Unified Patents v. Olaplex Inc.

Unified Patents filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition against Olaplex Inc. before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents operates as a member-based organization dedicated to improving patent quality and deterring unsubstantiated or invalid patent assertions, particularly from Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), across various technology sectors. Olaplex Inc., the patent owner, is a science-enabled, technology-driven beauty company renowned for its "Bond Building Technology" and a range of haircare products designed to repair and strengthen hair. In a PGR, there is no "accused product" in the traditional infringement sense; rather, the validity of the patent itself is being challenged. Olaplex's core product line focuses on hair treatment compositions and methods that often incorporate the patented bis-aminopropyl diglycol dimaleate to mend broken disulfide bonds in hair.

The patent at issue is US12214225, titled "Methods for fixing hair and skin." This patent generally describes a method for treating keratin, such as in hair or skin, by contacting it with a composition containing a compound with a specific chemical structure. The procedural posture of this case is a Post-Grant Review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number PGR2026-00010. The petition filed by Unified Patents was "Not Instituted" on the merits, meaning the PTAB reviewed the petition and determined that Unified Patents did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits of at least one challenged claim. The PTAB serves as an important venue for challenging patent validity outside of district court litigation.

This case is notable due to Olaplex's prominent position in the prestige haircare market and the potential impact on its core bond-building technology, which is central to its product offerings. Unified Patents' involvement highlights its mission to challenge patents it deems unpatentable or invalid, even those held by operating companies like Olaplex, to improve overall patent quality and potentially benefit its members. Olaplex has a history of defending its patent portfolio, including prior high-profile disputes and PTAB challenges related to its hair treatment technology, underscoring the competitive and patent-intensive nature of the haircare industry.

Unified Patents filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition against Olaplex Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 12,214,225. However, there is a discrepancy in the provided case metadata regarding the petitioner. While the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the petitioner, records for PGR2026-00010 consistently show Wella Operations US LLC as the petitioner challenging Olaplex Inc. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ultimately denied institution of the PGR on the merits.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments for PGR2026-00010:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • On November 4, 2025, Wella Operations US LLC filed a Post-Grant Review petition with the PTAB challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,214,225 owned by Olaplex Inc. The petition specifically argued that 15 claims of the patent lacked enablement and written description due to an overly broad "all keratin" scope.
  • Olaplex Inc., as the Patent Owner, filed its Preliminary Response to the petition on February 12, 2026.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

  • The primary substantive ruling in this phase was the PTAB's decision on institution.
  • On March 23, 2026, the PTAB issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution, denying institution of PGR2026-00010. The denial was based on a review of the merits, indicating the petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • As a PTAB proceeding, a formal Markman hearing (common in district court litigation) does not occur. The PTAB applies a claim construction standard (typically the broadest reasonable interpretation for unexpired patents). The merits-based denial of institution means the PTAB did not proceed to a full trial with detailed claim construction.

• Discovery Milestones & Trial Events:

  • Given the denial of institution, significant discovery milestones or a "trial" in the traditional sense of a PTAB inter partes review did not take place.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The PTAB's decision on March 23, 2026, to not institute the Post-Grant Review effectively closed the proceeding at the PTAB level. This constitutes the final disposition of the PGR petition. An appeal of a non-institution decision to the Federal Circuit is possible.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Other Litigation:

  • No other parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 12,214,225 were identified in the search results.
  • Olaplex Inc. has been involved in other intellectual property and general litigation, including patent infringement lawsuits against L'Oréal in the UK and US involving different patents (e.g., UK '793 and the '419 Patent), which saw favorable outcomes for Olaplex. Additionally, Olaplex has faced securities class action lawsuits and consumer class actions related to "Made in USA" claims and alleged hair damage, which are distinct from patent validity challenges. These other cases do not directly impact the PGR proceeding for US12214225.

Correction Regarding Plaintiff Identity:

The case metadata provided in the prompt identifies "Unified Patents" as the plaintiff (petitioner) in PGR2026-00010. However, publicly available PTAB docket information, including a "Power of Attorney" and "Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices" filed in the proceeding, clearly indicates that Wella Operations US LLC is the Petitioner in PGR2026-00010 against Olaplex Inc.. The analysis below is therefore based on Wella Operations US LLC as the plaintiff.

---

Counsel of Record Representing Wella Operations US LLC (Petitioner):

The petitioner, Wella Operations US LLC, is represented by attorneys from K&L Gates LLP.

• Jason A. Engel

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Customer Number 24573 (Specific office location not detailed in the provided documents, but K&L Gates has a global IP practice)
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: K&L Gates has a sophisticated and worldwide Intellectual Property Litigation practice with experience in all aspects of IP litigation, including patent litigation and post-grant proceedings like inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs). The firm's IP lawyers possess extensive technological knowledge, with many holding technical backgrounds or advanced science degrees, and are registered to practice before the USPTO.

• Erik J. Halverson

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Customer Number 24573 (Specific office location not detailed in the provided documents)
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: As part of K&L Gates' IP Litigation practice, Mr. Halverson is associated with a firm known for its experience in various patent disputes, including those before the PTAB.

The defendant, Olaplex Inc., was represented by counsel from Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP in the Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding PGR2026-00010.

The counsel of record for Olaplex Inc. includes:

• Mark T. Garrett - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Mark Garrett is a patent litigator with experience in patent disputes.
• Michael Pohl - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Michael Pohl is involved in patent-related proceedings.
• Eagle H. Robinson - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Eagle Robinson is part of the legal team handling patent matters for Olaplex.
• Sarah Eddy - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Sarah Eddy is listed as back-up counsel for the patent owner.