Baby Wipes Substrate and Lotion Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. Five assignees hold 74.2% of the 783 records in scope, and ten hold 83.4% — this is a field with a narrow set of gatekeepers, not a fragmented one.
- Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak. Filings ran 20 in 2017 and peaked at 25 in 2019; the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -26% move (23 to 17), a complete-year comparison that predates the usual 18-month publication lag.
- Chemistry outweighs hardware in the claims. A61K medicinal-preparation classes touch 45.2% of records and A61Q cosmetics-use classes touch 36.5%, while dispensing and container art (B65D) sits at just 15.1% — the lotion side is far more contested than the mechanical side.
Filing growth compares 2021 (23 records) with 2024 (17) — 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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 783 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent activity at the intersection of wipe substrate engineering — nonwoven softness, liquid loading, sheet dispensing — and wipe lotion formulation, including preservative systems and skin-friction performance. The scope spans 783 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from filings that name both the physical substrate and the saturating composition, or the flushability and skin-contact claims that depend on their interaction.
Coverage runs from 2015-01-01 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, activity in 2025 and 2026 is still arriving in the record and should be read as a floor, not a ceiling, on real filing volume.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 783-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings opened the window at 20 (2017), climbed to a peak of 25 in 2019, and by the last complete comparison window ran 23 in 2021 down to 17 in 2024 — a -26% move. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under the publication lag and are not evidence of a further decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61K (medicinal preparations) leads at 45.2% of the 783 records, followed by A61Q (cosmetics use) at 36.5%. Packaging and dispensing (B65D, 15.1%), cleaning compositions (C11D, 14.9%) and sanitary equipment (A47K, 13.0%) trail well behind, with sterilising art (A61L, 12.3%) and biocide chemistry (A01N, 10.7%) rounding out the picture. Because records carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100% of the record total.
Shares are the percentage of the 783 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Baby Wipes Substrate and Lotion with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about baby wipes substrate and lotion and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this space
Cleansing Concentrate Composition (US20190314255A1)
A cleansing concentrate composition for use as a lotion, solution, cream, gel, solid or wet-wipe saturant, built on two emulsifiers at different HLB ranges plus an emollient, a preservative system and an aqueous solvent. The claim structure is deliberately format-agnostic: the same emulsifier pairing is claimed across lotion, solid and wipe-saturant embodiments, which is what makes it a useful reference point for anyone formulating a wipe lotion rather than a proof of what is commercially dominant.Filed by LONZA, LLC, published 2019-10-17.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5141803A | Nonwoven wipe impregnating composition | 258 |
| 2 | US6340663B1 | Cleaning wipes | 235 |
| 3 | US5861144A | Perfumed compositions for reducing body odors and excess moisture | 196 |
| 4 | US20030120249A1 | Absorbent article having an insert providing for improved fluid distribution | 155 |
| 5 | US5043155A | Emulsifying compositions including amphipathic emulsifying agents | 134 |
| 6 | US20090192482A1 | Absorbent articles comprising absorbent materials exhibiting deswell/reswell | 120 |
| 7 | US20030130636A1 | System for improving skin health of absorbent article wearers | 115 |
| 8 | US5874067A | Methods for controlling environmental odors on the body | 115 |
| 9 | US6699825B2 | Acidic hard-surface antimicrobial cleaner | 114 |
| 10 | US20140004307A1 | Textured Fibrous Webs, Apparatus And Methods For Forming Textured Fibrous Webs | 110 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, not of current commercial 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 says before you file
Three readings of the same dataset that matter for a filing decision: where the volume sits, what it's made of, and how fast it's moving.
The top of the field is narrow
Five assignees account for 74.2% of all 783 records in scope, rising to 83.4% across ten. A new entrant is not filing into open ground at the aggregate level — it is filing adjacent to a small number of large, active portfolios.
Lotion chemistry is more contested than dispensing
A61K medicinal-preparation classes cover 45.2% of records and A61Q cosmetics-use classes cover 36.5%, while container and dispensing art (B65D) sits at only 15.1%. Claim density sits overwhelmingly on the formulation side, not the packaging mechanics.
Volume has eased from its 2019 high
Filings peaked at 25 in 2019 and the most recent complete-year comparison shows 23 in 2021 falling to 17 in 2024, a -26% move. Later years in the trend are still being filled in by the publication lag and should not be read as confirming a steeper drop.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to baby wipes substrate and lotion, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the portfolios, and where the gaps sit
The ranking behind this page covers 100 companies, counted by patent family. It is the full list the data endpoint returns, not a curated top tier — so the concentration figures above describe the whole set, not a sample of it.
One portfolio dwarfs the field
The leading assignee alone holds 314 of the 783 records in scope — well over a third of the total field before counting anyone else. Any freedom-to-operate review in this space has to start with that single portfolio.
A steep drop after the leaders
Fifth place holds 19 records and tenth place holds 11 — a sharp fall from the leader's 314. The gap between the very top and the rest of the ranked field is wide, which is consistent with a small set of gatekeepers rather than a broad, even spread of activity.
Momentum has slowed across the leaders
Among the named leaders tracked for recent-year momentum, the highest latest-year count is 2, and several established filers show zero activity in the latest year, including one with a -100% year-on-year move. That pattern fits the broader post-2019 easing in filing volume rather than any single company's retreat.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. | 2 | — |
| Procter & Gamble Co. | 0 | — |
| ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES INC | 0 | -100% |
| Nipa Lab Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP | 0 | — |
| ISP Investments Inc. | 0 | — |
| Johnson & Johnson Limited | 0 | — |
| The Clorox Co. | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The aggregate numbers point to a concentrated field with room at specific edges. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going record by record.
Map the leader's actual claim boundaries
A portfolio holding 314 of 783 records will have overlapping and continuation filings; the aggregate count alone doesn't say which specific claims block a given formulation or substrate approach.
Explore the leader's portfolio in Eureka →Check the under-claimed branches before filing
Thin representation in a sub-area can mean genuine white space or simply that it hasn't been searched under these terms — worth a targeted query before committing R&D budget.
Run a targeted search in Eureka →Track the two most recent filing years directly
Publication lag means 2025 and 2026 activity is undercounted here; a live monitoring query catches new filings as they publish rather than waiting for this snapshot to update.
Set up monitoring in Eureka →Common questions on this landscape
The dataset behind this page ranks 100 assignees by patent family, and the leader alone holds 314 of the 783 records in scope — more than a third of the entire field. The top five combined hold 74.2% of all records, and the top ten hold 83.4%, so this is a field where a small number of companies control most of the claim space rather than one split evenly across many filers. Anyone evaluating freedom to operate should start with that leading portfolio before looking further down the ranking.
Filing peaked at 25 records in 2019 after starting the tracked window at 20 in 2017. The most recent complete-year comparison available shows 23 filings in 2021 falling to 17 in 2024, a -26% change. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend chart are still incomplete and should not be read as proof of a further decline — the -26% figure through 2024 is the reliable comparison point.
Formulation chemistry dominates over mechanical hardware. A61K (medicinal preparations) appears in 45.2% of the 783 records in scope and A61Q (cosmetics use) in 36.5%, while packaging and dispensing art under B65D sits at only 15.1%. That gap suggests the more heavily contested claim territory is in the lotion and preservative chemistry rather than in the physical wipe container or dispensing mechanism, though a record can span multiple classes so these figures are not mutually exclusive shares.
US20190314255A1, filed by LONZA, LLC and published 2019-10-17, claims a cleansing concentrate composition built on a pair of emulsifiers at different HLB ranges plus an emollient, a preservative system and an aqueous solvent. Its claims are written to cover the same emulsifier chemistry across lotion, solid, gel and wet-wipe-saturant embodiments, which makes it relevant to nearly any wipe lotion formulator using a comparable emulsifier pairing. It is a useful reference point for checking overlap in formulation claims rather than a substrate or dispensing patent.
The composition data points toward sub-areas with comparatively thin coverage relative to the dominant A61K and A61Q chemistry classes, including biodegradable nonwoven substrate blends, preservative-free antimicrobial systems, and skin-friction performance claims that don't depend on lotion loading. These are not confirmed empty spaces — they simply carry less claim density under the terms searched here — so a targeted novelty search on the specific combination is still the necessary next step before filing.
Research Baby Wipes Substrate and Lotion in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole baby wipes substrate and lotion 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.