For many years, consumers have selected skincare products based on the skin concern they sought to address, such as ageing, pigmentation or acne. In response, skincare companies traditionally focused on developing effective combinations of active ingredients to deliver the desired benefit. This innovation was complemented by filing patents directed to increasingly sophisticated formulations, as well as to new active ingredients.
However, purchasing behaviour appears to be changing. Buyers are becoming increasingly aware of the active ingredients themselves. For example, rather than considering whether a product is marketed as “anti-aging”, many consumers now check whether the product contains retinol. Similarly, instead of purchasing a generic hyperpigmentation treatment, consumers now look for niacinamide or vitamin C.
The popularity of niacinamide illustrates this trend well. Products containing niacinamide are now available across a wide range of brands, often at similar concentrations. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for companies to differentiate products based solely on the presence of the active ingredient.
This trend has been accelerated by social media, where online skincare communities share information about different active ingredients, allowing members to educate themselves about individual ingredients and their interactions in a way that was once largely confined to industry specialists. For example, consumers now appreciate that the efficacy of an active ingredient depends on its concentration, how frequently it is applied, when it is used within a skincare routine and how it is combined with other ingredients.
This shift is also demonstrated by online search activity, where ingredient names such as retinol, niacinamide and salicylic acid have seen substantial growth in consumer interest over recent years. In contrast, searches for terms such as “anti-aging” and “acne treatment” have remained constant (see Google Trends data). This suggests that consumers are increasingly evaluating skincare products through the lens of specific active ingredients rather than broader product categories.
What does this mean for patents?
Patents directed to compositions and the active ingredients within them will continue to play an important role within the skincare sector. In particular, protecting new active ingredients that treat specific skin concerns will remain highly valuable, as will combinations of ingredients with useful synergistic effects. However, there may be a gradual shift in the relative importance of different forms of intellectual property protection.
As customers increasingly select skincare products with simple compositions based on recognised active ingredients, patent strategy may also need to adapt. Where multiple competitors are selling products built around the same recognised active ingredients, commercial success may depend less on identifying a new ingredient and more on producing established ingredients more efficiently, sustainably or consistently than competitors. For example, a company that develops a more efficient route to producing a known active ingredient may achieve substantial commercial advantages even where the ingredient itself is widely known. Lower raw material costs, improved yields, lower energy consumption, shorter processing times and enhanced sustainability credentials can all contribute directly to profitability. In some cases, these benefits may determine commercial success more effectively than marginal differences in the final formulation.
In addition, if multiple competitors are marketing products containing the same well-known active ingredient, patent protection directed to the method of manufacture can provide an additional layer of protection. Therefore, a robust patent portfolio may contain claims directed not only to the finished skincare product but also to the methods used to manufacture active ingredients or the formulations containing them.
Businesses developing improved manufacturing routes also need to consider whether patents or trade secrets offer better IP protection. Patents can prevent competitors from using a protected process regardless of whether they developed it independently. In contrast, trade secrets only provide protection while confidentiality is maintained and do not prevent competitors from independently developing the same process. However, patents also require public disclosure. In some circumstances, particularly where a process is difficult to reverse engineer, maintaining confidentiality via trade secrets could be preferred.
Looking ahead
The rise of ingredient-led skincare represents more than a marketing trend. As consumers become increasingly focused on what is inside a product rather than the skin condition it claims to treat, skincare companies may need to reassess their patent strategy.
For many businesses, the answer will still involve patenting new active ingredients and developing innovative formulations. However, for others, particularly those operating in increasingly crowded ingredient categories, obtaining patent protection for new methods of manufacture may become increasingly important. In an era where consumers may happily purchase a simple niacinamide serum rather than a complex anti-ageing formulation, competitive advantage may increasingly depend not only on what ingredients are used, but on how those ingredients are produced.
If you would like to discuss patents or other intellectual property considerations arising from advances in skincare technologies, please get in touch with a member of Boult’s Chemical, Materials or Consumer Goods teams.
