Wella Operations US LLC v. Olaplex Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: PGR2026-00010
• Patent #: 12,214,225
• Filed: November 4, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Wella Operations US LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Olaplex, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-12 and 15-17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Methods for Fixing Hair and Skin
• Brief Description: The ’225 patent discloses methods for treating keratin by repairing ruptured disulfide bonds. The claims broadly cover treating "keratin of a person," while the specification's disclosure and examples focus specifically on compositions and methods for treating keratin in hair and skin.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Lack of Enablement - Claims 1-12 and 15-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a)

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that the ’225 patent fails to enable the full scope of the challenged claims without undue experimentation. The claims recite a broad genus—methods of treating all "keratin of a person"—but the specification provides a narrow disclosure limited to only two species: treating keratin in hair and skin.
  • Genus vs. Species Disclosure: Citing Amgen v. Sanofi, Petitioner contended there is a significant mismatch between the broad claim scope and the limited disclosure. The specification provides eight working examples, all of which exclusively describe treating hair. It offers no guidance, examples, or data related to treating other forms of human keratin, such as that found in nails or internal organs. Petitioner argued that formulations for hair/skin (high water, low solvent) are fundamentally different and often incompatible with formulations required for other substrates like nails (high solvent), which require hardening rather than moisturizing.
  • Undue Experimentation (Wands Factors): Petitioner asserted that an analysis of the Wands factors confirms a lack of enablement. The breadth of the claims (Factor 8) is expansive, covering all human keratin and a wide range of unspecified formulation compositions. In contrast, the guidance and working examples provided (Factors 2 & 3) are narrow, focusing solely on hair. The art of in-vivo cosmetic chemistry is unpredictable (Factor 7), and a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would need to engage in extensive, undue experimentation to develop effective and safe formulations for the unclaimed keratin substrates (e.g., nails), effectively starting from scratch.

Ground 2: Lack of Written Description - Claims 1-12 and 15-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a)

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that the specification lacks adequate written description to demonstrate that the inventors possessed the full scope of the claimed invention as of the filing date. The disclosure fails to describe representative species sufficient to support the broad genus claim of treating all "keratin of a person."
  • Insufficient Representative Species: The petition highlighted that the specification is silent on methods for treating any keratin other than in hair and skin. Petitioner noted a significant disparity in the specification's text: "hair" is mentioned 485 times and "skin" 35 times, while "keratin" appears only seven times, always in the context of hair or skin. No other keratin-containing body parts, such as nails or eyelashes, are mentioned. This lack of description, particularly the absence of any working examples beyond hair treatment, indicated the inventors had not conceived of or invented a method for treating the entire claimed genus.
  • Failure to Describe the Genus: Petitioner contended that the ’225 patent merely draws a fence around the broad concept of treating all keratin without actually describing the invention throughout its scope. By disclosing only methods for hair and skin, the patent fails to describe common structural features or principles that would apply to treating the diverse forms of keratin throughout the human body, thus failing the written description requirement.

Ground 3: Indefiniteness - Claims 1-12 and 15-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)

• Core Argument: Petitioner argued that key claim terms are insolubly ambiguous, failing to inform a POSITA about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
  • "Keratin of a Person" is Ambiguous: The phrase "keratin of a person" lacks an explicit definition in the specification. Given the disclosure's overwhelming focus on hair and skin, a POSITA would be confused as to whether this term is limited to hair and skin or if it literally covers all keratin in the human body (including nails, organs, etc.). Because treatment protocols for different keratin types are distinct and often incompatible, this ambiguity renders the claim boundaries unclear.
  • "Treating" is Unbounded: The term "treating" was also argued to be indefinite. Independent claim 1 broadly recites a method of "treating" by "contacting" keratin with a composition containing a specific compound, but it includes no limitations on other components. However, the specification repeatedly emphasizes the necessity of certain ingredients, such as water ("the preferred diluent"), for the disclosed hair and skin treatments. By not requiring water or other critical excipients, the claim scope covers formulations (e.g., 100% short-chain alcohol) that the specification implies would be ineffective or even harmful, contradicting the patent's stated objectives. This leaves a POSITA without objective boundaries to determine what constitutes an infringing "treatment."

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of Post Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-12 and 15-17 of the ’225 patent as unpatentable.