Within this dataset of 51 published records, the assignee ranking covers 14 companies, with the top-ranked filer holding 14 records — well ahead of the rest of the field. The ranking is dominated by probiotic-skincare specialists and consumer-health companies rather than traditional pharmaceutical steroid manufacturers. Because the ranking counts records rather than weighting by family size or jurisdiction spread, it should be read as a filing-activity signal, not a market-share figure. Readers evaluating competitive position should also check co-assignee pairings, since some of the strongest activity in this space is jointly filed with academic partners.

The most-cited records in this dataset are all built on microbiome mechanisms — recombinant microorganisms or Lactobacillus strains for skin barrier and inflammatory conditions — rather than conventional topical steroids. That said, citation counts favour older, earlier-indexed filings, so this reflects influence within the searched corpus more than a real-time shift in filing volume. The broader technology composition still shows A61K (medicinal preparations) on 96.1% of the 51 records, a category broad enough to include both steroid and microbiome approaches. A citation lead for microbiome mechanisms is a useful signal for where prior art is concentrated, not proof that steroid-based filing has stopped.

Filing peaked at 16 records in 2019, the highest single year across the 2015-to-2026 window covered by this dataset. Activity did not collapse after that peak: the 2021-to-2024 span, the most recent period that can be treated as complete, shows filing growth of 33%. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower in the raw trend, but that is expected — publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years are always undercounted at the point of any given data pull. Treat 2021-2024 as the reliable trend read, not the tail years.

Within this 51-record dataset, several IPC subclasses show thin filing density relative to the dominant A61K and A61P categories: C07K (peptides and proteins) appears on only 7.8% of records, while A61B (diagnosis and surgery), A61G (patient care) and C07D (heterocyclic compounds) each sit at just 2.0%. That points toward peptide-based barrier repair, flare-prediction diagnostic combinations, and heterocyclic anti-inflammatory actives as branches with comparatively little claimed ground so far. Low filing density in a searched dataset is a starting signal, not a guarantee of freedom to operate — a full clearance search is still needed before relying on it.

Yes. This dataset includes co-assignee pairings between at least one Irish national university and two separate industry partners — a consumer-health major with 6 shared records and a consumer-brands filer with 4 shared records. That pattern of repeated co-filing with more than one commercial partner suggests an active, ongoing sponsored-research relationship rather than a single licensing event. For competitive-intelligence purposes, academic co-assignees are worth tracking separately, since they often signal earlier-stage mechanism research that later gets licensed or spun out.