Polymorph Screening Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated but not locked up. The top 5 assignees hold just 12.6% of the 5,014 records in scope, and the top 10 only 21.0% — no single filer controls the field.
- Heterocyclic chemistry dominates the claim space. C07D and A61K classes cover 75.5% and 72.1% of records respectively, while steroid, sugar and general-method branches sit under 1.5% each.
- Filing has levelled off from its 2019 peak. Volume moved from 483 in 2021 to 424 in 2024, a -12% shift, though the most recent two years are still filling in due to publication lag.
Filing growth compares 2021 (483 records) with 2024 (424) — 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 5,014 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Polymorph screening and crystal form selection cover the methods pharmaceutical developers use to identify, characterise and select a manufacturable crystal form of a drug substance — solvent screening, thermodynamic stability testing, form conversion studies and powder diffraction characterisation among them. This landscape draws on 5,014 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, searched against these methods together with core polymorph and crystal-form terminology.
The dataset spans records classified across heterocyclic chemistry, medicinal preparations and therapeutic-activity classes, filed through major receiving offices including the United States, the EPO and the WIPO PCT system. It gives a view of who is claiming crystal-form methods, where those claims cluster by chemistry class, and where filing activity has thinned out.
Filing trends and technology composition
Filing activity and IPC composition across the 5,014 records in scope show where polymorph screening claims concentrate and how that has moved since 2017.
Filings rose to a 2019 peak, then levelled off
Annual filings climbed from 325 in 2017 to a peak of 589 in 2019. Volume moved from 483 in 2021 to 424 in 2024, a -12% change over that span; 2025-2026 counts are still incomplete because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months.
Heterocyclic and medicinal-preparation claims dominate
C07D heterocyclic compounds appear in 75.5% of the 5,014 records and A61K medicinal preparations in 72.1%, with A61P therapeutic-activity claims at 58.1%. Smaller branches — C07C, C07F, C07J, C07B and C07H — each sit under 12%, marking the technology's under-claimed edges. Records can carry multiple IPC classes, so these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 5,014 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Polymorph Screening and Crystal Form Selection with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about polymorph screening and crystal form selection and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filings and the most-cited claims
Salts of potassium ATP channel openers and uses thereof
Provided are immediate or prolonged administration of certain salts of KATP channel openers such as diazoxide to a subject to achieve novel pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, therapeutic, physiological, metabolic and compositional outcomes in the treatment of diseases or conditions involving KATP channels. Also provided are pharmaceutical formulations, methods of administration and dosing of the salts that achieve these outcomes and reduce the incidence of adverse effects in treated individuals. Further provided are methods of co-administering the salts with other drugs to treat diseases of humans and animals.AU2012203517B2 — Soleno Therapeutics — granted 2014-04-24
View full record| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110224190A1 | Piperidin-4-yl azetidine derivatives as JAK1 inhibitors | 325 |
| 2 | US20160176899A1 | Co-crystals of 5-amino-2-oxothiazolo[4,5-d]pyrimidin-3(2H)-yl-5-hydroxymethyl tetrahydrofuran-3-yl acetate an… | 224 |
| 3 | WO2011112662A1 | Piperidin-4-YL azetidine derivatives as JAK1 inhibitors | 192 |
| 4 | US8765734B2 | Piperidin-4-yl azetidine derivatives as JAK1 inhibitors | 137 |
| 5 | WO2020102730A1 | Improved synthesis of key intermediate of KRAS g12c inhibitor compound | 126 |
| 6 | WO2013023184A1 | Kinase inhibitor polymorphs | 110 |
| 7 | WO2021121330A1 | Heterocyclic compounds, preparation methods and uses thereof | 104 |
| 8 | WO2013155317A1 | Salt form of a human hi stone methyltransf erase EZH2 inhibitor | 97 |
| 9 | WO2021061706A1 | SHP2 phosphatase inhibitors and methods of making and using the same | 79 |
| 10 | WO2019075108A1 | Crystalline forms | 79 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older filings accumulate more citations by nature of time in the corpus, so treat this as a signal of influence rather than current commercial importance.
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 tells decision-makers
Reading concentration, technology mix and jurisdictional spread together points to where claim space is occupied and where it is not.
No single filer dominates
The leading assignee holds 169 records out of 5,014, and the top 5 combined reach only 12.6% of all records in scope. That leaves most of the field's claim volume distributed across a long tail of filers rather than locked behind a handful of blocking portfolios.
Heterocyclic chemistry anchors the field
Three-quarters of records in scope carry a C07D heterocyclic compound classification, and nearly as many carry A61K medicinal-preparation claims. Filing density here reflects how much claim space is occupied on heterocyclic APIs, not that the underlying screening technology itself is mature.
Volume has levelled since the 2019 peak
Filings rose to a peak of 589 in 2019, then eased from 483 in 2021 to 424 in 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025-2026 counts understate real activity and should not be read as an accelerating decline.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to polymorph screening and crystal form selection, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Epizyme Inc | Eisai R&D Management Co Ltd | 83 |
| Celgene Corp | Lundbeck La Jolla Research Center Inc | 43 |
| Celgene Corp | Abide Therapeutics Inc | 21 |
| Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc | Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc | 10 |
| Incyte Holdings Corp | Incyte Corporation | 9 |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | Genentech Inc | 8 |
| Cephalon Inc | MCKEAN ROBERT E | 3 |
| Cephalon Inc | YAZDANIAN MEHRAN | 2 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairs concentrated among a small handful of companies — most polymorph screening patents in this space are filed by a single assignee rather than jointly developed.
Who is filing, and where activity has cooled
The ranked assignee list covers 100 companies by patent family. Recent-year momentum shows most of the leading names filing fewer or zero records in the latest year, consistent with a field that has passed its 2019 filing peak but has not necessarily gone quiet — publication lag means the newest activity is still incomplete.
The top-ranked assignee holds a modest lead
With 169 records against a fifth-place figure of 106, the leading assignee's share is real but far from dominant — the top 5 combined still account for only 12.6% of all 5,014 records in scope.
Several leading filers show zero recent-year activity
Recent-year momentum data shows multiple leading assignees dropping to zero filings in the latest year, with year-over-year changes of -100% at several names and -50% at another. This should be read cautiously given publication lag rather than as a definitive exit from the space.
Joint filing is the exception, not the rule
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairings concentrated among a small number of repeat names. Most polymorph screening patents here are filed by a single organisation working independently.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Celgene Corp | 1 | -50% |
| Amgen Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Janssen Pharmaceutica NV | 0 | — |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | 0 | -100% |
| Epizyme Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Cytokinetics Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Incyte Holdings Corp | 0 | — |
| Eisai R&D Management Co Ltd | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The patterns above point to specific next questions for an R&D or IP team working in this space.
Map freedom-to-operate against the leading claim families
With citation activity concentrated in a small number of JAK-inhibitor and co-crystal families, a targeted claim map against those specific patents is more useful than a broad novelty search.
Explore claim mapping in EurekaTest under-claimed branches for a first-mover filing
Steroid, sugar and general-method branches carry a fraction of the claim density seen in heterocyclic chemistry, which may support a first claim if the underlying screening data supports it.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch recent-year momentum before assuming a competitor has exited
Several leading assignees show zero filings in the latest year, but publication lag means this may reflect timing rather than a genuine pullback from the field.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaCommon questions on polymorph screening patents
Polymorph screening is the systematic testing of a drug substance across solvents, temperatures and crystallisation conditions to identify which crystal form is thermodynamically stable and suitable for manufacture. In a patent context, the crystal form selected — along with the method used to find it — can be claimed separately from the underlying molecule, which is why the field generates its own dense filing activity. Getting this wrong late in development can force a costly reformulation or trigger a freedom-to-operate conflict with an existing crystal-form patent, so screening data is usually built into the patent strategy from an early stage.
The assignee ranking in this dataset covers 100 companies counted by patent family, with the leader holding 169 records and the fifth-placed company at 106. The top 5 companies combined account for 12.6% of all 5,014 records in scope, and the top 10 combined reach 21.0% — concentrated at the top but with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants beyond that. This is not a top-50 or top-100 list in the conventional sense; it is the full ranked set the dataset returns.
Filings peaked in 2019 at 589 and volume moved from 483 in 2021 to 424 in 2024, a -12% change over that three-year span. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the more recent 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a genuine decline yet. The honest read is a levelling from a 2019 peak rather than a clear downward trend.
The dominant IPC classes are C07D heterocyclic compounds (75.5% of 5,014 records) and A61K medicinal preparations (72.1%), meaning most claim density sits on heterocyclic drug substances formulated as specific preparations. Smaller branches — C07J steroids at 1.4%, C07B general organic chemistry methods at 1.2%, and C07H sugars and nucleic acids at 1.1% — carry far less claim density and represent narrower, more open technical branches for new filings. That does not mean these areas are technically simple, only that fewer claims have been staked there in this corpus.
Receiving offices in this dataset are led by the United States with 909 records, followed by the European Patent Office at 619 and WIPO PCT filings at 449. Israel, Australia and Canada follow at 422, 396 and 260 respectively, indicating that applicants are filing broadly across major pharmaceutical markets rather than concentrating in a single jurisdiction. A PCT filing strategy is common in this field given the multi-jurisdictional value of a defensible crystal-form claim.
Research Polymorph Screening and Crystal Form Selection in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole polymorph screening and crystal form selection 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.