PatentNext Summary: In Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California invalidated patent claims relating to AI-driven cosmetic recommendations, finding them directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court held that while the specification referenced artificial intelligence, the claims themselves failed to include any specific AI implementation or technological improvement. Brightex argued that elements such as a “photo guide” improved facial data acquisition, but the court found these features to be conventional and lacking inventive contribution. The decision highlights the importance of drafting software and AI-related claims that incorporate technical features demonstrating improvements to underlying technology, serving as a reminder for practitioners to align with established patent eligibility standards.

****

The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.) recently invalided a set of patent claims allegedly claiming artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Brightex Bio-Photonics, LLC v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 412 (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Brightex had accused L’Oreal of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,842,358 (the ’358 Patent”) titled “Method for Providing Personalized Recommendations” in the field of cosmetology and specifically related to “the cosmetic improvement of a person’s face.” Id. at 2 (citing ’358 Patent at 1:8-10).

The court reviewed Claim 16 as a representative claim:

      16. A computerized method for providing prioritized skin treatment recommendations to a user, comprising:

receiving from an electronic device image data of a user’s face, wherein the electronic device comprises a camera and a display, wherein the image data is obtained via said camera, and wherein said electronic device presents on the display a photo guide indicating how the user’s face should be positioned with respect to the camera when the image data is obtained;

transforming via a computer said image data via image processing into measurements in order to identify at least two skin characteristics of the user from the received image data;

calculating a severity rating for each of the at least two user skin characteristics by:

accessing stored population information comprising measurements for at least two skin characteristics of a population of the same type as the at least two skin characteristics of the user, wherein each of the measurements for the at least two population skin characteristics comprises a mean value and a standard deviation value;

comparing each of the measurements of the at least two user skin characteristics to the measurements of same type population skin characteristic;

determining by how much each of the measurements of the at least two user skin characteristics deviates from the mean value and the standard deviation value of the same type population skin characteristic;

assigning higher severity rating to the user skin characteristic which deviates furthest than at least one standard deviation of the same type population skin characteristic; and

for a subset of the user skin characteristics with the highest severity rating, selecting or more skin treatment recommendations from stored skin treatment recommendations based on the subset of the user skin characteristic with the highest severity rating; and

providing to the electronic device the selected one or more skin treatment recommendations.

In its complaint, Brightex included a section describing the invention, including its “advanced and innovative technology relating to the recognition and computerized analysis of facial features.” Id. at 8.

The complaint also described how the invention used Artificial Intelligence (AI) with commercially available smart phone” technology “in order to accurately asses skin condition to recommend the correct cosmetics and skincare treatments.” Id.

L’Oreal filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6)), arguing that the ’358 patent was invalid for being directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept pursuant to 35 USC section 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). In particular, L’Oreal argued that the claims were directed to “the abstract idea of recommending treatments based on the severity of a person’s skin characteristics and rely solely on generic computer components to carry out that idea.” Brightex Bio-Photonics, 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 412 at 10.

Brightex countered by arguing that a “photo guide” (as recited in the claims) is “used in a process specifically designed to achieve improved facial data acquisition and subsequently an improved identification of skin defects and the severity of those defects.” Id. at 13.

Thus, according to Brightex, the claim was sufficiently technical and should at least be allowed to proceed beyond the pleadings phase of the case.

The Northern District court disagreed. While the patent’s specification described AI features related to the invention, the failure of the patent to incorporate those features in the claims doomed the patent claim. In addition, the patentee had also failed to describe how the claimed photo guide provided an improvement to the underlying device – instead, the photo guide was claimed as used in a prior art manner, e.g.:

There is nothing in the claims or specification that suggests the “photo guide” is directed at solving any technological problem or doing anything more than ensuring the user’s face is positioned so as to obtain a usable digital image.

Id. at 27.

Accordingly, the Northern District court invalidated the claims as abstract and subsequently dismissed the allegations regarding the ’358 patent from the case.

The Northern District court’s treatment of the claims comes as no surprise. As I regularly discuss on PatentNext, as well as practice with respect to the patents I prepare for my clients, a patent drafter should incorporate technical features (e.g., such as AI features) into the claims themselves that demonstrate an improvement to the underlying device. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly identified this as one of three hallmarks for developing a strong software-based patent in the U.S. See PatentNext: How to Patent Software Inventions: Show an “Improvement.” Without this approach, a patent application can not only be subjected to a Section 101 rejection during prosecution, but a later-issued patent can also be invalidated for the same reasons, as was the case in Brightex Bio-Photonics.

Patent practitioners would be well served to prepare patent applications in accordance with this guidance, and this case serves as a cautionary tale for failure to do so.

****

Subscribe to get updates to this post or to receive future posts from PatentNext. Start a discussion or reach out to the author, Ryan Phelan, at rphelan@marshallip.com or 312-474-6607. Connect with or follow Ryan on LinkedIn.