Cosmetics — US PTAB Patent Cases
8 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 8 total
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Procter & Gamble’s deodorant‑stick patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (11844752). The Board granted institution on all 19 claims, finding sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations. This sets up a major trial regarding the validity of P&G’s core cosmetic technology.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine various prior art references for predictable results. This decision confirms the validity of the combination approach under POSA principles in deodorant formulation technology.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully challenged The Procter & Gamble Company's patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability for key deodorant compositions. The Board found that prior art references taught sufficient motivation to combine elements across different personal care fields.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all 23 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706 unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed aluminum-free deodorant compositions were anticipated or rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully petitioned PTAB to challenge Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10966915), leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a material error in allowing claims over prior art like Lesniak and Native/Bianchi '254.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned against Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent, leading the PTAB to institute the case after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board found multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) across various claims using combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board found that the claimed deodorant stick compositions were anticipated or obvious over various combinations of prior art references. This decision heavily favors the Petitioner, Dr. Squatch, LLC, by invalidating the patent's scope.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.