the minimum contacts requirement”, the plaintiff has not explained how L’Oréal SA’s presumed single employee in a single office is connected to its claim of patent infringement, or how exercising specific jurisdiction on either defendant would comport with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”.
Glycobiosciences’ only relevant argument to the relatedness inquiry, she wrote, is that “[o]ther relevant employees frequent the US for business purposes related to the subject matter of this suit.”
She added: “Even if true, plaintiff’s argument is far too general since the mere fact that some L’Oréal SA employees, who work on the general ‘subject matter’ of patents, ‘frequent’ the US falls well short of satisfying the relatedness inquiry.”
Judge Howel concluded: “L’Oréal USA’s contacts cannot be imputed to L’Oréal SA, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that exercising personal jurisdiction over L’Oréal SA would satisfy the requirements of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.”
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
