Oral Extended Release Matrix Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 41.7% concentration at the top. The top 5 assignees account for 272 of 653 records in scope — a small group holds a disproportionate share of the filed claim space.
- Filing has cooled from its 2020 peak. Output ran to 13 records that year and fell to 1 by 2024, a -67% move from 2021's 3 filings — read with the usual 18-month publication lag in mind.
- A61K dominates; A61P sits well behind it. 95.3% of records carry a medicinal-preparation class, but only 37.8% pair it with a therapeutic-activity class — most filings claim the delivery system, not a specific indication.
Filing growth compares 2021 (3 records) with 2024 (1) — 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 653 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Oral extended release matrix systems govern how a hydrophilic or hydrophobic polymer network controls drug release after swallowing, through mechanisms such as gel-layer formation, polymer viscosity tuning, and resistance to dose dumping under food or alcohol exposure. The 653 records in scope span 2015 through the current data cut-off and cluster around dissolution-profile control, compression-force effects on tablet integrity, and food-effect mitigation claims that regulators increasingly scrutinise before approval.
The evidence set is drawn from records that combine matrix-formulation language with a specific mechanistic or performance term, which narrows the field to filings that make an affirmative claim about release kinetics rather than merely mentioning an oral dosage form in passing.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 653-record set: the year-by-year filing count, and the IPC subclasses those records carry.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose to a peak of 13 in 2020, then declined; the 2021-to-2024 span alone shows a -67% drop from 3 to 1 filings. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the recent-year dip should not be read as the field's current state.
IPC subclass composition
A61K (medicinal preparations) appears in 95.3% of the 653 records, confirming that nearly every filing is anchored in formulation claims. A61P (therapeutic activity) trails at 37.8%, and heterocyclic-compound class C07D appears in 9.5% — together indicating that most applicants claim the delivery mechanism broadly rather than tying it to a narrow drug class or indication.
Shares are the percentage of the 653 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Oral Extended Release Matrix Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about oral extended release matrix systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US20130237559A1 — Sustained release composition comprising an amine as active agent and a salt of a cyclic organic acid
The present invention provides sustained-release oral pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use. The sustained-release oral pharmaceutical compositions include an amine-containing compound (e.g., an opioid) (including salts thereof) and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of a non-NSAID cyclic organic acid compound.Filed by Upsher-Smith Laboratories; illustrates a common claim architecture in this field — pairing an active amine with a specific counter-ion salt to control release rate rather than relying on polymer selection alone.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2002017918A2 | Sustained release formulations for growth hormone secretagogues | 403 |
| 2 | US6068859A | Controlled-release dosage forms of Azithromycin | 371 |
| 3 | WO1995030422A1 | Controlled-release dosage forms of azithromycin | 157 |
| 4 | US6238697B1 | Methods and formulations for making bupropion hydrochloride tablets using direct compression | 156 |
| 5 | US20120252833A1 | Sustained-release product comprising a combination of a non-opioid amine and a non-steriodal Anti-inflammator… | 138 |
| 6 | WO2010078486A2 | Opioid-containing oral pharmaceutical compositions and methods | 110 |
| 7 | WO2010102071A1 | Sustained release oral dosage forms of an r-baclofen prodrug | 90 |
| 8 | WO2004010997A1 | Sustained-release tablet composition of pramipexole | 87 |
| 9 | WO2012131463A2 | Controlled release pharmaceutical dosage forms | 85 |
| 10 | US20060287352A1 | Modified release compositions comprising tacrolimus | 84 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus — treat them as a marker of influence on later filings, 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 numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-throughs of the concentration, trend and citation data, framed around where a new filing would actually land.
The top of the field is genuinely crowded
The top 5 assignees hold 272 of 653 records (41.7%), and the top 10 combined reach 62.9%. That is a steep concentration curve for a mechanism-level technology area, meaning new entrants are filing against a small number of well-defended portfolios rather than a diffuse field.
Peak activity has passed, reporting lag aside
Filings peaked at 13 in 2020 and fell to 1 by 2024, a -67% move over that span. Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, 2025 and 2026 counts will still rise as records publish — the decline through 2024 is the reliable signal, not the years after it.
Most claims sit on the delivery system, not the drug
A61K appears in 95.3% of records while A61P appears in only 37.8%, and C07D in 9.5%. The gap suggests applicants are more often protecting the matrix and release mechanism itself than tying claims to a specific therapeutic class, which widens the blocking effect of a strong matrix patent across multiple drug candidates.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to oral extended release matrix systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
The ranking covers 100 companies across the 653 records in scope — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full set the data endpoint returns. A handful of pharmaceutical originators sit well ahead of a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
One originator sits far ahead of fifth place
The leading assignee holds 93 records against 35 at fifth place and 22 at tenth — a steep drop-off that signals a defended core portfolio rather than a fragmented field at the very top.
Co-assignee pairs point to specific R&D partnerships
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pair sharing 23 records and two others sharing 9 and 7 — evidence of sustained joint development rather than one-off licensing.
The historic leaders show no latest-year filings
Every one of the six assignees tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the broader post-2020 decline and the publication lag rather than an active exit from the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Pfizer Inc | 0 | — |
| Veloxis Pharmaceuticals | 0 | — |
| Pharmacia Corp | 0 | — |
| AstraZeneca AB | 0 | — |
| UPSHER SMITH LABORATORIES INC | 0 | — |
| Purdue Pharma LP | 0 | — |
| Ardea Biosciences Inc | 0 | — |
| Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis next
The landscape points to a concentrated core and a thinning periphery; the next step depends on whether you are clearing a filing or scouting for a partner.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the gel-layer core claims
With 41.7% of records held by five assignees, any new hydrophilic matrix filing should be checked against the leading portfolios before drafting, not after.
Search the core claim space →Track the co-assignee network for partnership signals
The strongest co-assignee pair shares 23 records, suggesting an active joint-development relationship worth understanding before approaching either party.
Explore assignee relationships →Watch the under-claimed branches for early filing advantage
Sub-areas like food-effect excipients and non-opioid amine salt pairing carry lower class density than the A61K core, making them candidates for a first-mover filing.
Map the white space →Common questions on oral extended release matrix patents
The dataset's leading assignee holds 93 of the 653 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 35 and the tenth at 22. The top 5 assignees combined account for 41.7% of all records, and the top 10 reach 62.9%. That steep drop-off after the leader indicates a defended core portfolio at the top, with a long tail of companies filing only a handful of records each.
Filings peaked at 13 records in 2020 and have declined since, falling to 1 by 2024 — a -67% drop from the 3 filings recorded in 2021. However, publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and will rise as more records publish. Treat 2024 as the most recent reliable data point rather than reading a continued decline into the years after it.
Dose dumping refers to the unintended, rapid release of a drug's full dose from an extended-release formulation, often triggered by alcohol co-ingestion or a food effect that alters gel-layer integrity. Patents in this landscape frequently claim polymer viscosity ranges, compression force parameters, or specific excipient combinations designed to resist this failure mode. Because dose-dumping risk is a regulatory concern, claims addressing it are a recurring feature across many of the 653 records in scope.
A61K (medicinal preparations) appears in 95.3% of the 653 records, while A61P (therapeutic activity of compounds) appears in only 37.8%. This gap shows that most applicants are claiming the release mechanism and formulation itself — the matrix, gel layer, or dissolution profile — rather than tying the claim narrowly to one drug or indication. A broadly claimed matrix patent can therefore block formulation work across multiple drug candidates, not just one therapeutic area.
Class-level data suggests lower filing density in areas like sugar and nucleic-acid carrier matrices (C07H, 4.7% of records) and packaging-related claims (B65D and A61J, under 1% combined) compared with the dense A61K core. Sub-mechanisms such as food-effect mitigation excipients and non-opioid amine salt pairing also show less concentrated ownership than the core gel-layer claims. A targeted freedom-to-operate search in these areas is more likely to surface open claim space than a search in the core matrix mechanism itself.
Research Oral Extended Release Matrix Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole oral extended release matrix systems 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.