In Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA the Fed. Cir. vacated and remanded the Board’s decision on obviousness.  Subject to a confidentiality agreement, Appellee had reviewed Patentee’s non-public pending application directed to a method for keratin treatment with a composition containing maleic acid.  The Board concluded that Appellee had copied the method disclosed in the confidential application, citing a meeting with the Patentee and co-inventor, declarations as to the meeting details, receipt and review of the confidential application and a loss of interest in purchasing the technology by Appellee.  However the Board found that such evidence was irrelevant as a matter of law because it was not shown that a patented product was copied.  The Fed. Cir. found evidence of actual copying efforts to be relevant to a determination of obviousness, remanding for further analysis.