Industry Praise of Consumer Hair Product Sufficient to Rebut Bald Obviousness Allegations

Apr 29, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Matthew George Hartman, Rubén H. Muñoz, Megan Mahoney (Law Clerk, not admitted to practice)

The patent at issue discloses a brush-like hair straightener that uses protruding heating elements and spacers to quickly straighten hair without burning the user’s scalp. The petitioner challenged all claims as obvious over several combinations of prior art. In response, the patent owner proffered objective evidence of nonobviousness, including evidence of long-felt but unmet need, failure of others, skepticism, industry praise and acceptance, copying, and commercial success.

As an initial matter, the PTAB agreed with the petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified one prior art reference and combined it with the teachings of a second prior art reference to create the claimed invention. However, after evaluating the secondary considerations, the PTAB concluded that the evidence of industry praise and acceptance, on its own, was sufficiently compelling to render all claims nonobvious.

For secondary considerations, the patent owner pointed to one of its products—the DAFNI brush—as evidence of nonobviousness. The patent owner argued that the DAFNI brush is entitled to a presumption of nexus with the claimed invention because it meets all limitations of the claimed invention, and is therefore coextensive with the invention. Further, the patent owner argued that industry praise and acceptance of the DAFNI brush is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention, namely the plurality of elongate heating elements and elongate insulating spacers that allow users to quickly straighten hair without burning the skin. As support for these assertions, the patent owner submitted several articles from popular magazines in which the DAFNI brush was praised for its ability to quickly and effectively straighten hair while protecting a user’s scalp, testimony that the enhanced speed and safety are due to the claim elements, numerous accolades and recognition from popular home and beauty magazines, and use of the DAFNI brush by professional hairstylists, celebrities, and prominent beauty influencers.

The petitioner responded that the DAFNI brush could not be coextensive with the independent claim because the product contained additional unclaimed features. The petitioner further argued that the industry praise and acceptance did not result from the claimed features, but instead is attributable to the unclaimed features, prior art features, aesthetics, marketing, and brand name. However, the petitioner did not provide evidence to support the argument that the DAFNI brush’s success was due to unclaimed features or other extraneous factors.

Ultimately, the PTAB determined that the patent owner had demonstrated a nexus between the DAFNI brush and the claimed invention by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations directly resulted from the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. The PTAB therefore found the patent owner’s considerable and largely unrebutted evidence of industry praise and acceptance to be compelling evidence of nonobviousness. As such, the PTAB concluded that given the compelling evidence of secondary considerations, the tenuous prior art combinations were not sufficient to render any of the challenged claims obvious.

Practice Tip: When supporting or challenging obviousness grounds, it is important not to neglect evidence of secondary considerations. In particular, where the claimed invention includes a popular consumer product, industry praise and acceptance that directly results from the claimed features may be sufficient to overcome an obviousness challenge. Any party attempting to address secondary considerations, however, must point to actual evidence and avoid unsupported assertions.

Ontel Prods. Corp. v. Guy A. Shaked Invs. Ltd., IPR2021-00052, Paper 38 (PTAB Apr. 18, 2022)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.