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 →This landscape covers 542 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that describe dry granulation, roller compaction and ribbon compaction processes for pharmaceutical manufacturing, together with the excipients, sealing systems and moisture-control measures that make those processes work at scale. The search targets title and abstract language on the process itself and claim/description language on the operational detail — ribbon density uniformity, fines recycle, roll surface condition, sealing systems and moisture-sensitive API handling — so the set skews toward records where the granulation step is a stated part of the invention rather than an incidental manufacturing note.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year in the trend line is necessarily undercounted and should be read as a floor, not a ceiling.
Two views of the same 542 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records sit in.
Filings hit 26 in 2017, the peak so far, matched again at the 2022 midpoint before easing off toward 4 in the most recent partial year. Read the tail end cautiously given the publication lag — the last one to two years will fill in further as more records publish — but the shape from 2017 to 2022 is already flat rather than growing, which is unusual for a manufacturing technique still under active development.
A61K (medicinal preparations) covers 76.4% of the 542 records and A61P (therapeutic activity of compounds) covers 25.8%, confirming that most filings frame dry granulation as a formulation and dosage-form problem rather than a pure equipment problem. Smaller but non-trivial clusters sit in C07D (heterocyclic compounds, 5.5%), B01J (chemical/physical processes, 5.4%) and A61J (containers for medicine, 3.1%) — each a narrower angle on the same core process. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares add up to well over 100% of the record total and should be read as overlapping lenses, not a partition.
Shares are the percentage of the 542 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dry granulation and roller compaction and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaFiled by Glaxo Group Limited, this record describes forming a piboserod-type active pharmaceutical ingredient into granules by a dry granulation process, preferably roller compaction followed by milling to a target particle size, before combining the granulate with pharmaceutically acceptable excipients into a finished composition.Useful as a template for how process claims in this space are typically structured: an active ingredient, a named dry granulation route, and a downstream particle-size or milling step tied to a specific dosage form.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5585115A | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressability | 287 |
| 2 | US5725883A | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 150 |
| 3 | US6122601A | Compacted material density measurement and compaction tracking system | 133 |
| 4 | US6103219A | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 117 |
| 5 | US4551177A | Compressible starches as binders for tablets or capsules | 115 |
| 6 | US20070099902A1 | Unitary pharmaceutical dosage form | 103 |
| 7 | US20070077295A1 | Method and composition for pharmaceutical product | 94 |
| 8 | US6217909B1 | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 93 |
| 9 | US5725884A | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 83 |
| 10 | US20050220865A1 | Compressed composition comprising magnesium salt | 80 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings, since they have had more years to accumulate citations — treat this table as a signal of influence on the field, not a ranking of current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
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 →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 →Three read-outs from the dataset that matter more for filing strategy than the headline counts.
The top 5 assignees account for 30.4% of all 542 records and the top 10 account for 45.4%. That leaves more than half the corpus spread across a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants, which is where most freedom-to-operate work will actually need to happen.
The peak year was 2017 at 26 records, matched again at the 2022 midpoint, with the count easing toward 4 in the latest partial year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, the true recent-year figure is understated, but the flat 2017-2022 stretch already signals a mature, not expanding, filing pattern.
The five most-cited records in the set are dominated by pharmaceutical excipient compressibility patents (US5585115A at 287 citations, US5725883A at 150, US6103219A at 117) alongside a compaction-density measurement patent (US6122601A at 133). Newer process patents in the corpus have not displaced these as the reference point other filers build on.
The United States (88) and the European Patent Office (74) receive the most filings, with WIPO/PCT (40), Canada (39), China (38) and India (38) close behind one another. That relatively even spread across six offices suggests applicants are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than concentrating on a single home market.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to dry granulation and roller compaction, with the prior art for and against each one.
The ranked leader holds 41 records; fifth place holds 25 and tenth place holds 13 — a steep drop-off that opens up real space below the top tier.
The leading assignee holds 41 records, well ahead of fifth place at 25 and tenth place at 13. That gap between first and fifth is the clearest sign of a genuinely dominant filer rather than a cluster of near-equal competitors.
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest of them is far ahead of the rest — a sign that most filers in this space protect inventions solo rather than through joint filings, with a small number of exceptions tied to specific corporate relationships.
Several assignees that appear among the more active historical filers show zero records in the latest year of the dataset. Combined with the flat-to-declining overall trend, this points to a field where established players are not currently pressing their position, which is itself an opening for a new entrant with a genuinely differentiated process claim.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Genentech, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Edward Mendell Co., Inc. | 0 | — |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb & Gilead Sciences LLC | 0 | — |
| Glaxo Group Limited | 0 | — |
| Gilead Sciences, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Takeda AS | 0 | — |
| Nycomed Pharma AS | 0 | — |
| TRADICHEM IND SERVICES SL | 0 | — |
The dataset points to a field with dense coverage at the excipient and formulation level, and thinner coverage on process control and sealing hardware.
With 45.4% of all 542 records held by the top 10 assignees, any new filing on core roller compaction or granule formulation should be checked against that concentrated set before it is checked against the long tail.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaRibbon density sensing, roll surface treatment and moisture-sensitive sealing systems show up in the search scope but carry comparatively few dedicated records, which is where a first-mover claim is more likely to stand.
Explore white space in EurekaThe most-cited records in the corpus are excipient compressibility patents from outside the most recent filing wave. Any new formulation claim should be benchmarked against that older, heavily cited prior art before drafting.
Review key patents in EurekaIt is moderately concentrated but not dominated by a single player. The top 5 assignees hold 30.4% of the 542 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 45.4%, which leaves more than half the corpus spread across a long tail of 90 other ranked companies. The leading assignee alone holds 41 records, well ahead of fifth place at 25, so there is a clear leader, but the field below the top tier is genuinely open to new entrants.
No, the trend has flattened. Filings peaked at 26 records in 2017, held at 26 again at the 2022 midpoint, and have since declined toward 4 in the most recent partial year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years will likely fill in somewhat as more records publish, but the multi-year flat stretch before that is a genuine signal that filing activity has plateaued rather than accelerated.
This Glaxo Group record covers a process for preparing a specific piboserod-based pharmaceutical composition using dry granulation, preferably roller compaction followed by milling to a target particle size. It is narrow: the claims are tied to a specific active ingredient and salt form combined with a named dry granulation route, so it does not block the use of roller compaction as a general process for other actives. Anyone working with a different API or a materially different excipient combination is unlikely to fall within its scope, but it is a useful template for how narrow, ingredient-specific process claims are typically drafted in this field.
The most-cited record in the dataset is US5585115A, an excipient compressibility patent with 287 citations, followed by related excipient patents US5725883A and US6103219A and a compaction-density measurement patent, US6122601A. High citation counts inside a searched corpus tend to favour older filings simply because they have had more years to accumulate citations, so these figures are best read as a measure of influence on later filings rather than a statement that these patents remain the most commercially important today.
The clearest openings sit in narrower technical branches that appear in the search scope but carry comparatively few dedicated records: ribbon density uniformity sensing, roll surface texturing for fines control, in-line fines recycle control loops, and sealing systems for moisture-sensitive APIs. These sit adjacent to the heavily filed A61K medicinal-preparations core (76.4% of records) rather than inside it, which is consistent with a field where the formulation chemistry is well covered but the process-control and hardware layer is not.
Go past this page: query the whole dry granulation and roller compaction 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.