Spray make-up patent infringement rebuffed
decision that its spray makeup patent was inoperable, giving it the
go-ahead to proceed to trial on a law suit involving patent
infringement of the technology against Del Laboratories.
The Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this week overturned the Los Angeles District Court's previous decision, which has now led to the case being remanded to the District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings.
"This is a major victory for Classified Cosmetics," said Gary Hecker of The Hecker Law Group, lead attorney in the case. "The case can now proceed to trial on Classified's claim that Del intentionally infringed Classified's patent."
The case refers to an attempt made by Los Angeles-based Classified to sue New York-based Del for infringement of its patent entitled Sprayable Beautifying Composition back in 2003.
The lawsuit stated that Del had 'willfully infringed the '541 patent and intentionally copied' Classified's aerosol make-up products, which specifically refers to its Era Face range.
Era Face is a foundation packaging in an ultra-light 2.25oz aerosol canister that is sprayed directly onto the skin, providing what is claimed to be the first ever 'airbrush' makeup line.
Del used a hired expert to overturn this lawsuit in the District Court, successfully proving that tests provided evidence that its technology was different. However, Classified has now successfully overturned this court ruling on the grounds that the tests carried out were unreliable and that the resulting report was consequently inadmissible.
On December 12, the District Court officially ruled that the arguments against the ruling filed by Classifieds lawyers, were in fact valid, while also rejecting Del's claims of patent invalidity.
The court stated: "The principle flaw in the court's ruling is that Del did not meet its burden of showing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment."
The court also stated that there Del tests used in the original counter-lawsuit had two shortfalls - firstly that the tests were flawed and secondly that the tests did not prove to establish inoperability of the patent.
