The Olaplex Bond Maintenance ~ How Patented Technology is Changing Haircare

The story of Olaplex’s patented technology has become a landmark in the modern haircare industry. At its core lies a single patented ingredient, "bis-aminopropyl diglycol dimaleate", designed to rebuild broken disulfide bonds in hair (1). What is striking is how this one component, when formulated into a shampoo—could qualify as a patentable invention, securing a powerful monopoly under patent law. This case sets the stage for examining how patents operate within the hair care sector, where products have evolved far beyond cleansing into advanced repair, strengthening, and aesthetic enhancement, while also raising questions about the hurdles of patentability under Section 3 of the Indian Patent Act (2) and comparable provisions in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the United States Patent Law.

Now, let’s begin with understanding what a patent means. A patent is an exclusive right granted to an inventor for a novel product or process that is not obvious to a person skilled in the art (3). It provides a temporary monopoly, preventing others from making, using, or selling the invention without permission. For haircare brands, this protection is not only a legal safeguard but also a strategic tool to recoup R&D investment and stand out in a crowded market.

Whether or not the haircare products are patentable?

Like any other invention obtaining a patent, if a haircare product meets the requirement of an invention i.e., it is “novel”, has “inventive step” and “industrial application”, then it is patentable and it does not fall under the exemptions which cannot be patentable, as listed under section 3 of the Indian Patent Act. What do these requirements mean : 

• Novelty : As per article 54(1) (4)of European Patent Convention(hereinafter referred as “EPC”), novelty means that an invention shall be new and should not form part of the state of the art. State of art means that all matter which has at any time before the priority date of the invention been made available to the public by oral or written description. 

  Section 2(1)(l) (5)of the Indian Patent Act defines novelty as a new invention and has not been made available in any form of prior art.

• Inventive Step : Article 56 EPC (6), means that an invention should have regard to state of art and not be obvious to the person skilled in the art. Section 2(1)(ja) (7)of Indian patent Act, 1970 explains inventive steps as it involves a technical advance compared to existing knowledge, has economic significance and is not obvious to the person skilled in the art.

• Industrial Application : Article 57 EPC (8) explains an invention should be made or used in any kind of industry. Section 2(1)(ac) (9)of the Indian patent Act means that the invention can be made or used in the industry.

Exemptions under Patent Law

As discussed before, if a haircare brand wishes to obtain a patent over an invention, then it should steer clear of the exceptions listed under Article 53 (10)of the EPC and Section 3 (11)of the Indian Patent Act. The exceptions that would apply in case of haircare products, which need to steered clear of are as follows : 

1. Mere Discovery of a new form of a known substance : It is explained under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Article 53 of EPC. The provision prohibits the granting of patents for new forms or use of a known substance unless the product or process shows enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Therefore if one is working on getting a haircare formula patented then they need to demonstrate meaningful efficacy showcasing that the new form they are trying to patent has enhanced performance like improved bond repair, sustained hair-strengthening or any other benefit to prove a point. As mostly every shampoo comprises about 5% to about 70%, therefore in order to make it an invention, they need to either enhance the efficacy or use it with other other components which are noble and not obvious.

   In an application filed before Indian patent office i.e., IN742/KOLNP/2012 (12), it was related to “vanillin derivative” for use in cosmetic composition, and was objected to under this clause of Section 3. Whereas the applicant was able to prove the enhanced efficacy over the derivative. 

2. Mere mixing of known ingredients or components : The significance of this exemption is that it prohibits patenting of substances obtained by mixing known ingredients or components.

   1. In a Indian Patent Application 201827046903 (13) a pre-grant opposition was raised questioning the patentability of the invention under this clause of Section 3, applicant overcame the objection by demonstrating the co-presence of specific pyridine compounds enabled the effect - synergy. 

   2. Another case of it in haircare industry would be the European Patent No. 1719546 (14), filed on a hair conditioning shampoo for processing increase in hair volume. The patent had survived because the applicant was able to show the combination of two “ethoxylated calchols” better than each component alone - causing a synergy effect.

3. Traditional Knowledge not being an invention: Section 3(p) of the Indian Patent Act, Article 27.3(b) (15)excludes patents based on traditional knowledge. As it would not be novel. 

   1. There has been a battle between Indian Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (hereinafter referred as “TDKL”) of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (hereinafter referred as “CSIR”) and UK Laboratory - Pangea Laboratories Limited. The UK based lab had filed a patent application (EP2361602) (16)in 2011 on a “Hair building solid agent” which had used turmeric, pine bark and green tea in its composition for hair loss. The CSIR had filed opposition against that patent application by providing evidence from the TDKL citing that the curcumin, pine bark, turmeric and green tea is a traditional knowledge and has been used in India from a long time. Thus, in June 2015 the application was withdrawn.  

      Therefore, this case proves a point that traditional knowledge is not patentable, that’s what haircare brands should avoid in the composition of their product, in order to obtain a patent.

This legal framework provides an inventor with a temporary monopoly over their creation, preventing others from making, using, or selling the invention without permission. This exclusivity allows companies to recoup their significant research and development investments and foster a climate conducive to continuous scientific advancement in haircare formulation. Additionally, patents serve as a critical mechanism for differentiating products in a saturated market, enabling brands to highlight unique technological advantages and build consumer trust based on validity.

Olaplex’s patented system targets disulfide bond repair at a molecular level, setting it apart from traditional conditioners that merely coat the hair. This innovation illustrates how patents can enable technological differentiation and create strong market positioning.

L’Oréal v. Olaplex (17)

The impact of Olaplex's innovation was most prominently highlighted during its legal battles with L'Oréal. In 2019, a jury in Delaware found that L'Oréal USA and its affiliates, including Matrix and Redken, had misappropriated Olaplex’s trade secrets and infringed on its patents. This was related to a less damaging three-step method of bleaching hair, which was contained in an unpublished patent application shared with L'Oréal under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). The Delaware court imposed a judgment of $44 million for patent infringement and an additional $22 million for the misappropriation of trade secrets.

However, in 2021, L'Oréal filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which overturned the $66 million judgment and ordered a new trial, but only concerning one of Olaplex's patent claims. The court stated that Olaplex had completely failed to demonstrate that its information was eligible for trade-secret protection.

Therefore, as this haircare industry grows there are higher chances of trade secrets getting misappropriated thus getting a patent for the invention would give protection and security to brands. 

Conclusion : 

The intersection of patent law and haircare innovation illustrates how intellectual property protections both safeguard commercial interests and drive genuine technological progress. Section 3(e) of the Indian Patents Act sets a higher threshold for patentability by requiring demonstrable synergistic effects in combinations, a standard particularly relevant to haircare formulations. Coupled with the broader requirements of novelty, inventive step, and statutory exclusions—under both Indian law and the EPC framework, it is evident that not every formulation merits protection. The case of Olaplex, read alongside Indian and European precedents, underscores the delicate balance between incentivizing innovation and preventing monopolies over mere aggregations or routine mixtures.

References: 

1. Deauville, B. (2024, December 8). Understanding the ingredients in Olaplex products. Boutique Deauville. 

2. Section 3, The Patent Act, 1970

3.  Patents. (2025, July 7). IP Helpdesk.

4. Article 54, European Patent Convention, 2000

5. Section 2(1)(I), The Patent Act , 1970

6. Article 56, European Patent Convention, 2000

7. Section 2(1)(ja), The Patent Act , 1970

8. Article 57, European Patent Convention, 2000

9. Section 2(1)(ac), The Patent Act , 1970

10. Article 53, European Patent Convention, 2000

11. Section 3, The Patent Act, 1970

12. Gandhi, S. (2022, April 6). Under the skin: Patentability of cosmetic compositions and treatments in India. Lexology. 

13.  Agarwal, S. (2022, April 7). Under the Skin: Patentability of cosmetic compositions and treatments in India. Patent - India. 

14.  EPC T 0201/14 21-01-2016

15. Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, 1995

16.  Intellepedia. (2025, June 2). India claims patents | Intellepedia. Intellepedia.

17. Ambrose, J. (2021, May 20). Partial victory for L’Oreal in hair coloring fight | Trade Secrets trends. Trade Secrets Trends.