By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in University of Massachusetts et al. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-0868-CFC-SRF (D.Del. April 20, 2021), the Court granted Defendant L’Oréal’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of the skin enhancement claim limitation of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,423,327 (“the ‘327 patent”) and 6,645,513 (“the ‘513 patent”) after finding that the skin enhancement limitation in the independent claims of the patents-in-suit, when viewed in light of the specifications and prosecution histories, fails to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.  The Court also found that, since Plaintiff did not argue that the “dependent claims of [the patents-in-suit] provide clarity regarding the scope of the skin enhancement limitation that is lacking in the independent claims, those dependent claims are also invalid for indefiniteness.”  Id. at *14.

In its analysis, the Court did note that Plaintiff’s claim construction briefing was in contrast to its arguments in defense of L’Oréal’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of the skin enhancement claim limitation and, in fact, supported L’Oreal’s argument that there is a clear distinction in the independent claims between the skin enhancement limitation and the recited concentration range limitation that is applied to the dermal cells.  Id. at *6-13.  The Court agreed with L’Oreal on the issue.  Id.  Ultimately, the Court granted L’Oreal’s motion and found claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the ‘327 patent and the ‘513 patent invalid for indefiniteness.  Id. at *14.

Copies of the Memorandum Opinion and corresponding Order are attached.