Silicone Antifoam Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 48.2% sits with five filers. The top five assignees combined hold 919 of the 1,905 records in scope — concentration at the top, with a long tail behind them.
- Filing has cooled from its 2021 peak. Volume ran from 65 records in 2021 down to 37 in 2024, a 43% pull-back over that three-year span, before the most recent partial years understate what's actually been filed.
- Detergent and filtration classes dominate. C11D detergent compositions touch 50.7% of records and B01D separation processes 22.7%, while agrochemical-linked classes (A01N, A01P) show antifoam claims reaching well beyond laundry care.
Filing growth compares 2021 (65 records) with 2024 (37) — 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 1,905 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape maps 1,905 patent records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that claim silicone antifoam or defoamer emulsions — compositions built on polydimethylsiloxane emulsions, hydrophobic silica, and related foam-knockdown chemistry. The scope spans detergent and cleaning formulations, industrial separation processes, agrochemical adjuvants, and coatings, reflecting how widely this chemistry has been adapted across adjacent industries rather than staying confined to one end use.
Coverage runs to a data cut-off of 2026-07-31. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, records from the last one to two years are still arriving in the dataset and should be read as a floor, not a ceiling, on actual filing activity.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,905-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across the IPC subclasses that define the underlying chemistry and its applications.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose to a peak of 65 records in 2021, then declined to 37 by 2024 — a 43% drop over that span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under normal publication lag and should not be read as a continued decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C11D (detergents and cleaning compositions) appears in 50.7% of the 1,905 records, followed by B01D (separation processes) at 22.7% and A01N (biocides/agrochemicals) at 16.3%. Records commonly carry more than one class, so these shares sum to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,905 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Silicone Antifoam and Defoamer Emulsions with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about silicone antifoam and defoamer emulsions and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
CA1323820C — Dispersible silicone antifoam formulations
A dispersible silicone antifoam composition for controlled foaming in liquid laundry detergents: a non-aqueous emulsion of primary and secondary silicone antifoam agents, a nonionic silicone surfactant emulsifying those agents in a solvent, a first organic dispersing agent, and a second nonionic difunctional block-copolymer dispersing agent terminating in primary hydroxyl groups.Filed by Dow Corning Corporation; granted 1993-11-02. Still a reference point for dispersible antifoam claim structure in liquid detergent systems.
View full filing →| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO1997007202A1 | Novel lipolytic enzymes | 2,636 |
| 2 | EP0238216A1 | Protected enzyme systems | 1,252 |
| 3 | WO2001042408A2 | Ether-capped poly(oxyalkylated) alcohol surfactants | 750 |
| 4 | US4978471A | Dispersible silicone wash and rinse cycle antifoam formulations | 665 |
| 5 | US4983316A | Dispersible silicone antifoam formulations | 641 |
| 6 | US6869923B1 | Perfume compositions | 389 |
| 7 | US6218351B1 | Bleach compositions | 265 |
| 8 | EP0354016A3 | Dispersible silicone antifoam formulations | 216 |
| 9 | EP0210731A2 | Detergent foam control agents | 206 |
| 10 | WO1998039406A1 | Bleach compositions | 202 |
Citation counts reflect a snapshot of a searched corpus and favour older filings; treat them as a measure of influence rather than current 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 filing strategy
Reading the concentration, trend and citation data together points to where claim space is occupied and where activity has genuinely cooled versus where the data simply hasn't caught up yet.
The top of the field is dense
Five assignees account for 919 of the 1,905 records in scope. That level of concentration means core dispersible-emulsion and detergent-antifoam claim territory is heavily occupied, and new entrants competing head-on there face dense prior art rather than open ground.
Peak filing has passed, for now
Volume peaked at 65 records in 2021 and had fallen to 37 by 2024. Because 2025–2026 records are still arriving under normal publication lag, this reads as a real pull-back from a 2021 filing wave rather than evidence that activity has stopped.
Detergent use dominates, but isn't the only claim surface
Half of all records sit in detergent and cleaning compositions, but meaningful shares also sit in separation processes (22.7%) and agrochemical biocide classes (16.3%), showing the same silicone emulsion chemistry re-claimed for industrial and crop-protection uses.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to silicone antifoam and defoamer emulsions, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
A small group of assignees holds the majority share, with co-filing patterns that point to specific internal R&D pairings rather than broad industry collaboration.
One filer sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 541 records, well ahead of fifth place at 41 — a gap that signals a long-running, dedicated filing programme rather than opportunistic activity.
Drop-off after the leaders is steep
By tenth place, filing volume has fallen to 32 records, and the ranking runs on to 100 companies with far smaller counts — a long tail of occasional filers rather than a second tier of comparable scale.
Co-assignee pairs cluster around named inventors
The strongest co-assignee links pair a lead corporate assignee with named individual inventors, appearing across dozens of shared records — a pattern consistent with a stable internal formulation team rather than cross-company joint ventures.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Procter & Gamble Co | 0 | — |
| Dow Silicones Corp | 0 | — |
| Dow Corning Corporation | 0 | — |
| Syngenta Participations AG | 0 | — |
| Ecolab Inc | 0 | — |
| Syngenta IP | 0 | — |
| Adama Makhteshim Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| WILLMAN KENNETH WILLIAM | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white-space filing, or tracking a competitor's programme.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leaders
With 48.2% of records held by five assignees, any new filing in dispersible-emulsion or detergent-antifoam claim space should be checked against their granted claims before drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in Eureka →Track the under-claimed branches
Food-contact stability and persistence-time dosing show comparatively thin coverage relative to the core detergent classes, worth a deeper claim-by-claim review before committing R&D spend.
Explore white space in Eureka →Monitor the leader's ongoing programme
A single assignee's filing programme dwarfs the rest of the field; watching its publication cadence is a practical proxy for where the technology moves next.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Common questions on this landscape
One assignee leads clearly with 541 of the 1,905 records in scope, far ahead of the rest of the field — fifth place holds 41 records and tenth place 32. The top five assignees combined account for 48.2% of all records, so the field is concentrated at the top with a long tail of 100 ranked companies filing far less. Anyone entering this space should expect dense prior art around the leader's core claim territory, particularly in dispersible-emulsion and detergent-antifoam formulations.
Filing peaked at 65 records in 2021 and had fallen to 37 by 2024, a 43% decline over that three-year span. However, because patent publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in this dataset are still incomplete and should not be read as continued decline. The honest read is that a filing wave crested in 2021 and has since cooled, at least through the last fully complete year of data.
Detergent and cleaning compositions (IPC class C11D) dominate, appearing in 50.7% of the 1,905 records in scope. Separation processes such as filtration (B01D) follow at 22.7%, and agrochemical-related classes (A01N biocides and A01P pesticide activity) account for 16.3% and 6.8% respectively, showing the chemistry's reach into crop protection. Coatings (C09D) and polymer additive classes (C08L, C08K) round out the remaining application areas, and because records often carry multiple classes these shares add up to well over 100%.
CA1323820C, filed by Dow Corning Corporation and granted in 1993, claims a dispersible silicone antifoam composition built as a non-aqueous emulsion of primary and secondary silicone antifoam agents, stabilised by a nonionic silicone surfactant and two distinct organic dispersing agents. It is specifically aimed at controlled foaming in liquid laundry detergent formulations. It remains a frequently referenced structure for how dispersible antifoam claims are built in detergent systems, and any new filing touching similar dispersing-agent combinations should be checked against it.
Relative to the heavily claimed detergent and separation-process branches, areas such as food-contact-grade emulsion stability, persistence-time-controlled dosing, and coatings-integrated antifoam additives show comparatively thinner coverage in this dataset. These are not necessarily easy to claim — lower filing density can also reflect narrower commercial demand — but they represent branches worth a targeted search before assuming the space is as crowded as the core detergent classes. A practitioner should verify current filing activity in the specific sub-branch before committing to a claim strategy there.
Research Silicone Antifoam and Defoamer Emulsions in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole silicone antifoam and defoamer emulsions 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.