https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/biologic-lyophilization-cake-quality-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Biologic Lyophilization
Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality Patents: Who Holds the Claims
  • Concentration is modest. The top 5 assignees hold just 9.7% of all 7,397 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 16.5% — filing rights here are spread far wider than in a typical concentrated pharma niche.
  • Filings peaked in 2019. at 498 records, and the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -46% pullback (451 to 243) on the years complete enough to trust.
  • Drying-specific claims are a minority. F26B (Drying) appears on only 14.5% of records against A61K's 88.5%, meaning most protection sits on formulation, not on the drying process itself.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
7,397
Published Records
10%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-46%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (451 records) with 2024 (243) — 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 7,397 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

This landscape tracks 7,397 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine lyophilization or freeze-drying language with cake-quality signals — collapse, shrinkage, reconstitution time, residual moisture, potency and visual inspection — against IPC classes covering drying equipment, pharmaceutical preparations and microorganism handling. It is a formulation-and-process view of a single freeze-dried vial's physical and biological integrity, not a general biologics-manufacturing search.

Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in any trend line are still filling in and should not be read as a real slowdown. The dataset instead lets a reader separate two different things assignees compete on: broad formulation coverage under A61K, and the much narrower set of records that actually claim the drying process or equipment under F26B.

Records by filing year, 2017–2026
  1. 1TAKEDA PHARMA CO LTD156
  2. 2AMGEN INC155
  3. 3REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC151
  4. 4MERCK SHARP & DOHME LLC134
  5. 5GENENTECH INC123
  6. 6PFIZER INC118
  7. 7F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE & CO AG113
  8. 8BAYER PHARMA AG97
  9. 9SHIRE HUMAN GENETIC THERAPIES INC88
  10. 10WYETH LLC85
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 7,397 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.

Filings rose to a 2019 peak, then pulled back

Filings ran at 431 in 2017 and reached a peak of 498 in 2019. The 2021-to-2024 window, the most recent span complete enough to compare, shows a -46% move from 451 to 243 records — a real pullback, not a publication-lag artefact, though 2025-2026 figures will still revise upward.

Filings rose to a 2019 peak, then pulled back0125250375500431201720184982019202020212022202320242025272026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Formulation claims dominate; drying-specific claims are a minority

A61K (medicinal preparations) touches 88.5% of the 7,397 records, far ahead of A61P (33.7%) and C07K peptide/protein claims (18.4%). F26B, the drying-equipment and process class, appears on only 14.5% of records — a signal that most competitive activity is fought over formulation stabilisers and excipients rather than the freeze-dryer cycle itself.

Formulation claims dominate; drying-specific claims are a minorityA61K · Medicinal preparations6,54488.5%A61P · Therapeutic activity of compou…2,49633.7%C07K · Peptides & proteins1,35818.4%F26B · Drying1,07014.5%C12N · Microorganisms & genetic engin…93112.6%A01N · Biocides / agrochemicals2433.3%A61J · Containers for medicine2313.1%A61L · Sterilising & disinfecting1972.7%Other2,03627.5%

Shares are the percentage of the 7,397 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about biologic lyophilization cake quality and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

Representative filing and most-cited prior art

Representative Record
NZ803099A2023-09-29

NZ803099A — Compositions and methods for lyophilization of bacteria or Listeria strains

ADVAXIS, INC.

Methods and compositions are provided for lyophilization of bacteria or Listeria strains, such as Listeria monocytogenes. Provided are methods for producing a lyophilized composition comprising a bacteria or Listeria strain, formulations for lyophilization comprising a bacteria or Listeria strain, lyophilized bacteria or Listeria strains, and methods of preparing frozen bacteria or Listeria strains for lyophilization.Filed by Advaxis, Inc., published 2023-09-29.

View full record
Most-cited records in this landscape
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US5336616AMethod for processing and preserving collagen-based tissues for transplantation978
2US6933326B1Particulate acellular tissue matrix356
3US20040049150A1Vaccines343
4US20030113316A1Stable lyophilized pharmaceutical formulation of IgG antibodies309
5US20030035843A1Method for processing and preserving collagen-based tissues for transplantation270
6US6284282B1Method of spray freeze drying proteins for pharmaceutical administration251
7US5364756AMethod of cryopreserving a suspension of biological material251
8WO2003009817A2Stable lyophilized pharmaceutical formulation of igg antibodies239
9US20040191243A1System and method for stabilizing antibodies with histidine221
10US5955448AMethod for stabilization of biological substances during drying and subsequent storage and compositions there…214

Citation counts accumulate over time and favour older filings; treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Insights

What the numbers mean for a filing decision

Three patterns worth acting on before drafting new claims in this space.

Concentration
9.7% of 7,397
top 5 combined share

No single assignee controls the field

The leader holds 156 records and fifth place holds 123 — a real gap, but nowhere near dominant given 7,397 records in scope. The top 10 combined reach only 16.5% of all records, meaning the bulk of this landscape sits with assignees below the ranked leaders.

Ranking covers the 100 companies the data endpoint returns, not a curated top tier.
Momentum
-46%, 2021→2024
filing change, complete years

Recent-year filing has genuinely cooled

The move from 451 records in 2021 to 243 in 2024 is large enough to be a real pullback rather than noise, even accounting for the fact that 2025-2026 counts will still revise upward as publications catch up.

2019 remains the peak year at 498 records.
Claim geography
14.5% F26B vs 88.5% A61K
drying-process vs formulation share

Formulation claims crowd out process claims

Most protection in this landscape sits on the biologic's formulation chemistry rather than on the freeze-dryer cycle or equipment. Drying-specific claims under F26B touch under a sixth of records, leaving process-engineering routes comparatively less staked out.

Shares add to more than 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to biologic lyophilization cake quality, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players

Who is filing, and where activity has slowed

Recent-year momentum figures show several established filers pulling back sharply, which is consistent with the broader 2021-to-2024 decline in the full dataset.

Momentum check
-100% YoY
at least two ranked leaders

Several top-10 assignees show zero recent-year filings

Regeneron and Genentech both show a -100% year-over-year move to zero filings in the latest year, and Shire Human Genetic Therapies and Merck Sharp & Dohme show none either. Amgen and Pfizer each show only a single filing in the latest year.

Latest-year counts are still incomplete due to publication lag.
Co-filing
50 shared records
strongest co-assignee pair

A handful of tight co-assignee pairs exist

Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in this dataset, and the strongest pair shares 50 records — evidence of a small number of deliberate joint-filing relationships rather than a broadly collaborative field.

The next-strongest pairs sit at 47 and 35 shared records.
Field structure
16.5% of 7,397
top 10 combined share

A long tail beyond the ranked leaders

With the ranked ten holding only 16.5% of all 7,397 records, the majority of activity sits outside the named leaders — smaller biologics developers, CDMOs and academic-affiliated filers each contributing a handful of records apiece.

Ranking reflects the 100 companies returned by the data endpoint.
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth checking before drafting
Branches where filing density is comparatively thin relative to the core formulation crowd.
Primary drying cycle optimisation for cake structureNon-invasive residual moisture sensingReconstitution-time claims tied to specific excipient ratiosContainer-closure interactions during freeze-drying (A61J overlap)Post-lyophilization visual defect classification
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Amgen Inc.1-75%
Pfizer Inc.1
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.0-100%
Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc.0
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC0
Genentech, Inc.0-100%
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG0
Baxter International Inc.0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next

Where to take this analysis

The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate or new claim drafting.

Check drafting scope against F26B claim density

With only 14.5% of records touching drying-process claims, a process-engineering approach to cake quality may face a thinner prior-art field than a formulation approach would.

Explore drying-process claims in Eureka →

Map co-assignee relationships before partnering

The 10 identified co-assignee pairs show where joint development and licensing arrangements already exist in this space, useful context before proposing a new one.

Review assignee relationships in Eureka →

Track whether the 2021-2024 pullback continues

Because 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete, confirming whether the -46% three-year decline persists requires revisiting the trend once later years finish publishing.

Set a filing-trend alert in Eureka →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Biologic Lyophilization Cake Quality in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole biologic lyophilization cake quality corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.