Baby Skin Care Formulation Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- One filer dominates a thin field. the leading assignee holds 41 records against a fifth-place company at 8 and a tenth-place company at 3, in a ranking of only 21 companies.
- Filing has cooled from its 2018 peak. the field peaked at 5 records in 2018 and, on the last complete year, fell 75% from 2021's 4 filings to just 1 in 2024.
- Medicinal-preparation claims outweigh cosmetics claims. 62.7% of the 102 records in scope sit in A61K versus 49.0% in A61Q, suggesting many filers are routing baby skin formulations through a drug-adjacent claim frame rather than a pure cosmetics one.
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (1) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field.
What this landscape covers
Baby skin care formulation patents cover the intersection of gentle-skin chemistry and paediatric safety: fragrance-free bases, pH-adjusted systems, allergen screening, patch-tested preservative choices, and formulations that carry an explicit paediatric claim. This dataset pulls 102 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that match those terms across titles, abstracts, claims and descriptions. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent filing years are undercounted and should not be read as a decline on their own.
The scope spans not just topical baby lotions and creams but adjacent process and ingredient patents — biodegradable diol chemistry, detergent and cleaning compositions, and even some food-adjacent and coating-adjacent filings that share underlying excipient or preservative chemistry with skin care. That breadth is why the technology composition below spreads across eight IPC subclasses rather than clustering tightly in cosmetics classifications alone.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 102 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records classify across the IPC system.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose to a peak of 5 in 2018, then have been uneven since; the last complete year shows a 75% drop from 2021's 4 filings to 1 in 2024. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as incomplete rather than as evidence of a further slide.
IPC subclass composition
A61K (medicinal preparations) covers 62.7% of the 102 records in scope, ahead of A61Q (cosmetics use) at 49.0%. C11D (detergents), A23L (foods) and C09D (coatings) each appear in over a fifth of records, reflecting shared excipient and preservative chemistry rather than a narrow cosmetics-only field. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 102 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Baby Skin Care Formulation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about baby skin care formulation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Skin care preparations for babies (US20180369091A1)
The present invention provides a skin care preparation for babies, comprising: pharma grade water; at least one stabilizer; at least one nutrient; at least one emulsifier; wherein said preparation further comprises Zinc gluconate & magnesium asparate & copper gluconate ("Sepitonic -m3") and Dunaliella salina extract.Filed by an individual inventor rather than a corporate assignee — a pattern worth watching in a field where the leading corporate filer is otherwise dominant.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070241306A1 | Biodegradable compositions comprising renewably-based, biodegradable 1,3-propanediol | 142 |
| 2 | US20190246591A1 | Insect and cannabis production systems and methods | 117 |
| 3 | US10738268B2 | Cannabis nanoemulsion methods | 61 |
| 4 | US20070207113A1 | Personal care and cosmetic compositions comprising renewably-based, biodegradable 1,3-propanediol | 51 |
| 5 | US20200229411A1 | Insect production systems and methods | 50 |
| 6 | US20190085279A1 | Insect and cannabis production systems and methods | 42 |
| 7 | US20200370073A1 | Biosynthetic cannabinoid production methods | 40 |
| 8 | WO2007095255A2 | Biodegradable compositions comprising renewably-based, biodegradable 1.3-propanediol | 38 |
| 9 | US8105569B2 | Non-petrochemically derived cationic emulsifiers that are neutralized amino acid esters and related compositi… | 37 |
| 10 | US20180369091A1 | Skin care preparations for babies | 31 |
Citation counts favour older records inside this searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence, not current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the data means for formulation strategy
Three patterns stand out once filing volume, technology composition and citation weight are read together.
One filer, then a sharp drop-off
The leading assignee's 41 records sit far above the fifth-place company's 8 and tenth-place company's 3, across a ranking of just 21 companies. That gap points to a field where one filer built a broad claim position early, and most others hold a handful of filings rather than a competing portfolio.
Activity has thinned since 2018's peak
Filings peaked at 5 in 2018 and have not returned to that level; on the last complete comparison, 2021's 4 filings fell to 1 by 2024. Whether that reflects genuine cooling or simply a saturated core claim space is not resolvable from filing counts alone.
Drug-adjacent framing outpaces pure cosmetics
A61K (medicinal preparations) covers more of the 102 records than A61Q (cosmetics use) at 49.0%. Filers appear to be reaching for a therapeutic or paediatric-claim frame more often than a cosmetics-only frame, which changes the prior art a new filing needs to clear.
Influence sits with older, broader chemistry patents
The most-cited records in this set are biodegradable 1,3-propanediol and personal-care compositions filed well before the paediatric-claim language common in newer filings. That skew is typical of citation counts inside a searched corpus and should be read as historical influence rather than present-day relevance.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to baby skin care formulation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where the field is thin
The ranked leaders list is short — 21 companies — with volume concentrated at the very top and a long tail of low-count filers, including named individual inventors alongside corporate assignees.
A single dominant filer
One assignee's 41 records dwarf the rest of the ranking, suggesting an early and broad claim position across the fragrance-free, pH-adjustment and preservative-choice terms this search targets.
A modest second tier
Fifth place holds 8 records — enough to show sustained interest but nowhere near contesting the leader's position. This tier is where licensing or design-around conversations are most likely to be live.
Individual inventors alongside corporates
By tenth place, filers hold just 3 records, and the list includes individual named inventors rather than only corporations. Co-assignee pairs among some of these individuals recur with counts up to 7, pointing to small, repeat collaborations rather than large R&D teams.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Inolex Investment Corp | 0 | — |
| DuPont Tate & Lyle Bio Products Co LLC | 0 | — |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
| Procter & Gamble Co | 0 | — |
| WEHNER ANN | 0 | — |
| JOERGER MELISSA | 0 | — |
| FENYVESI GYORGYI | 0 | — |
| AVSHALOMOV MATTITYAHU | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next questions rather than a single conclusion.
Check the leader's actual claim scope
41 records is a portfolio, not a monolith — the claims worth checking are the ones covering fragrance-free bases and preservative choice specifically, not the full count.
Explore assignee filings in EurekaWatch the mid-field for design-around openings
Companies holding 8 or fewer records are less likely to have blocked every formulation variant; that is where freedom-to-operate work is most productive.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaTrack the next complete filing year
2025 and 2026 counts will keep rising as publications catch up; re-check the trend once 2025 is a complete year before concluding the field is still cooling.
Set a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions about baby skin care formulation patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 41 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company's 8 and the tenth-ranked company's 3. The ranking covers 21 companies total, so this is a concentrated field at the top with a long tail below it. Because the ranking counts patent families rather than raw documents, this figure is a fair basis for comparing filers.
Filings peaked at 5 in 2018 and, comparing the last two complete years available, dropped 75% from 4 filings in 2021 to 1 in 2024. That is a real decline over that span, but 2025 and 2026 counts are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so it is too early to call the current trajectory.
Medicinal preparations (A61K) appear in 62.7% of the 102 records in scope, ahead of cosmetics use (A61Q) at 49.0%. Detergents and cleaning compositions, foods, and coatings each cover a fifth to a quarter of records, reflecting how much shared excipient and preservative chemistry crosses between skin care and these adjacent fields. A single record can carry several of these classifications, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
US20180369091A1, filed by an individual inventor and published in December 2018, covers a baby skin care preparation built on pharma-grade water, a stabilizer, a nutrient and an emulsifier, combined with a named mineral-gluconate blend ("Sepitonic-m3") and Dunaliella salina extract. Its scope is narrow and ingredient-specific rather than a broad formulation-method claim. Anyone formulating with that same gluconate blend or algae extract combination in an infant product should review it directly rather than relying on this summary.
The thinnest branches relative to the core cosmetics and medicinal classes include allergen-screening test protocols, patch-testing methodology claims, and preservative-free pH-buffering systems — areas that show up in the search terms but are not heavily represented among the highest-cited or highest-volume records. Water-treatment-linked rinse-off formulations, sitting at the overlap with C02F, are also thinly claimed. These are starting points for a freedom-to-operate check, not a guarantee of open space.
Research Baby Skin Care Formulation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole baby skin care formulation corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.