Oral Care Formulation Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One filer dominates. Colgate-Palmolive holds 207 of the records behind the ranked leaders, dwarfing every other assignee in the set.
- Filing has cooled since the 2019 peak. Activity ran to 15 records that year and has since flattened, with the midpoint year 2022 down to 2 — though the most recent year is always undercounted due to publication lag.
- Cosmetic and medicinal claims dominate; dentistry and disinfection barely register. A61K and A61Q cover 99.5% and 90.3% of the 216 records respectively, while A61C dentistry and A61L sterilising each sit at 6.5% or below.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 216 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine oral care formulation language — toothpaste, mouthwash and general oral care product claims — with technical criteria spanning fluoride bioavailability, abrasivity (RDA), sensitivity relief, whitening efficacy and biofilm control. The scope is narrowed further by IPC classes A61K8, A61Q11 and A61K33, so the set captures formulation-level claims rather than delivery hardware or brushing mechanics.
Filing activity peaked in 2019 and has since declined toward the low single digits by the dataset's midpoint year, a pattern consistent with a mature claim space rather than an emerging one. Receiving-office data shows filings concentrated across Australia, Europe, the United States, Canada, India and the WIPO PCT route, indicating that applicants are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection for formulations rather than filing narrowly at home.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 216-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses when a single record can carry more than one classification.
A flat-to-declining trend since the 2019 peak
Filings rose to a peak of 15 in 2019, then eased back toward the low single digits by 2022 and beyond. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the final year or two in this trend understates true activity and should not be read as a hard decline.
Formulation and cosmetic claims dominate the class mix
A61K medicinal preparations appear in 99.5% of the 216 records and A61Q cosmetics use in 90.3%, confirming the corpus is formulation-centric by design. Therapeutic-activity claims under A61P reach 32.9%, while dentistry (A61C), electrotherapy (A61N), brushes (A46B), electrolytic production (C25B) and sterilising (A61L) each sit at 6.5% or below — thin bands that point to formulation-adjacent claims most applicants are not bothering to stake out.
Shares are the percentage of the 216 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Oral Care Formulation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about oral care formulation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art in this space
CA2972256A1 — Oral care product with orally acceptable sulfate in an electrically conductive medium
Provided is an oral care product comprising an effective amount of a soluble orally acceptable sulfate, e.g., sodium or potassium bisulfate, in a buffered, electrically conductive medium, which product is useful in a method for in situ production of persulfate (S2O8 2-), and methods of making and using the same, for example for whitening the teeth.Filed by Colgate-Palmolive, dated 2016-06-30 — an in situ persulfate-generation route to teeth whitening rather than a pre-formulated peroxide system.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090202451A1 | Oral care product and methods of use and manufacture thereof | 133 |
| 2 | US20090202450A1 | Oral care product and methods of use and manufacture thereof | 122 |
| 3 | US20090202454A1 | Oral care product and methods of use and manufacture thereof | 52 |
| 4 | WO2009099455A1 | Oral care product and methods of use and manufacture thereof | 45 |
| 5 | US20100330003A1 | Oral care product and methods of use and manufacture thereof | 40 |
| 6 | WO2009099452A1 | Oral care product and methods of use and manufacture thereof | 39 |
| 7 | WO2010115037A2 | Non-aqueous dentifrice composition with bioacceptable and bioactive glass and methods of use and manufacture … | 32 |
| 8 | WO2015095709A1 | Tooth whitening oral care product with core shell silica particles | 29 |
| 9 | US20120020898A1 | Non-aqueous dentifrice composition with bioacceptable and bioactive glass and methods of use and manufacture … | 29 |
| 10 | WO2009099454A1 | Oral care product and methods of use and manufacture thereof | 26 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, not as 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 patterns stand out once the numbers are read together: a heavily skewed leaderboard, a class mix concentrated in two IPC codes, and a trend that peaked several years ago.
One company holds the overwhelming majority of ranked records
Colgate-Palmolive's count of 207 dwarfs the fifth-place assignee's 6 and the tenth-place assignee's 4. New entrants are not filing against a level field — they are filing into a space where one company's claim history already covers most of the mainstream formulation approaches.
Activity has cooled from its 2019 high
The filing trend rose to 15 records in 2019 and had fallen to 2 by the midpoint year 2022. Recent-year momentum by assignee shows the leading filers at 0 in the latest year, though this partly reflects publication lag rather than a genuine stop in R&D.
Formulation and cosmetic claims crowd out adjacent classes
Almost every record touches A61K or A61Q, while dentistry (A61C, 6.5%), sterilising (A61L, 5.1%) and electrolytic production (C25B, 5.6%) are each claimed by only a small minority of filings. That gap is where formulation-adjacent mechanisms remain comparatively open.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to oral care formulation, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Colgate-Palmolive | ZAIDEL LYNETTE | 6 |
| Colgate-Palmolive | PRENCIPE MICHAEL | 6 |
| Colgate-Palmolive | CUMMINS DIANE | 6 |
| Colgate-Palmolive | CHOPRA SUMAN K | 6 |
| ZAIDEL LYNETTE | PRENCIPE MICHAEL | 6 |
| ZAIDEL LYNETTE | CHOPRA SUMAN K | 6 |
| PRENCIPE MICHAEL | CHOPRA SUMAN K | 6 |
| Colgate-Palmolive | WU DONGHUI | 4 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links are all internal — Colgate-Palmolive paired with named inventors such as Zaidel, Prencipe and Cummins at a count of 6 each — indicating in-house inventor teams rather than cross-company collaboration.
Who is filing, and where they are not
The ranked leaders list is short and steep: one assignee accounts for the bulk of records, a handful of named inventors sit mid-table, and the rest of the 31 ranked entities file in single digits.
Colgate-Palmolive sets the baseline for the field
With 207 records among the ranked leaders, Colgate-Palmolive's filing history effectively defines the mainstream toothpaste and mouthwash formulation space that any new entrant must design around.
A thin band of named-inventor filers
Fifth place in the ranking holds 6 records, and tenth place holds 4 — a steep drop from the leader that suggests most competitive activity is internal to a small number of research teams rather than spread across many companies.
Ingredient and abrasive suppliers appear alongside formulators
The presence of a specialty minerals supplier among the ranked assignees points to abrasive and mineral-additive claims as a distinct filing angle separate from the finished-product formulators.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Colgate-Palmolive | 0 | -100% |
| Specialty Minerals Michigan Inc. | 0 | — |
| ZAIDEL LYNETTE | 0 | — |
| PRENCIPE MICHAEL | 0 | — |
| CUMMINS DIANE | 0 | — |
| CHOPRA SUMAN K | 0 | — |
| WU DONGHUI | 0 | — |
| WANG QIN | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The numbers point to a mature, concentrated field with narrow open bands rather than a wide-open opportunity space. The next step is turning those bands into claim drafts and freedom-to-operate checks.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's claim history
With one assignee holding the large majority of ranked records, any new filing in mainstream whitening, sensitivity-relief or fluoride-delivery formulations should be checked against that portfolio before drafting.
Run an FTO check in EurekaDraft around the under-claimed IPC bands
Electrolytic whitening routes, electrotherapy-assisted biofilm control and brush-integrated dosing each sit under 7% of records — narrow enough to be genuinely open but specific enough to need careful claim scoping.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch for the publication-lag rebound
The apparent drop to zero in the most recent year is partly an artefact of the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication; re-check momentum figures once later filings clear examination and publish.
Track filings in EurekaCommon questions on oral care formulation patents
Colgate-Palmolive is by far the largest filer in this dataset, holding 207 of the records among the ranked leaders, compared with 6 at fifth place and 4 at tenth. That gap means most mainstream toothpaste and mouthwash formulation approaches — fluoride delivery, whitening, sensitivity relief — already sit in one company's portfolio. Any competitive analysis in this space should start with that company's claim history before assuming an approach is open.
Filing activity peaked at 15 records in 2019 and had fallen to 2 by the 2022 midpoint, suggesting the field has cooled from its high point. However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any such trend will always look thinner than the true filing rate. The honest read is a mature, slower-moving field rather than a dead one.
IPC classes tied to dentistry (A61C, 6.5% of the 216 records), electrotherapy (A61N, 6.5%), brushes (A46B, 6.0%), electrolytic production (C25B, 5.6%) and sterilising (A61L, 5.1%) each cover a small minority of filings compared with the near-universal A61K and A61Q classes. That gap points to formulation-adjacent mechanisms — electrolytic whitening chemistry, electrotherapy-assisted biofilm control, brush-integrated dosing — as comparatively open ground for new claims.
CA2972256A1, filed by Colgate-Palmolive and dated 2016-06-30, claims an oral care product containing a soluble orally acceptable sulfate in a buffered, electrically conductive medium, used to generate persulfate in situ for whitening teeth. This is a chemistry-generation route rather than a pre-formulated peroxide-based whitening system, so it specifically blocks in situ persulfate-generation approaches rather than whitening formulations generally. Anyone designing a whitening product using electrically conductive or in situ oxidant-generation mechanisms should review this filing closely.
Among receiving offices in this dataset, Australia leads with 38 filings, followed by the European Patent Office at 33, the United States at 29, Canada at 24, India at 20 and the WIPO PCT route at 17. This spread indicates that applicants in this space are commonly pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than filing narrowly in a single home market, which is typical for consumer formulation products sold globally.
Research Oral Care Formulation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole oral care 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.