US 12214225

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 12214225, including details from the provided authoritative patent text and a review of USPTO and CAFC dockets for 2026:

US Patent 12214225 Summary

• Title: Methods for fixing hair and skin
• Assignee: Olaplex Inc
• Inventors: Eric D. Pressly, Craig J. Hawker
• Filing Date: August 21, 2024 (Application number US18/811,158)
• Issue Date: February 4, 2025
• Abstract: A method for treating keratin of a person is disclosed. This method involves contacting the keratin with a composition that includes a compound having a specified chemical structure.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The full text of the claims for US12214225 was not provided in the authoritative patent text, therefore, a plain-language overview of each independent claim cannot be furnished.

USPTO Database and CAFC 2026 Dockets Review:

• USPTO Status: Based on the provided authoritative patent text, US12214225B2 was published and granted on February 4, 2025, and is currently listed as "Active".
• CAFC 2026 Dockets: While no direct CAFC docket for US12214225 in 2026 was explicitly found in the search results, the patent is subject to a PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, PGR2026-00010, which was filed by Wella Operations US LLC against Olaplex, Inc. on November 3, 2025. This case is noted as "Not Instituted - Merits" litigation. PTAB decisions can sometimes be appealed to the CAFC, but the provided search results do not indicate a direct CAFC docket for this patent as of April 26, 2026.

Based on the provided patent information for US12214225, the following litigation is known:

1. PTAB Case

• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (Petitioner)
• Defendant(s): Olaplex Inc. (Current Assignee of US12214225)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: PGR2026-00010
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a filing in 2026.
• Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits

The patent information also indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" on 2014-04-21, with a reference to Darts-ip (patents.darts-ip.com/?family=85774349&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US12214225(B2)). However, specific details (plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, and outcome or current status) directly pertaining to US patent 12214225 within this broader "family litigation" are not provided in the given text, and the date precedes the grant of US12214225. External searches for "US12214225 litigation" did not yield further details regarding this worldwide family litigation directly implicating US12214225.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12214225, with a status of "Institution Denied." This outcome means the claims of the patent were not reviewed on the merits, which generally strengthens the patent owner's defensive posture as the claims remain intact.

PGR2026-00010 — Wella Operations US LLC v. Eric D. PRESSLY et al

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-11-04
• Status: Institution Denied – The PTAB declined to institute a review of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the search results for the Institution Decision.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,214,225 B2 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-23. The Board denied institution, determining that the petitioner, Wella Operations US LLC, did not demonstrate that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, or 103, and thus did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: There is no indication of an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the denial of institution for PGR2026-00010 in the search results.
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, meaning the claims were not invalidated or even formally challenged on the merits by this proceeding. For a defendant, this indicates that an attempt to invalidate claims 1-20 via PGR on the grounds raised by Wella Operations US LLC was unsuccessful, and the patent's claims remain robust against these specific arguments. A new PGR petition would need to present substantially different and compelling arguments to have a chance at institution.

Strategic summary

All 20 claims of US patent 12214225 remain untested by an AIA trial proceeding. The sole Post-Grant Review, PGR2026-00010, filed by Wella Operations US LLC, was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not find sufficient merit in the petition's arguments to proceed to a full review. As a result, no claims have been canceled or narrowed, and all claims (1-20) are currently sustained.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution was denied in PGR2026-00010, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to Wella Operations US LLC or its privies for the grounds raised. However, depending on the specific reasons for the denial, principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel might make it difficult for Wella to re-challenge the same claims on the exact same grounds. For other potential defendants, this institution denial poses no estoppel, meaning they are free to challenge the patent on any available prior-art grounds. The initial Google Patents listing mentions "Unified Patents PTAB Data" as a petitioner, but the specific "PTAB proceedings on file" block in the prompt explicitly states "Wella Operations US LLC." I have used Wella Operations US LLC as the petitioner based on the provided canonical list.

The current pattern signals show a patent that has successfully defended against an initial PTAB challenge. The lack of instituted proceedings or subsequent filings could indicate a perceived strength of the patent's claims or that potential challengers are assessing the denial reasoning before acting.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the PTAB's denial of institution in PGR2026-00010 is an important data point. It indicates that the arguments presented by Wella against claims 1-20 under §§ 101, 102, and 103 were not persuasive enough to meet the institution threshold.
A defendant should obtain and thoroughly analyze the "Institution Denied" decision for PGR2026-00010 (available at USPTO PTAB Decisions) to understand the PTAB's specific reasoning for denying institution. This analysis will be crucial to determine if a new PTAB petition can be crafted with different or stronger arguments and evidence to overcome the previous denial.
Given that there are no active PTAB proceedings, the patent currently stands with all its claims intact. The absence of further PTAB activity after the denial suggests that potential challengers might be hesitant or still strategizing.

The specific institution decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal by searching for PGR2026-00010.

Inventors

• Eric D. Pressly (Olaplex Inc)
• Craig J. Hawker (Olaplex Inc)

No unusual patterns detected regarding inventors departing the original assignee.

Original assignee

Olaplex Inc.
Olaplex Inc. is an operating company in the beauty industry, known for its hair care products, particularly those designed to repair hair bonds. They ship products embodying the claims. Olaplex Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-08-22 (executed) / recorded 2024-08-22 — Reel 007248/0656
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OLAPLEX INC.
  • Assignee: LIQWD, INC.
  • Correspondent: Kevin G. McBride, STOEL RIVES LLP, 760 SW NINTH AVENUE, SUITE 3000, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205
  • Context: Internal reorg
• 2024-08-22 (executed) / recorded 2024-08-22 — Reel 007248/0657
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LIQWD, INC.
  • Assignee: OLAPLEX, INC.
  • Correspondent: Kevin G. McBride, STOEL RIVES LLP, 760 SW NINTH AVENUE, SUITE 3000, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorg
• 2025-05-09 (executed) / recorded 2025-05-09 — Reel 007357/0663
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: OLAPLEX, INC.
  • Assignee: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
  • Correspondent: Robert A. McDonald, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP, 200 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10281
  • Context: Securitization

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12214225
    2024 : Filed by Olaplex Inc
    2024 : Assigned to Liqwd Inc
    2024 : Assigned to Olaplex Inc
    2025 : Granted
    2025 : Security interest to Goldman Sachs

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The transfers between Olaplex Inc. and LIQWD, INC. appear to be internal reorganizations rather than transfers to a licensing-only shell entity, as both are operating companies in the beauty industry.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (Olaplex Inc., LIQWD, INC., Goldman Sachs Bank USA) are listed on common NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Kevin G. McBride of STOEL RIVES LLP is listed as the correspondent for both assignments on 2024-08-22 (Reel 007248/0656 and 007248/0657).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there were two assignments on the same day in 2024, they appear to be part of a single internal reorganization (Olaplex -> Liqwd -> Olaplex) rather than a cascade through unrelated entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent was published and granted in 2025. While there is a PTAB case PGR2026-00010 filed in 2026, it is unclear if any infringement suits were filed within 6 months of the 2024 assignments.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of Olaplex Inc. or LIQWD, INC. undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence suggests an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While there is a repeat correspondent (Kevin G. McBride for Reel 007248/0656 and 007248/0657), and a PTAB case has been filed (PGR2026-00010), there is insufficient evidence to confidently classify this patent as being asserted by an NPE. The assignments appear to be internal corporate restructuring, and the current assignee, Olaplex Inc., is an operating company.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US12214225

The U.S. Patent 12214225, titled "Methods for fixing hair and skin," was published on February 4, 2025, from an application filed on August 21, 2024. Its earliest priority date is August 1, 2013. The patent describes compositions, kits, and methods for repairing damaged disulfide bonds in hair or on the skin by using binding agents that form covalent bonds with free thiols. This treatment aims to provide long-lasting conditioning, improved appearance, increased dry strength, ease of combing, less hair breakage, and decreased frizz.

Without the specific claims of US12214225, it is not possible to definitively state which claims are potentially anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, based on the problem statements and discussions of existing technologies within the US12214225 patent text, several cited patent documents are identified as relevant prior art. These documents generally relate to hair conditioning or styling processes and are discussed by US12214225 in the context of their limitations, which US12214225 aims to overcome.

Below are the most relevant patent citations, along with their details and potential areas of anticipation:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US12214225

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,656,265 to Bailey et al.

   • Full Citation: US 5,656,265 B1, "Hair styling conditioning process," issued August 12, 1997.
   • Publication/Filing Date: The patent was granted on August 12, 1997, from an application filed on June 29, 1995.
   • Brief Description: This patent discloses a hair styling conditioning process used after treating hair with a reducing agent. The process involves contacting the hair with a compound having an electrophilic group and at least one hydrophobic group. The electrophilic groups react with thiol groups to provide hydrophobic groups on the hair.
   • Potential Anticipation (under 35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses the treatment of hair with reducing agents and the subsequent reaction with thiol groups. US12214225 distinguishes itself by stating that "these conditioners do not bind the free thiols in hair together." Therefore, US 5,656,265 potentially anticipates methods of conditioning hair after a reducing treatment using electrophilic compounds that react with thiols to modify hair properties, but may lack the specific "binding together" of free thiols to form new, stable covalent bonds as described in US12214225. It could anticipate methods involving a compound with an electrophilic group for post-reduction hair treatment.

2. International Published Application WO 93/08787 to King et al.

   • Full Citation: WO 1993/008787 A1, "Shampoo compositions containing cationic guar polymer," published May 13, 1993.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published May 13, 1993, with a priority date of November 6, 1991.
   • Brief Description: This application describes the use of cationic polymers, specifically cationic guar gum polymers, to form coacervates that provide conditioning benefits to hair when incorporated in shampoo compositions.
   • Potential Anticipation (under 35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference potentially anticipates compositions and methods for conditioning hair using cationic polymers. US12214225 differentiates itself by noting that "these conditioners do not bind the free thiols in hair." Thus, while the general concept of hair conditioning compositions is present, the specific mechanism of repairing disulfide bonds via thiol binding agents might not be anticipated.

3. International Published Application WO 95/01152 to Napolione et al.

   • Full Citation: WO 1995/001152 A1, "Shampoo compositions with improved wet conditioning benefits," published January 12, 1995.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published January 12, 1995, with a priority date of July 2, 1993.
   • Brief Description: This application also relates to the use of cationic polymers to provide conditioning benefits to hair, similar to WO 93/08787. It focuses on shampoo compositions with improved wet conditioning benefits.
   • Potential Anticipation (under 35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to WO 93/08787, this reference potentially anticipates compositions and methods for hair conditioning, particularly in shampoos, using cationic polymers for wet hair benefits. However, US12214225 highlights the inability of such conditioners to bind free thiols in hair and their lack of satisfactory dry hair smooth feel.

4. U.S. Pat. No. 6,706,258 to Gallagher et al.

   • Full Citation: US 6,706,258 B1, "Shampoo compositions containing an amphoteric surfactant," issued March 16, 2004.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Granted March 16, 2004, from an application filed on April 19, 2002.
   • Brief Description: This patent generally discloses surfactants utilized in shampoo compositions.
   • Potential Anticipation (under 35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent might generally anticipate formulations for shampoos and the inclusion of various surfactants. However, it is cited in US12214225 as a general reference for known shampoo surfactant materials, not for the core inventive concept of repairing disulfide bonds with specific binding agents. It would likely anticipate the use of specific surfactant types in shampoo formulations.

5. U.S. Pat. No. 7,598,213 to Geary et al.

   • Full Citation: US 7,598,213 B2, "Shampoo compositions with improved conditioning performance," issued October 6, 2009.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Granted October 6, 2009, from an application filed on November 16, 2007.
   • Brief Description: This patent also discusses surfactants and shampoo compositions, particularly those with improved conditioning performance.
   • Potential Anticipation (under 35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 6,706,258, this patent likely anticipates general aspects of shampoo compositions and conditioning agents. It is cited in US12214225 as a general reference for known shampoo surfactant materials, and less likely for the unique bond-repairing chemistry. It could anticipate methods for improving conditioning performance in shampoos.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 12214225 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious and explain the motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to combine them. The patent focuses on compositions and methods for repairing disulfide bonds in hair or on the skin using a "binding agent" that contains at least two reactive moieties capable of forming stable covalent bonds with free thiols.

Identified Prior Art and Relevant Concepts

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,656,265 to Bailey et al. ("Bailey"): This patent is explicitly discussed in the background of US12214225. Bailey discloses a hair styling conditioning process where hair, after treatment with a reducing agent, is contacted with a compound having an electrophilic group and at least one hydrophobic group. The electrophilic groups react with thiol groups to provide hydrophobic groups on the hair. Critically, US12214225 states that "these conditioners [referring to Bailey et al.] do not bind the free thiols in hair together."
2. Koval (Reactions of Thiols, Russian Journal of Organic Chemistry, 2007, 43:319-349): Cited in US12214225, Koval discloses "several electrophilic thiol acceptors" and is incorporated by reference. This indicates that the reactivity of electrophiles with thiols and various suitable electrophilic groups were known prior to the priority date of US12214225.
3. General Chemical Knowledge regarding Cross-linking Agents: The use of bifunctional or polyfunctional reagents to form cross-links between polymer chains or other molecules possessing suitable reactive groups (e.g., thiols) is a well-established principle in organic chemistry, polymer science, and material science, pre-dating the 2013 priority date. Examples of such reagents include diacrylates, dimethacrylates, bismaleimides, divinyl sulfones, diepoxides, and diisocyanates, many of which are specifically listed as "binding agents" in US12214225. The concept of Michael addition reactions involving dithiols and di-alpha,beta-unsaturated carbonyls for cross-linking is particularly relevant and widely known.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The core inventive concept of US12214225 is the use of a binding agent with at least two reactive moieties to form stable covalent bonds with thiols, thereby "binding the free thiols in hair together". This directly addresses a stated deficiency of the prior art, specifically Bailey.

Combination 1: Bailey (US 5,656,265) in view of general chemical knowledge of cross-linking/bifunctional reagents and thiol chemistry (e.g., Koval)

• Primary Reference (Bailey): Bailey teaches a method for treating hair after a reducing agent by applying a compound with an electrophilic group that reacts with thiol groups in the hair. This establishes the concept of chemically modifying thiols in hair for conditioning purposes.
• Motivation to Combine: US12214225 itself provides the motivation. The patent explicitly states a problem with Bailey: "these conditioners do not bind the free thiols in hair together." A PHOSITA, aiming to improve upon Bailey's method, would be motivated to find a way to "bind the free thiols in hair together" to provide more robust and longer-lasting repair, better conditioning, and prevention of styling reversion, as identified as needs in US12214225. The patent further notes that traditional oxidation (e.g., with hydrogen peroxide) to re-establish disulfide bonds results in bonds "under stress" and prone to breakage, creating a need for formulations that "repair and/or strengthen damaged hair and rebuild stronger bonds".
• How a PHOSITA would Combine: Given the motivation to "bind thiols together," a PHOSITA would turn to known chemical principles for linking molecules, specifically cross-linking. General chemical knowledge, supported by references like Koval on "electrophilic thiol acceptors", would inform the PHOSITA that bifunctional or polyfunctional electrophilic compounds are commonly used to cross-link substrates containing nucleophilic groups like thiols.
  • For example, if Bailey teaches using a monofunctional electrophile like an alpha-substituted acetyl group (Y-CH2-CO-), a PHOSITA, seeking to link thiols, would readily consider using a bifunctional electrophilic acetyl group, or more commonly, well-known bifunctional Michael acceptors. The present patent itself lists various suitable reactive moieties that are often found in bifunctional cross-linkers, such as Michael acceptors (e.g., maleates, acrylates, methacrylates, vinyl sulfones), epoxides, and isocyanates. Many of the specific binding agents listed in US12214225 (e.g., ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, diethylene glycol diacrylate, N,N′-methylenebisacrylamide, bismaleates like 2,2′-(ethane-1,2-diylbis(oxy))bis(ethan-1-amine)di-maleate) are classic bifunctional cross-linking agents well-known prior to 2013.
  • Substituting Bailey's monofunctional electrophile with a bifunctional version (e.g., replacing an alpha-haloacetate with a bis(alpha-haloacetate) or a simple Michael acceptor with a bismaleate/diacrylate) to achieve cross-linking of thiols would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA motivated to "bind the free thiols in hair together."
• Reasonable Expectation of Success: The reactions between thiols and various electrophilic groups (e.g., Michael addition, nucleophilic substitution) are well-characterized and predictable. The formation of stable covalent bonds (e.g., thioether bonds) through such reactions with bifunctional reagents to create cross-links would have a reasonable expectation of success for a PHOSITA. The selection of specific low molecular weight compounds (as claimed, e.g., <1500 Da) to allow diffusion into hair, and their formulation into cosmetically acceptable carriers, would also be within the realm of routine optimization for a PHOSITA in cosmetic chemistry.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Claims directed to a method of treating keratin by contacting it with a binding agent comprising at least two reactive moieties capable of forming stable covalent bonds with thiols, and compositions containing such binding agents, would likely be rendered obvious by Bailey in combination with the general chemical knowledge of cross-linking and bifunctional reagents for reacting with thiols. The motivation to combine these teachings is explicitly articulated as overcoming the limitation of Bailey's compounds not "binding the free thiols in hair together," thereby leading to improved hair repair and conditioning. The nature of the reactive moieties (e.g., Michael acceptors, acrylates) and their bifunctional arrangement to achieve cross-linking would be an obvious solution to this known problem.

To detail the patent term adjustments (PTA), patent term extensions (PTE), continuation applications, divisional applications, related family members, and the projected expiration date for US patent 12214225, I will use the authoritative patent text and information from USPTO databases.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) compensates for administrative delays by the USPTO during the prosecution of a patent application. It adds days to the 20-year lifespan of the patent. These delays can include the USPTO failing to:

• Issue a first office action within 14 months of filing.
• Respond to an applicant's reply or appeal within four months.
• Act on an application within four months after a PTAB or federal court decision.
• Issue a patent within four months after payment of the issue fee.
• Issue a patent within 36 months of its actual filing date.

The provided patent text for US12214225 does not explicitly state the amount of Patent Term Adjustment granted. To determine the exact PTA, the patent's prosecution history would need to be reviewed, typically through USPTO Patent Center or Patent Public Search. However, since the patent was filed on August 21, 2024, and granted on February 4, 2025, it was prosecuted relatively quickly (less than 6 months). Such a short prosecution period typically results in minimal or no PTA.

Patent Term Extension (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is available under 35 U.S.C. § 156, primarily for patents claiming products (e.g., human and veterinary pharmaceuticals, food/color additives, medical devices) that require regulatory approval before commercial marketing. PTE aims to restore a portion of the patent term lost during the regulatory review process. The maximum extension is five years, and the total post-approval patent life cannot exceed 14 years from the date of FDA approval.

The patent US12214225, titled "Methods for fixing hair and skin," describes compositions for treating hair and skin. These types of cosmetic applications may not typically fall under the categories for which PTE is granted (FDA-approved drugs, medical devices, etc.). There is no indication in the provided text that US12214225 has sought or been granted a Patent Term Extension.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

The provided patent text states that US12214225 is a continuation of several prior applications. This indicates a family of related patents and applications.

• US12214225B2 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 18/177,011 filed Mar. 1, 2023.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 18/177,011 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/941,675 filed Sep. 9, 2022.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 17/941,675 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/830,789 filed Mar. 26, 2020 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,446,525).
• U.S. application Ser. No. 16/830,789 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/854,504 filed Dec. 26, 2017 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,639,505).
• U.S. application Ser. No. 15/854,504 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/835,223 filed Aug. 25, 2015 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,855,447).
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/835,223 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/748,831 filed Jun. 24, 2015 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,144,537).
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/748,831 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/459,012 filed Aug. 13, 2014 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,095,518).
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/459,012 is a continuation-in-part of International Application PCT/US2014/049388 filed Aug. 1, 2014.

The patent text does not explicitly mention any divisional applications.

Related Family Members

The patent explicitly lists several priority applications, which are related family members:

• U.S. Prov. Application 61/861,281 filed Aug. 1, 2013.
• U.S. Prov. Application 61/867,872 filed Aug. 20, 2013.
• U.S. Prov. Application 61/885,898 filed Oct. 2, 2013.
• U.S. Prov. Application 61/903,239 filed Nov. 12, 2013.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/257,089 filed Apr. 21, 2014.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/257,056 filed Apr. 21, 2014.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/257,076 filed Apr. 21, 2014.
• U.S. Prov. Application 62/000,340 filed May 19, 2014.

Additionally, the patent lists other versions of the publication, which are also related family members:

• US20240408419A1

The "Priority claimed from" section also highlights additional family members:

• US20150037270A1 (from US14/257,076)
• US20150034119A1 (from US14/257,089)
• WO2015017768A1 (from PCT/US2014/049388)
• US9095518B2 (from US14/459,012)
• US20230201632A1 (from US18/177,011)
• US20250302704A1 (from US18/952,929)

Projected Expiration Date

The statutory patent term for utility patents is 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. US12214225 claims priority to U.S. Prov. Application 61/861,281 filed on August 1, 2013. Therefore, the base expiration date (before any adjustments or extensions) would be 20 years from this priority date.

Base expiration date: August 1, 2013 + 20 years = August 1, 2033.

However, the "Anticipated expiration" date listed in the patent information is 2034-04-21. This suggests that there has been Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) granted, adding approximately 8 months and 20 days to the base term (April 21, 2034 - August 1, 2033). Without the detailed PTA calculation, the precise reasons for this adjustment cannot be determined, but it is likely due to USPTO delays during the prosecution of the various applications in its chain, as discussed above.