Cosmetic Emulsion Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Filing peaked in 2017 at 33 families and has declined toward the present, with the midpoint year 2022 sitting at only 11 — a flat-to-declining filing curve rather than a growing one.
- A61K and A61Q dominate the IPC mix at 429 and 388 records respectively out of 434, showing claim activity is concentrated in medicinal-preparation and cosmetic-use classifications rather than spread across mixing equipment or polymer chemistry.
- The most-cited patent dates to 1991 a phospholipid/glycerol fatty ester water-in-oil lipstick emulsion cited 114 times — a sign that foundational emulsifier chemistry, not recent filings, still anchors this field's prior art.
What this landscape covers
Cosmetic emulsion formulation sits at the intersection of surfactant chemistry, stability testing and sensory performance. This dataset pulls 434 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine emulsion or emulsifier terminology with claims touching stability, sensory feel, droplet size, preservative systems or active delivery, filtered to the IPC groups covering cosmetic and medicinal skin preparations, catalysis-adjacent mixing, and detergent chemistry. It is a working slice of the field, not the whole of cosmetics IP: formulations that never mention stability, feel or delivery in title or claims fall outside the search string.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one or two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Read the tail of the filing curve as incomplete, not as a genuine drop-off.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 434-family dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
A filing curve that peaked in 2017
Annual filings ran from a peak of 33 families in 2017 down to a midpoint of 11 in 2022, with the most recent year showing only 1 filing so far — consistent with a maturing search space rather than an emerging one, once publication lag is accounted for.
Claim activity concentrated in two subclasses
A61K (429 records) and A61Q (388 records) between them cover nearly the entire dataset, with much smaller counts in A61P, C09K, B01J, B01F, C08L and C11D — the mixing, polymer and detergent-adjacent classes that sit at the edges of the core cosmetic-use claim space.
Shares are the percentage of the 434 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cosmetic Emulsion Formulation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cosmetic emulsion formulation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this space
US20040185070A1 — Silky feel cosmetic emulsion chassis
A cosmetic composition is provided which includes a high level of glycerin, a copolymer which is preferably a C10-C18 acrylates crosspolymer, and a crystalline gel structurant comprising a surfactant and co-surfactant, the structurant having an enthalpy ranging from about 2 to about 15 Joule per gram, wherein the composition has a normal force of from about +5 to about +50 grams thereby achieving a silky sensory feel on skin, the glycerin to copolymer being present in a weight ratio ranging from about 350:1 to about 10:1. Advantageously, the composition has a SkiCon Value ranging from about 10 to about 80.Filed by Unilever Home & Personal Care, published 2004-09-23. Claims tie sensory outcome (normal force, SkiCon value) to specific compositional ratios rather than to a class of ingredients.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5085856A | Cosmetic water-in-oil emulsion lipstick comprising a phospholipid and glycerol fatty acid esters emulsifying … | 114 |
| 2 | US20030235548A1 | Cosmetic composition for care and/or treatment and/or makeup of the emulsion type structured with silicone po… | 82 |
| 3 | US6497861B1 | Stable cosmetic emulsion with polyamide gelling agent | 63 |
| 4 | EP0567326A2 | Cosmetic emulsion containing a resin material and process for making it | 54 |
| 5 | US5849315A | Emulsifier composition for skin care formulations | 50 |
| 6 | US20110206793A1 | Topical skin care formulation | 48 |
| 7 | US20060013792A1 | Solid water-in-oil cosmetic emulsion | 48 |
| 8 | US5302376A | Cosmetic screening emulsion comprising a UV-A screening agent and a UV-B screening agent and its use for skin… | 47 |
| 9 | US4032628A | Cosmetic emulsion compositions including black polymer emulsifiers | 43 |
| 10 | JP2007203288A | Cosmetic emulsion capable of being prepared at low temperature, and having low-viscosity and long-term stabil… | 40 |
Citation counts are drawn from the searched corpus and skew toward older filings that have had more years to accumulate citations — 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 numbers say about this field
Reading the filing trend, IPC split and citation table together points to a field where the foundational chemistry is well claimed and recent activity has thinned.
Activity has cooled since 2017
Filings ran from a peak of 33 families in 2017 to a midpoint of 11 in 2022, and the latest year shows just 1 filing on record. Even allowing for publication lag understating the tail, the multi-year decline from the 2017 peak is a genuine signal that new entrants are filing less densely than they were.
Two subclasses carry almost the whole dataset
A61K and A61Q account for the overwhelming majority of records, while B01F (mixing and stirring) and C08L (polymer compositions) sit at just 18 and 15 records respectively. That gap suggests process and materials-science angles on emulsification are comparatively lightly claimed relative to the formulation-and-use claims that dominate.
Old chemistry still anchors the prior art
The most-cited record in this dataset is a 1991 phospholipid/glycerol fatty ester lipstick emulsion, and the next four most-cited records were all published before 2004. New filers in droplet-size or preservative-system claims are still working against decades-old emulsifier-system prior art.
US and Europe lead receiving offices
The United States (115) and the European Patent Office (96) receive far more filings than WIPO/PCT (49), Canada (32), Australia (23) or China (20), indicating that protection strategy in this field still centres on the two largest cosmetics markets rather than broad multi-jurisdiction PCT coverage.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cosmetic emulsion formulation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
Co-assignee pairing data points to a small number of corporate groups filing jointly across subsidiaries, with recent-year momentum flat across the board.
Unilever entities file jointly
The strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset links two Unilever group entities across 18 shared filings, a pattern consistent with a single R&D organisation splitting patent ownership across regional or functional subsidiaries rather than genuine external collaboration.
No leading assignee filed in the latest year
Every one of the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum — including L'Oreal, the two Unilever entities, Mary Kay and Shiseido — shows zero filings in the latest year. Given publication lag, this likely understates true recent activity, but it confirms none of the historical leaders is currently pushing a visible filing surge.
Large groups split filings across jurisdictions
Unilever's presence in the co-assignee data as two separate legal entities filing together illustrates how multinational cosmetics groups often route emulsion patents through more than one regional subsidiary, which fragments raw assignee counts even when ownership is effectively unified.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| L'Oreal | 0 | — |
| Unilever PLC | 0 | — |
| Unilever N.V. | 0 | — |
| Color Access, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Mary Kay Inc. | 0 | — |
| Shiseido Company, Limited | 0 | — |
| Kao Corporation | 0 | — |
| Beiersdorf AG | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white-space filing, or competitive tracking.
Check freedom-to-operate against the cited core
Before filing new droplet-size or preservative-system claims, screen against the pre-2004 most-cited records — they remain the densest prior art even though they predate current sensory-feel testing standards.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkDraft around under-claimed process angles
B01F mixing/shear claims and C08L polymer-structurant claims sit well below the A61K/A61Q volume, suggesting first-claim opportunities in process parameters rather than end-composition.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the flat momentum for a re-entry signal
With every major historical assignee showing zero filings in the latest tracked year, a renewed filing push from any one of them would be a meaningful signal worth monitoring given publication lag.
Set up assignee monitoringCommon questions about cosmetic emulsion patents
The dataset's co-assignee data shows Unilever's two group entities filing jointly at the highest rate among tracked pairs, alongside L'Oreal, Mary Kay and Shiseido appearing as named assignees in recent-year momentum tracking. None of these historical leaders shows filings in the latest tracked year, though that figure is likely understated by publication lag. A full competitive read should rank all 434 families by assignee rather than relying on the handful named here.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 at 33 families and has trended down since, with the 2022 midpoint at just 11 filings and the latest year showing only 1. Even accounting for the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication that always understates the most recent year, the multi-year decline from the 2017 peak points to a cooling filing environment rather than a growing one. This does not necessarily mean less R&D activity — it may mean formulation innovation is increasingly protected as trade secret rather than patented.
The core classification is A61Q (cosmetics use), present in 388 of 434 records, layered with A61K (medicinal preparations), present in 429 records, since many emulsion patents claim both a use and an active-delivery mechanism. Smaller but relevant classes include B01F for mixing and stirring processes, C08L for polymer compositions used as structurants, and C11D for detergent-adjacent chemistry. Searches limited to A61Q alone will miss a meaningful share of relevant filings that are classified primarily under A61K.
This Unilever filing claims a specific silky-feel emulsion chassis defined by a glycerin-to-copolymer weight ratio between roughly 350:1 and 10:1, a crystalline gel structurant with a defined enthalpy range, and measured sensory outputs including normal force and SkiCon value. It does not block sensory-feel formulations generally — it blocks formulations that fall within its specific compositional ratios and structurant chemistry. A formulation using a different structurant class or falling outside the claimed ratio range would sit outside its claim scope, though a full freedom-to-operate opinion should check the full claim set, not the abstract alone.
The IPC composition data shows B01F (mixing and stirring, 18 records) and C08L (polymer compositions, 15 records) are thin relative to the 429-record A61K core, suggesting process-parameter and polymer-structurant claims are comparatively under-filed. Preservative-system synergy and droplet-size control via process conditions also show less density than composition-of-matter claims in the most-cited records. These are reasonable starting points for a novelty search, though thin filing volume in a subclass is not proof of open claim space — it can also mean the approach has weaker commercial traction.
Research Cosmetic Emulsion Formulation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cosmetic emulsion 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.