Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/rietveld-and-quantitative-phase-analysis-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · X-Ray AnalysisRietveld Refinement and Quantitative Phase Analysis Patents
- Concentrated at the top. The top 5 assignees hold 822 of 1,992 records in scope (41.3%), and the top 10 hold 1,030 (51.7%) — over half the field sits with a handful of filers.
- Filings have cooled from a 2021 peak. Activity peaked at 238 records in 2021 and fell to 106 by 2024, a -55% move over that three-year span; 2025-2026 figures are still filling in due to publication lag.
- Pharma dominates the IPC mix. A61K appears on 50.0% of records and C07D on 43.8%, meaning most refinement and phase-analysis claims here are anchored to drug substance characterisation rather than materials or batteries.
1,992
Published Records
41%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-55%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (238 records) with 2024 (106) — 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 1,992 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families that combine Rietveld refinement or quantitative phase analysis with practical refinement concerns such as preferred orientation, amorphous content, background modelling, operator dependence and reference database use. It spans filings published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawing together 1,992 records across pharmaceutical, ceramic, battery and inorganic-materials applications.
The technology composition is unusual for an X-ray analysis method: rather than clustering in instrumentation classes, most records carry pharmaceutical IPC codes, because quantitative phase analysis is widely used to characterise crystalline and amorphous drug forms. Materials-focused branches such as ceramics, batteries and inorganic compounds are present but represent a smaller, more open share of the field.
Filing activity and technology mix, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Data
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,992-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A 2021 peak followed by a real, but overstated, decline
Filings rose from 66 in 2017 to a peak of 238 in 2021, then declined to 106 by 2024 — a -55% move over that span, the last year the trend can be read as complete. 2025 and 2026 figures will keep rising as publications catch up with an 18-month filing-to-publication lag, so treat the most recent two years as undercounted rather than as evidence of a further drop.
Pharmaceutical classes dominate; materials branches are thinner
A61K (medicinal preparations) and C07D (heterocyclic compounds) each appear on well over 40% of the 1,992 records, with A61P (therapeutic activity) close behind — these three IPC codes describe how heavily this refinement technique is used for drug-form characterisation. Ceramics (C04B), batteries (H01M), acyclic/carbocyclic compounds (C07C), inorganic compounds (C01B) and catalysis (B01J) each sit in the 7-9% range, marking materials science as a real but secondary application of the same analytical methods.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,992 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about rietveld and quantitative phase analysis and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited records
Representative Record
Quantitative Phase Analysis Device For Analyzing Non-Crystalline Phases (US20210018452A1)
RIGAKU CORPORATION
A quantitative phase analysis device for analyzing non-crystalline phases comprising at least one microprocessor configured to acquire the powder diffraction pattern of the sample, acquire information on one non-crystalline phase and one or more crystalline phases, acquire a fitting function, execute whole-powder pattern fitting, acquire a fitting result, and calculate a weight ratio of the non-crystalline phase and the crystalline phases present.Filed by Rigaku Corporation, published 2021-01-21 — a direct instrumentation claim on amorphous-content quantification via whole-powder pattern fitting.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2011133951A1 | Pharmaceutical compositions and administrations thereof | 168 |
| 2 | US7094651B2 | Hydrazine-free solution deposition of chalcogenide films | 154 |
| 3 | US20090301352A1 | Production of carbonate-containing compositions from material comprising metal silicates | 147 |
| 4 | US7749476B2 | Production of carbonate-containing compositions from material comprising metal silicates | 146 |
| 5 | US20110288122A1 | Pharmaceutical Compositions and Administrations Thereof | 136 |
| 6 | US6875661B2 | Solution deposition of chalcogenide films | 133 |
| 7 | US20070031732A1 | Nanoscale ion storage materials | 119 |
| 8 | US7796726B1 | Instrument and method for X-ray diffraction, fluorescence, and crystal texture analysis without sample prepar… | 116 |
| 9 | WO2010006242A1 | Production of carbonate-containing compositions from material comprising metal silicates | 110 |
| 10 | US6168887B1 | Layered lithium manganese oxide bronze and electrodes thereof | 110 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers say about this field
Filing volume, concentration and technology mix each point to a different conclusion about where the field stands and where it is headed.
Concentration
41.3%
of 1,992 records held by top 5 assignees
The field is led by a small pharma cluster
The top 5 assignees account for 822 of the 1,992 records in scope, and the top 10 push that to 1,030 records (51.7%). That level of concentration in a technique-driven field suggests the leaders are patenting specific applications of Rietveld/QPA to their own drug-substance portfolios rather than the underlying method.
Based on the full 100-company assignee ranking
Momentum
-55%
change from 238 (2021) to 106 (2024) records
Post-peak filings, not a dying field
Filing activity peaked in 2021 at 238 records and had fallen to 106 by 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025-2026 counts are still incomplete and should not be read as confirming a further decline.
2024 is the last complete filing year in this dataset
Technology mix
50.0%
of records carry an A61K classification
Pharma characterisation, not instrumentation, drives volume
Half of all records classify under A61K (medicinal preparations), with C07D and A61P close behind. Materials-science branches like ceramics and batteries are present at roughly 7-9% each — real activity, but a much thinner claim base than the pharmaceutical core.
Shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC codes
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to rietveld and quantitative phase analysis, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where momentum has gone flat
The ranked leaders sit heavily in branded pharmaceuticals, and recent-year filing momentum has slowed across nearly all of them — a pattern worth checking before assuming any one of them is still actively building this specific claim space.
Leader
493
records
A single filer well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 493 records, nearly 25% of the entire 1,992-record dataset on its own — a scale gap that separates it clearly from the rest of the ranked leaders, where fifth place holds 58 and tenth place holds 33.
Compare against fifth place (58) and tenth place (33)
Momentum
-50% YoY
latest-year change, lead filer
Even active filers are pulling back
The most recently active assignee in this space filed 7 records in the latest year, down 50% year over year; several other ranked leaders show zero filings in the latest year entirely. That is consistent with the post-2021 cooldown seen across the whole dataset.
Recent-year momentum by assignee
Collaboration
10
co-assignee pairs identified
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in this dataset, and the strongest pairing appears far more often than any other combination — collaborative filing is the exception here, not the norm.
Strongest pair recurs well ahead of the next closest
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 7 | -50% |
| Novartis AG | 0 | -100% |
| Celgene Corp. | 0 | — |
| PTC Therapeutics Inc. | 0 | — |
| Sandoz Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Pfizer Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Nova Chem (Int) SA | 0 | — |
| Principia Biopharma Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated pharmaceutical core and a thinner, more open materials-science periphery. Two directions follow from that.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader cluster
With over half of all records held by ten assignees, any new filing that touches drug-form phase quantification should be checked against that cluster's claim scope first, not just against the most-cited records.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaExplore the materials-science white space
Ceramics, battery and inorganic-compound applications of the same refinement techniques sit at a fraction of the pharmaceutical filing density, and may offer more room to file a defensible first claim.
Map white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this landscape
Quantitative phase analysis (QPA) uses X-ray diffraction data, typically processed through Rietveld refinement or whole-powder pattern fitting, to determine the weight fractions of different crystalline or amorphous phases in a sample. In this dataset it is most often applied to characterising drug substances, where the crystalline versus amorphous ratio affects solubility, stability and bioequivalence. It also appears in materials contexts such as ceramics, cement, catalysts and battery electrode materials, where phase composition affects performance.
Filing in this space is concentrated: the top 5 assignees hold 822 of the 1,992 records in scope (41.3%), and the top 10 hold 1,030 (51.7%). The single leading assignee holds 493 records on its own, well ahead of fifth place at 58 and tenth place at 33. Most of the leading filers are branded pharmaceutical companies applying these analytical methods to drug-substance characterisation rather than instrument makers patenting the underlying method.
Filing volume peaked in 2021 at 238 records and had fallen to 106 by 2024, a -55% change over that span — the most recent year that can be read as a complete filing year. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are still low in the data but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, not necessarily a continuing decline. Treat the post-2021 numbers as a real cooldown from a peak, not as proof the field is shrinking further.
US20210018452A1, filed by Rigaku Corporation and published in January 2021, claims a device and method for quantitative phase analysis of non-crystalline (amorphous) phases using whole-powder pattern fitting on diffraction data. It specifies a microprocessor that acquires a diffraction pattern, fits crystalline and non-crystalline phase information against a fitting function, and calculates the weight ratio between phases. This is an instrumentation-and-method claim on amorphous-content quantification rather than on any specific drug or material composition, so its practical relevance is to anyone building or using a QPA workflow that handles non-crystalline phases, not to a specific end application.
The clearest gaps sit outside the pharmaceutical core: amorphous content quantification applied to battery electrodes, background modelling methods for low-crystallinity ceramics, and reference-database standardisation for QPA workflows all show real but comparatively low filing density in this dataset. Materials-science IPC classes like C04B, H01M and C01B each cover roughly 7-9% of the 1,992 records, versus 50.0% for A61K, indicating those branches are far less claimed. A first filing that ties a specific refinement-stability or operator-independence method to one of these materials applications would be entering less crowded claim space than a general pharmaceutical QPA filing.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Rietveld and Quantitative Phase Analysis in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole rietveld and quantitative phase analysis 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.