IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Cal.: Automated personalized skincare patent asserted against L’Oreal is invalid, (Mar 7, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for a computerized method of recommending skincare products were invalid for being directed to the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information using generic computer components.

L’Oreal USA showed that certain patent claims relating to personalized skincare recommendations asserted against it were invalid for being directed to an abstract idea, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco has held. The claims used generic computer components to make skincare recommendations using the same analysis that a human dermatologist would (Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-07919-JCS (N.D. Cal. March 6, 2025)).

Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC (Brightex) brought suit against L’Oreal USA, Inc. (L’Oreal) for infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 9,842,358 (the ’358 patent) and 9,542,595 (the ’595 patent). L’Oreal moved to dismiss the claims as to the ’358 patent for failure to state a claim because the asserted claims were invalid for being directed to an unpatentable abstract idea. The court applied the two-step Alice test.

Abstract idea. The ’358 patent was entitled “Method for Providing Personalized Recommendations” and described the use of an electronic device to capture images of one’s face and the use of images, as well as responses to a questionnaire, to produce recommendations such as changes to skincare products, lifestyle, or other factors.

L’Oreal argued that the patent was directed to the abstract idea of making recommendations because all of these processes were carried out by generic computer technology. The court held that the claims were simply directed to the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing information and performed tasks that were as old as photography, but simply did so using generic computer components without any specific technological improvement.

Inventive concept. The court found that the claims lacked an inventive concept because they simply took the longstanding activities of human dermatologists and conducted them on generic computers. While the complaint contained allegations that claims were inventive, these allegations were conclusory and lacked support from any allegations of specific facts.

The court granted the motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-07919-JCS.

Judge: Spero, J.

Attorneys: Christopher Michael Joe (Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC) for BrighTex Bio-Photonics, LLC. Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Perkins Coie LLP) for L'Oreal USA, Inc.

Companies: BrighTex Bio-Photonics, LLC; L'Oreal USA, Inc.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews