Mouthwash & Antimicrobial Oral Care Patents: Top Companies 2026
- 72.4% of all 979 records sit with just five assignees — this field is concentrated at the top, not spread across a long tail.
- -20% filing change, 2021 to 2024 the last complete filing years show a pullback in new applications from the leading filers.
- 94.2% of records carry A61K while only 4.1% touch C07F organo-metallic chemistry — most activity clusters in formulation, not novel active compounds.
Filing growth compares 2021 (20 records) with 2024 (16) — 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 979 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Mouthwash and antimicrobial oral care patenting spans formulation chemistry, delivery vehicles and claims aimed at biofilm and plaque control. The search scope pulls records combining mouthwash formulation or oral antimicrobial agent language with specific technical markers — chlorhexidine staining, cetylpyridinium chloride, essential oil blends, biofilm penetration, alcohol-free bases and microbiome disruption. That combination narrows the set to 979 published records running from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off.
Filing activity peaked in 2018 and has since moved unevenly; publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one or two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Read the 2021-to-2024 window, not 2025 or 2026, for a true read on direction.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 979-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A field that peaked in 2018 and has since cooled
Annual filings ran from 30 in 2017 to a peak of 46 in 2018. The last complete comparison window, 2021 to 2024, shows filings falling from 20 to 16 — a -20% change. Years after 2024 are still filling in under publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
Formulation and cosmetic-use claims dominate
A61K (medicinal preparations) appears on 94.2% of the 979 records and A61Q (cosmetics use) on 77.5%, confirming that most claim activity sits in formulation and topical-use territory rather than in novel chemistry. Therapeutic-activity claims under A61P reach 13.7%, while organo-metallic chemistry (C07F, 4.1%), detergent chemistry (C11D, 3.1%), polymer compositions (C08L, 2.8%), food-grade delivery (A23L, 2.7%) and biocide chemistry (A01N, 2.1%) each cover a much smaller slice — these are the classes worth checking before assuming the space is closed.
Shares are the percentage of the 979 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Mouthwash and Antimicrobial Oral Care with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about mouthwash and antimicrobial oral care and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US5560906A — Non-alcoholic antimicrobial mouthwash for removal of dental plaque
A pleasant tasting antimicrobial mouthwash formulation which maintains clarity for removal of dental plaque where no alcohol, sugar, artificial sweeteners are used, making it suitable for safe use by alcoholics, diabetics, persons under medical treatment, hospitalized patients, minors and others who cannot or should not use alcohol, sugar or artificial sweeteners. The formulation consists of water, glycerin, sodium benzoate, cetylpyridinium chloride, citric acid, maltol, xylitol, a flavoring agent and a coloring agent.Filed by Oral Technology Laboratories, Inc., 1996-10-01. Included here as a representative early claim on alcohol-free, cetylpyridinium chloride-based antimicrobial mouthwash formulation.
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2014088573A1 | Zinc phosphate containing compositions | 146 |
| 2 | US20050169852A1 | Oral care compositions comprising increased bioavailable levels of quaternary ammonium antimicrobials | 100 |
| 3 | WO1999022703A1 | Improved personal care formulations | 97 |
| 4 | US20110104081A1 | Oral Compositions for Treatment of Dry Mouth | 94 |
| 5 | US6086856A | System for delivering foamed oral hygiene compositions | 85 |
| 6 | EP0870507A1 | Synergistic herbal extracts | 80 |
| 7 | EP0009325A1 | Erythritol cointaining anti-caries compositions | 77 |
| 8 | US20150305993A1 | Zinc Phosphate Containing Compositions | 74 |
| 9 | US6197305B1 | Anti-fungal compositions with prolonged activity | 73 |
| 10 | US5994383A | Surfactant-based antimicrobial compositions and methods for using the same | 73 |
Citation counts reflect influence inside the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure 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 data means for filing strategy
Three read-throughs of the concentration, chemistry and citation patterns above, translated into what they mean for someone deciding where to file next.
Five filers hold most of the claim space
Combined, the five leading assignees account for 72.4% of all 979 records in scope, and the top ten reach 81.3%. That is a field where a new entrant's freedom-to-operate analysis has to run against a small number of large portfolios rather than a diffuse crowd.
The leaders have pulled back, not accelerated
Across the last complete comparison window, filings from 2021 to 2024 dropped from 20 to 16 among the tracked leaders, a -20% change. Recent-year momentum figures for individual top assignees show flat or declining activity in the latest tracked year, consistent with a mature core formulation space rather than an active filing race.
Formulation claims dwarf novel-compound claims
A61K medicinal-preparation claims sit on 94.2% of the 979 records while organo-metallic chemistry under C07F reaches only 4.1%. Biocide-class claims under A01N sit at 2.1%. These smaller classes are where compound-level novelty, rather than formulation dressing, still has room.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to mouthwash and antimicrobial oral care, with the prior art for and against each one.
The assignee landscape
A ranking of 100 companies drawn from the 979 records in scope — not a top-50 or top-100 list by design, simply the full set the data endpoint returns, with volume falling off sharply after the leading names.
One filer dominates the ranked set
The leading assignee alone accounts for 541 of the 979 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 31 and tenth place at 14. That gap defines the shape of the whole ranking: one very large portfolio, then a steep drop.
Co-assignee activity is thin and lopsided
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing is far ahead of the rest, pointing to one dominant joint-filing relationship rather than a network of alliances across the field.
US, EPO and Australia carry most of the filing weight
The United States (148), European Patent Office (131) and Australia (94) are the top receiving offices, with WIPO PCT filings (90) and India (68) and Canada (65) rounding out where applicants are seeking protection.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Colgate-Palmolive Co | 1 | -50% |
| BASF SE | 0 | — |
| SmithKline Beecham plc | 0 | — |
| Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc | 0 | — |
| Arms Pharmaceutical LLC | 0 | — |
| Procter & Gamble Co | 0 | — |
| Den Mat Corp | 0 | — |
| Sigrid Therapeutics | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated core and several thinner branches. These are the practical next steps for turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision.
Map freedom-to-operate against the five leading portfolios
With 72.4% of records held by five assignees, any new formulation claim should be checked against those portfolios first, not against the long tail.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaCheck the under-claimed IPC branches before drafting
C07F, A01N and A23L carry a small share of records each; a claim drafted there faces less prior art density than one filed under A61K or A61Q.
Run an IPC gap search in EurekaTrack the 2021-2024 filing pullback by assignee
The -20% change among leading filers is worth watching by name, since it may signal a shift toward trade secret protection or a move into adjacent categories.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on mouthwash and antimicrobial oral care patents
The assignee ranking for this dataset is heavily concentrated: the leading assignee alone holds 541 of the 979 records in scope, and the top five combined hold 72.4% of all records. Fifth place holds 31 records and tenth place 14, showing a steep drop-off after the leader. This means a competitive review of the space realistically needs to start with a small handful of portfolios rather than a broad field of filers.
Filings peaked in 2018 at 46 in a year and the last complete comparison window, 2021 to 2024, shows a -20% drop from 20 to 16 filings among tracked leaders. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the years after 2024 in any chart will look artificially low and should not be read as evidence of continued decline. The honest read is that the leading filers have pulled back somewhat since the 2018 peak, not that the field has stopped.
A61K, covering medicinal preparations, appears on 94.2% of the 979 records in scope, and A61Q, covering cosmetics use, appears on 77.5%. That combination means most claims describe formulation and topical-use approaches rather than new active compounds. Smaller classes such as C07F organo-metallic chemistry (4.1%) and A01N biocide chemistry (2.1%) carry far less claim density and are worth checking for open space.
US5560906A, filed by Oral Technology Laboratories in 1996, claims a non-alcoholic antimicrobial mouthwash built on cetylpyridinium chloride with glycerin, sodium benzoate, citric acid, maltol and xylitol, aimed at plaque removal without alcohol, sugar or artificial sweeteners. Any new formulation using that specific combination of ingredients for the same non-alcoholic antimicrobial purpose sits closest to its claim scope. Formulations built on different active agents, different alcohol-free carrier systems, or different target indications have more room to design around it, but a claim-by-claim comparison against the granted claims is the only reliable check.
The IPC composition data shows the core formulation classes, A61K and A61Q, are heavily claimed, while organo-metallic antimicrobial chemistry (C07F, 4.1% of records), food-grade antimicrobial delivery (A23L, 2.7%), polymer-carrier biofilm penetration (C08L, 2.8%) and biocide-class active delivery (A01N, 2.1%) each cover a much smaller share of the 979 records. These smaller branches are where compound-level or delivery-mechanism novelty is less likely to run into dense prior art, though a full clearance search is still needed before filing.
Research Mouthwash and Antimicrobial Oral Care in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole mouthwash and antimicrobial oral care 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.