Pharmaceutical Polymer Excipient Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2019 peak. 27 filings that year against a 2022 midpoint of just 7, with the most recent year still partial — a flat-to-declining curve, not a growing one.
- Citations concentrate in a handful of 1980s-90s compressibility patents. The five most-cited records, led by US5585115A at 287 citations, all predate 2000 and still anchor how new compressibility claims are read.
- The recent-year momentum table shows near-universal stalling. Several previously active assignees, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Grünenthal, show zero filings in the latest year and some report -100% year-on-year.
Filing growth compares 2021 (12 records) with 2024 (11) — 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 314 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this dataset covers
This landscape draws on 314 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine excipient-specific language — “pharmaceutical excipient,” “polymer excipient,” “tablet binder” — with functional claims around dissolution rate, solid dispersion, bioavailability enhancement, compressibility or amorphous stabilization, filtered to the A61K47, A61K9 and C08L39 classification space. The scope is deliberately narrow: it captures excipient function claims rather than every formulation patent that happens to mention an inert ingredient.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 figures in any trend line will look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Read the recent-year dip with that lag in mind rather than as a definitive slowdown.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 314-family corpus: how filing volume moved year over year, and how those families distribute across IPC subclasses beyond the core A61K definition.
A 2019 peak followed by a multi-year decline
Filings rose to 27 in 2019, the high point of the window, then fell toward a 2022 midpoint of 7 and have not recovered. The most recent year is partial, so its low count is expected rather than conclusive, but the multi-year trajectory into 2022 is a genuine decline, not an artefact of the cut-off.
A61K dominates; C08L and B02C carry the process-oriented tail
Every record in scope carries an A61K medicinal-preparation classification by construction of the search. Behind that, A61P therapeutic-activity codes appear in 46 records, C08L polymer-composition codes in 17, and B02C crushing/grinding codes in 13 — a signal that a meaningful minority of this art is about processing polymer excipients mechanically, not just formulating them chemically. B29B plastics-preparation and C08K polymer-additive codes each sit at 6, marking smaller but distinct process-adjacent pockets.
Shares are the percentage of the 314 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Pharmaceutical Polymer Excipients with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pharmaceutical polymer excipients and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe patents everyone in this space still cites
WO2026080130A1 — Ocular implant comprising an amorphous solid dispersion with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor and polymer excipient
Filed by Ocular Therapeutix, this application claims an ocular implant built around an amorphous solid dispersion (ASD) combining a tyrosine kinase inhibitor such as axitinib with a polymer excipient, together with methods of treating ocular disease by injecting the ASD or implant into the eye and processes for preparing both.Filed 2026-04-16 — near the data cut-off, so its prosecution history is still developing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5585115A | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressability | 287 |
| 2 | US5741524A | Sustained-release formulations utilizing pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 278 |
| 3 | US4994276A | Directly compressible sustained release excipient | 225 |
| 4 | US5128143A | Sustained release excipient and tablet formulation | 222 |
| 5 | US4744987A | Coprocessed microcrystalline cellulose and calcium carbonate composition and its preparation | 221 |
| 6 | US5858412A | Sustained release formulations utilizing pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility with modifi… | 214 |
| 7 | US5135757A | Compressible sustained release solid dosage forms | 177 |
| 8 | US5725883A | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 150 |
| 9 | US6103219A | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 117 |
| 10 | US6217909B1 | Pharmaceutical excipient having improved compressibility | 93 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings by construction — a high count signals influence on how the field was built, not that the claim is still commercially central today.
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 filing pattern signals
Three things stand out once family counts, IPC composition and citation concentration are put side by side.
Volume has not been sustained since 2019
The peak year of 27 filings in 2019 was not a new baseline. By the 2022 midpoint, annual filings had dropped to 7, and the trend has not recovered since. That points to a field where the core compressibility and solid-dispersion claim space filled up early rather than one still attracting fresh entrants.
Foundational compressibility patents from the 1980s-90s still anchor the field
All five most-cited records predate 2000 and cluster around compressibility and sustained-release excipient formulations. New filings in this space are effectively drafted against, and around, art that is now three decades old.
A mechanical-processing tail sits alongside the chemical formulation core
Beyond the A61K core, B02C (crushing/grinding), B29B (plastics preparation) and C08K (polymer additives) together account for a modest but distinct slice of the corpus — evidence that particle-size and processing routes to compressibility are claimed separately from the chemistry of the excipient itself.
Momentum has stalled across previously active filers
Assignees including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Grünenthal and Wyndham Therapeutics all show zero filings in the latest year, with some reporting -100% year-on-year change. Given publication lag, this understates true 2025-2026 activity, but the pattern across so many names at once is notable.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pharmaceutical polymer excipients, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where new claims can still land
Co-assignee pairings and recent-year momentum both point to a field where a small number of related entities hold the deepest filing history, and where most named players have gone quiet in the latest reporting year.
Filing runs through related-entity pairs, not open collaboration
The strongest co-assignee link, at 8 shared families, sits between two entities of the Dr. Reddy's group. The next-strongest pairs connect Teva Pharmaceutical Industries with its US subsidiary and with a named inventor. This is corporate-family filing structure more than cross-company partnership.
Multiple long-standing filers show no latest-year activity
Wyndham Therapeutics and Ferndale Therapeutics both report -100% year-on-year change with zero filings in the latest year, alongside flat zero counts from Teva, Grünenthal, Rottendorf and Edward Mendell. Publication lag means some of this will reappear once 2025-2026 filings clear, but the breadth of the stall is worth tracking.
US, EPO and PCT routes dominate; India is a strong fourth
The United States leads receiving offices with 67 records, ahead of the EPO at 49 and WIPO/PCT at 41. India's 38 filings and a further 23 in Israel indicate this art is being protected well beyond the traditional US-Europe axis.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Edward Mendell Co., Inc. | 0 | — |
| Wyndham Therapeutics Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Rottendorf Pharma GmbH | 0 | — |
| Grünenthal GmbH | 0 | — |
| Ferndale Therapeutics Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Merck Patent GmbH | 0 | — |
| Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up questions rather than a single conclusion — each depends on what decision is being made.
Map claim scope against the 1980s-90s anchor patents
Before drafting a new compressibility claim, check it against the five most-cited records in this corpus, all of which still shape how examiners read this claim space.
Explore prior art in Eureka →Watch the recent-year momentum table for reactivation
Several major assignees show zero latest-year filings; given the publication lag, some of that will reverse. Track which ones resume filing once 2025-2026 data settles.
Set up assignee tracking in Eureka →Test the under-claimed branches for freedom to operate
B02C mechanical processing and C08K polymer-additive routes carry far fewer families than the A61K core — worth a targeted search before assuming the space is occupied.
Run a white space search in Eureka →Common questions on pharmaceutical polymer excipient patents
The most-cited records in this space, led by US5585115A at 287 citations and US5741524A at 278, date from the late 1980s and 1990s and describe pharmaceutical excipients with improved compressibility, several tied to sustained-release formulations. These older patents remain the reference point that later compressibility and coprocessed-excipient claims are drafted against. Anyone filing a new compressibility claim should expect examiners to cite this cluster regardless of how the new claim is framed.
Based on this dataset, filing activity peaked in 2019 at 27 families and had fallen to a midpoint of 7 by 2022, with no recovery visible through the most recent complete years. That is a flat-to-declining trend rather than a growing one. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the very last year or two in any such trend will always look artificially low, so this should be read as a genuine multi-year decline through 2022 rather than a claim about the present moment.
While every record in this corpus carries an A61K medicinal-preparation classification by design, meaningful secondary activity appears in A61P (therapeutic activity, 46 records), C08L (polymer compositions, 17), and B02C (crushing and grinding, 13). The B02C presence in particular signals that mechanical particle-size reduction is claimed as a distinct route to compressibility, separate from the chemistry of the excipient itself. Smaller pockets in B29B (plastics preparation) and C08K (polymer additives) round out the process-adjacent claim space.
The IPC composition data shows several branches with thin representation relative to the A61K core: mechanochemical processing under B02C, coprocessed excipient-polymer plastics preparation under B29B, and polymer-additive stabilization routes under C08K each carry single-digit-percentage shares of the corpus. Amorphous solid dispersion applied to ocular or other implantable delivery, as in the 2026 Ocular Therapeutix filing, is also a comparatively recent combination. These are starting points for a freedom-to-operate search, not guarantees of open space.
WO2026080130A1, filed by Ocular Therapeutix and published close to this dataset's cut-off, claims an ocular implant built around an amorphous solid dispersion combining a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, such as axitinib, with a polymer excipient, together with methods of treating ocular disease by injection and processes for preparing the dispersion and implant. Because it was filed so close to the data cut-off, its prosecution history and final claim scope are still developing. Anyone working on injectable or implantable amorphous solid dispersions in ophthalmology should review it directly rather than relying on the published abstract alone.
Research Pharmaceutical Polymer Excipients in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pharmaceutical polymer excipients 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.