Dual Chamber Lyophilized Drug Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- 73.0% of all 200 records in scope sit with just five assignees, and 89.0% sit with ten — this field is claimed narrowly, not broadly.
- Filing peaked in 2018 at 19 records and the 2021→2024 span shows a -10% shift, a plateau rather than a collapse once publication lag is accounted for.
- A61K and C07K classes dominate at 57.0% and 34.5% of records respectively, while container-closure-specific A61J sits at just 6.5% — a much thinner claim layer.
Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (9) — 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 200 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Dual chamber lyophilized drug presentations sit at the intersection of formulation science and delivery hardware: a lyophilized cake in one chamber, diluent in the other, and a mechanism — syringe, cartridge or reconstitution device — that brings them together at the point of use. The search scope in this dataset pairs device terms like dual chamber syringe and lyophilized prefilled presentation with the specific engineering concerns that make or break these products: stopper design, septum integrity, siliconization and particulate generation.
Two hundred published records fall within scope across the 2015–2026 window. The ranking below draws on the full set of 200 patent families rather than raw document counts, which keeps continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction duplicates from inflating any single assignee's position.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 200 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight.
Filing trend
Filings rose from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 19 in 2018, then eased. The 2021→2024 comparison — 10 down to 9 records, a -10% shift — is the most reliable recent read, since publication lag means 2025 and 2026 figures will keep rising as more records surface.
IPC composition
A61K (medicinal preparations) and C07K (peptides and proteins) between them touch a majority of records, reflecting how much of this landscape is driven by biologic formulation rather than hardware alone. A61J, the class most specific to medicine containers, covers only 6.5% of records — one signal of where device-side claim space remains comparatively open.
Shares are the percentage of the 200 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Dual Chamber Lyophilized Drug Presentations with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about dual chamber lyophilized drug presentations and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US20210078213A1 — Manufacturing a two-part elastomeric plunger
A technique of manufacturing an elastomeric container closure or plunger with embedded functional components to avoid thermal damage to those components: a drug-contacting part is molded first under a defined thermal exposure, ancillary components with a lower thermal budget are then inserted, and the assembly is overmolded with a second material to form the finished non-drug-contacting structure.Filed by Sanofi; published 2021-03-18.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5685846A | Dual chamber internal by-pass syringe assembly | 191 |
| 2 | WO2016168716A1 | Compositions comprising a combination of an Anti-PD-1 antibody and another antibody | 163 |
| 3 | US20080097606A1 | Knee joint prosthesis and hyaluronate compositions for treatment of osteoarthritis | 126 |
| 4 | US20130060232A1 | Automatic reconstitution for dual chamber syringe | 117 |
| 5 | US20160304607A1 | Compositions comprising a combination of an Anti-PD-1 antibody and another antibody | 81 |
| 6 | WO2014052490A1 | Methods of using fix polypeptides | 44 |
| 7 | US20110172768A1 | Knee joint prosthesis and hyaluronate compositions for treatment of osteoarthritis | 42 |
| 8 | US8287594B2 | Knee joint prosthesis and hyaluronate compositions for treatment of osteoarthritis | 38 |
| 9 | US20170143827A1 | Compositions comprising a combination of an Anti-PD-1 antibody and another antibody | 35 |
| 10 | US7927858B2 | Drying process | 33 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references within the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial importance.
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 mean for filing strategy
Three patterns worth acting on before drafting new claims in this space.
Ownership is narrow, not broad
With the top five assignees holding 73.0% of all 200 records in scope and the top ten holding 89.0%, this is a field where a handful of players have already staked out the core mechanisms. New entrants need to work around established claim clusters rather than assume open ground.
A plateau, not a decline
Activity peaked in 2018 and the 2021-to-2024 comparison shows only a -10% shift, not a downturn. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the low counts in 2025 and 2026 understate real activity and should not be read as the field cooling.
Formulation classes outweigh container classes
A61K and C07K together touch a majority of records, showing this landscape is formulation-led. A61J, the class specific to medicine containers, and B65B, packaging, sit far lower at 6.5% and 4.0% respectively — the hardware side of dual-chamber presentations carries comparatively thinner prior art.
US and Europe anchor filing strategy
The United States leads receiving offices with 39 filings, followed by Europe (EPO) at 29, with WIPO PCT and Israel each drawing meaningful volume. Any freedom-to-operate check for this technology needs to clear both the US and European dockets first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to dual chamber lyophilized drug presentations, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The assignee ranking covers 26 companies in total, counted by patent family. It is a short, concentrated list rather than a long tail of even competitors.
One assignee well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 59 records, more than four times the fifth-place holder's 11. That gap suggests a sustained, deliberate filing programme rather than opportunistic patenting around a single product launch.
A cluster of established biologics and device makers
Positions five through ten hold between 11 and 5 records each, populated by large biopharma and specialist device manufacturers. This mid-tier is where partnership and licensing activity is most likely, since none of these holders has the scale to dominate the space outright.
A thin tail of single- or few-filing entrants
Beyond the top ten, the remaining assignees in the ranking of 26 hold small, scattered filing counts. These are candidates worth watching for licensing-in activity or acquisition rather than direct competitive threats today.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Bristol Myers Squibb | 0 | -100% |
| GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA | 0 | — |
| Sanofi SA | 0 | — |
| Bioverativ Therapeutics Inc | 0 | — |
| Unitract Syringe | 0 | — |
| Biogen MA Inc | 0 | — |
| Duoject Medical Systems Inc | 0 | — |
| SCHOTT PARENTA SYST | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape points to a concentrated core and a thinner device-side layer. Two directions follow from that.
Map claim boundaries around the top holders
Before drafting in stopper design or reconstitution mechanisms, run a freedom-to-operate check against the leading assignee's granted claims specifically, since its filing volume alone makes it the most likely source of blocking art.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaTest white space in container closure classes
A61J and B65B carry far fewer records than the formulation classes, which is where a narrowly drafted device claim is more likely to clear existing art. Validate any candidate claim against the full citation graph before committing to a filing strategy.
Run a white space search in EurekaFrequently asked questions
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 26 companies, and one holds a clear lead with 59 of the 200 records in scope. The next four assignees combined bring the top five to 73.0% of all records, so ownership is concentrated in a small group rather than spread evenly. Fifth place holds 11 records and tenth place holds 5, showing a steep drop-off after the leader rather than a gradual taper.
Filing peaked in 2018 at 19 records and has settled since, with the 2021-to-2024 comparison showing a -10% change, essentially a plateau rather than a decline. Because patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the lower counts seen in 2025 and 2026 in this dataset are an artefact of that lag, not evidence the field is cooling. A meaningful trend read should stop at 2024, the last year that can be treated as substantially complete.
The dataset spans formulation classes and device classes together. A61K, medicinal preparations, appears in 57.0% of the 200 records and C07K, peptides and proteins, in 34.5%, showing that much of the patenting activity is tied to biologic drug substances rather than hardware alone. A61M, devices for administering fluids to the body, covers 29.0% of records, while A61J, containers specific to medicine, covers only 6.5% — a much thinner layer that points to relatively open device-side claim space.
Container-closure-specific classes like A61J (6.5% of records) and packaging class B65B (4.0%) carry far less filing density than the formulation-heavy classes that dominate this landscape. Specific sub-areas worth checking against the citation graph include septum resealing behaviour after multi-dose reconstitution, low-particulate stopper coatings compatible with lyophilized cakes, and siliconization-free closure surfaces. None of these should be assumed clear without a dedicated freedom-to-operate search, since white space in an IPC class is not the same as an absence of blocking claims.
US20210078213A1, assigned to Sanofi and published 2021-03-18, covers a manufacturing technique for a two-part elastomeric plunger or container closure that embeds functional components without thermal damage. The method molds the drug-contacting part first under a defined thermal exposure, then inserts ancillary components with a lower thermal budget, and finally overmolds a second material to complete the non-drug-contacting structure. It is a process claim tied to manufacturing sequence and thermal budgeting rather than a claim over plunger geometry generally, which narrows what it actually blocks for competitors using different manufacturing sequences.
Research Dual Chamber Lyophilized Drug Presentations in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole dual chamber lyophilized drug presentations 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.