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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/jet-milling-and-fine-particle-size-reduction-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Powder Handling & GranulationJet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction Patents
- One filer, 402 families — the leader alone accounts for more filings than the next four combined, yet the top 5 still hold only 25.5% of all 3,856 records in scope.
- Pharma dominates the claim space — A61K medicinal preparations cover 59.2% of records, with core grinding-equipment class B02C sitting at just 5.1%, suggesting most protected value sits in the formulation, not the mill.
- Filings have eased, not collapsed — the 2021-to-2024 count fell 13%, from 149 to 129 records a year, after peaking at 164 in 2018.
3,856
Published Records
25%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-13%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (149 records) with 2024 (129) — 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 3,856 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset spans 3,856 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine jet milling, air classifier milling or micronization language with process-control terms such as classifier wheel speed, grinding pressure, specific grinding energy and narrow size distribution. That search string pulls in equipment-level process claims alongside the pharmaceutical and materials compositions that depend on them, so the corpus is naturally weighted toward downstream use cases rather than the mill itself.
The result is a field where mechanical process control and end-product composition are claimed together far more often than either is claimed alone. Reading the assignee ranking and IPC composition side by side shows who is protecting which layer.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015 to mid-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction 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
The Data
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 3,856 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a record can carry several classes, the class shares add up to more than the record total — that is expected.
A field past its filing peak, not past relevance
Filings ran from 144 in 2017 to a peak of 164 in 2018, then eased to 129 by 2024 (a 13% decline from the 2021 count of 149). Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures — down to 16 recorded so far in 2026 — understate real filing activity and should not be read as a slowdown.
Formulation claims outnumber equipment claims by a wide margin
A61K medicinal preparations touch 59.2% of records and A61P therapeutic activity another 18.7%, while the mechanical core — B02C crushing and grinding — appears in only 5.1%. Batteries (H01M, 5.7%) and electrophotography toner (G03G, 5.2%) show the process reaching well beyond pharma into materials manufacturing.
Shares are the percentage of the 3,856 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 Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about jet milling and fine particle size reduction and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited records
Representative Filing
US9695047B2 — Process for producing fine, morphologically optimized particles using jet mill
TOTAL RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FELUY
A process for producing fine particles with a high aspect ratio and/or a low specific surface area includes use of a jet mill. An alkaline grinding aid is added to a grinding gas before the grinding gas is fed into a grinding chamber of the jet mill. The process includes micronization of particles of layered structure material having an interplanar distance ranging from 0.30 nm to 0.40 nm as measured by X-ray diffraction method.Filed by Total Research & Technology Feluy, granted 2017 — ties a specific grinding-aid chemistry to jet-mill process parameters rather than claiming the mill hardware alone.
Most-cited records in this corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO1991016038A1 | Pharmaceutical aerosol formulation of solid polypeptide microparticles and method for the preparation thereof | 313 |
| 2 | US20110160104A1 | Ceramic Particles With Controlled Pore and/or Microsphere Placement and/or Size and Method Of Making Same | 299 |
| 3 | US20140227548A1 | Nanoparticles, Compositions, Manufacture and Applications | 268 |
| 4 | US6634576B2 | Milled particles | 265 |
| 5 | US6290991B1 | Solid dose delivery vehicle and methods of making same | 231 |
| 6 | US6113795A | Process and apparatus for size selective separation of micro- and nano-particles | 227 |
| 7 | US20020047058A1 | Milled particles | 223 |
| 8 | US6811792B2 | Solid dose delivery vehicle and methods of making same | 217 |
| 9 | US6565871B2 | Solid dose delivery vehicle and methods of making same | 198 |
| 10 | US20090215808A1 | Oral pharmaceutical dosage forms | 193 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate them; treat this as a signal of influence within the searched corpus, not a ranking of current importance.
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 Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction 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
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 stand out once families, classes and citation data are read together: concentration is real but shallow, protection sits mostly in composition rather than mechanics, and the most-cited prior art is old enough that its core claims may already be narrowing in enforceability.
Concentration
25.5%
of 3,856 records held by the top 5
A leader, then a long tail
One assignee holds 402 families outright, well ahead of a fifth-place entrant at 68 and a tenth-place entrant at 52. But the top 5 combined still cover only 25.5% of all records, and the top 10 only 32.5% — most of this field is filed by companies that appear once or twice in the ranking.
Ranking covers 100 assignees, counted in families.
Technology layer
5.1%
of records in B02C grinding/crushing
The mill itself is lightly claimed
Equipment-level grinding and crushing claims (B02C) sit at 5.1% of records, dwarfed by A61K medicinal-preparation claims at 59.2%. Most enforceable protection in this dataset is built around what the milled particle becomes, not how the mill runs.
IPC shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple classes.
Prior art age
313 citations
on the top-cited record, WO1991016038A1
The most-cited art predates current process language
The single most-cited record dates to a 1991 aerosol-formulation filing; the next most-cited group spans the 2000s and early 2010s. High citation counts here mark historical influence within the corpus, not current freedom-to-operate risk.
Citation counts favour older filings by construction.
Momentum
-13%
2021→2024 filing change (149→129 records)
A cooling, not a collapse
The 2021-to-2024 window shows filings down 13%, and several of the largest historical assignees show zero filings in the most recent tracked year. Read this alongside the 18-month publication lag rather than as evidence the technology is being abandoned.
2025–2026 counts are still filling in and are excluded from this comparison.
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 jet milling and fine particle size reduction, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction 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 the activity has cooled
The ranking spans 100 assignees counted in families. A single leader with 402 families sits well ahead of the field, but several of the historically largest filers — including entrants that once anchored the top 10 — show no filings in the most recent tracked year, consistent with a broader 2021-to-2024 pullback rather than an active retreat by any one company.
Leader
402 families
largest single assignee
Scale without a monopoly
The leading assignee's 402 families exceed the combined total of the next four ranked entrants, but that scale still translates to only a fraction of the 3,856-record field — this is a fragmented landscape with one outsized filer, not a controlled one.
Fifth place holds 68 families; tenth place holds 52.
Co-filing
10 pairs
co-assignee relationships identified
A few tight collaborations, not a network
The strongest co-assignee pairing appears 30 times, and a pharmaceutical pairing appears 27 times, but only 10 co-assignee pairs exist across the whole dataset — most filers here work alone rather than in joint-filing arrangements.
Strongest pairs concentrate in pharma and lighting/automotive materials.
Recent activity
0 in latest year
for several previously top-10 assignees
Historical leaders have gone quiet
Multiple assignees that built substantial family counts over the period show zero filings in the latest tracked year, including at least two with a recorded -100% year-on-year change. This lines up with the field-wide 13% decline from 2021 to 2024 rather than signalling any single company's exit.
Publication lag means the most recent year always understates true activity.
Filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Iceutica Pty Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Vectura Ltd | 0 | — |
| Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd | 0 | — |
| Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG | 0 | — |
| Coromandel International Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Nichia Corporation | 0 | — |
| Glaxo Group Ltd | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction 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 two practical next steps: checking freedom-to-operate against the dense pharmaceutical composition claims, and testing whether the lightly-claimed equipment-control sub-areas support a defensible first claim.
Map claim scope against the leader's portfolio
With 402 families held by one assignee, any new filing in medicinal-preparation micronization should be checked against that portfolio's specific claim language before drafting.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest the equipment-control white space
B02C-classed grinding and crushing claims cover only 5.1% of records, well below the formulation classes — a candidate area for narrowly drafted process-control claims.
Run a white space search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction 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
One assignee leads the ranked field with 402 families, noticeably ahead of the fifth-ranked entrant at 68 and the tenth-ranked entrant at 52. Even so, the top 5 assignees combined account for only 25.5% of the 3,856 records in scope, and the top 10 for 32.5%, so leadership at the top does not translate into control of the field. Most of the ranking is made up of assignees with a small handful of families each, which points to a fragmented rather than consolidated landscape.
Filings peaked at 164 records in 2018 and eased to 129 by 2024, a 13% decline from the 2021 count of 149. That is a real cooling, but publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the very low counts shown for 2025 and 2026 (16 records so far) are simply incomplete, not evidence of a further drop. The more reliable read is a moderate pullback from a 2018 peak rather than an active abandonment of the technology.
In this dataset, 59.2% of records carry the A61K medicinal-preparations class and 18.7% carry A61P therapeutic-activity codes, while the core grinding-equipment class B02C appears in only 5.1% of records. That split reflects how jet milling and micronization are most often claimed jointly with the drug particle or formulation they produce, rather than as standalone mechanical process claims. A filer focused purely on mill hardware or process control is competing in a much thinner slice of the classified landscape than the headline pharma volume suggests.
The most-cited record in this corpus is a 1991 filing on pharmaceutical aerosol formulations of solid polypeptide microparticles, cited 313 times, followed by records on ceramic particle placement, nanoparticle compositions and milled particle processes. These citation counts reflect age and influence within the searched corpus rather than current enforceability or relevance — older filings simply have had more time to accumulate citations. Newer process-control filings, including those tied to specific grinding energy or amorphization risk, are comparatively under-cited for that same reason.
The clearest gaps sit in equipment-level process control rather than in formulation: classifier wheel speed control loops, amorphization-risk detection during grinding, and liner wear compensation carry thin coverage relative to the 59.2% concentration in A61K formulation claims. Battery-electrode and agrochemical applications of narrow size distribution control also show lighter claim density than pharmaceutical uses. Any first claim in these areas should be checked against the leading assignee's 402-family portfolio, since broad process claims from that filer may already touch adjacent parameter ranges.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction 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 Jet Milling and Fine Particle Size Reduction in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole jet milling and fine particle size reduction 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.