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/skin-penetration-of-cosmetic-formulations-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cosmetics & Personal CareSkin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations: Patents, Leaders and Open Claim Space
- Filings grew 44% from 2021 to 2024, climbing from 25 to 36 published records a year, the clearest complete-year window in the dataset.
- The top 10 assignees hold just 28.3% of the field, leaving 71.7% of all 1,076 records spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
- A61Q cosmetics-use claims sit on only 13.9% of records, far behind the 94.1% carrying A61K medicinal-preparation classes — the cosmetic angle is still thinly claimed relative to the pharmaceutical framing.
1,076
Published Records
16%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+44%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (25 records) with 2024 (36) — 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 1,076 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families addressing skin penetration enhancement for cosmetic and dermal formulations — stratum corneum barrier disruption, penetration enhancers, in vitro release testing, formulation vehicle effects and the quantification methods used to demonstrate them. The search string deliberately spans both the pharmaceutical and cosmetic framings of the same underlying chemistry, because most filings claim penetration enhancement as a drug-delivery mechanism first and only secondarily as a cosmetic-use application.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with 1,076 published records in scope. Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in any trend view are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations 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
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,076 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A complete-year growth signal, not a recent-year one
The trend line peaked so far in 2018 at 36 records, dipped, then rebuilt: 2021 to 2024 shows a 44% rise, from 25 to 36 published records. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional given publication lag, not as evidence of cooling.
Pharmaceutical framing dominates the cosmetic one
A61K (medicinal preparations) touches 94.1% of the 1,076 records, with A61P (therapeutic activity) at 43.0%. A61Q, the class specific to cosmetic use, appears on only 13.9% of records — a gap worth reading alongside the white-space discussion below.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,076 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 Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about skin penetration of cosmetic formulations and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaPrior Art
The patents setting the citation baseline
Representative Filing
US20180311143A1 — Skin penetration enhancing method and its penetration enhancer
XIAMEN UNIVERSITY
Filed by Xiamen University, this filing claims a penetration enhancer built from sponge spicules (or a biologically effective amount of them, alone or in combination) applied to the skin to overcome the stratum corneum barrier. The stated effect is increased percutaneous absorption of drugs, vaccines and cosmetics, and improved transdermal delivery into systemic circulation.Published 2018-11-01. Illustrates how a physical, particulate mechanism of barrier disruption is claimed alongside the chemical-enhancer approaches that dominate the older, most-cited prior art.
Most-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US4751087A | Transdermal nitroglycerin delivery system | 281 |
| 2 | US4954487A | Penetrating topical pharmaceutical compositions | 265 |
| 3 | US4783450A | Use of commercial lecithin as skin penetration enhancer | 252 |
| 4 | US5232702A | Silicone pressure sensitive adhesive compositons for transdermal drug delivery devices and related medical de… | 249 |
| 5 | US6797276B1 | Use of penetration enhancers and barrier disruption agents to enhance the transcutaneous immune response | 227 |
| 6 | US20070292355A1 | Anti-infection augmentation foamable compositions and kit and uses thereof | 224 |
| 7 | US5223261A | Transdermal estradiol delivery system | 201 |
| 8 | EP0043738A2 | Penetrating topical pharmaceutical compositions | 197 |
| 9 | US5968919A | Hormone replacement therapy drug formulations for topical application to the skin | 181 |
| 10 | US4888354A | Skin penetration enhancement using free base and acid addition salt combinations of active agents | 163 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older, foundational filings — read them as a signal of influence on later claim drafting, not as a ranking of current commercial 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 Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations 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 →Signal Read
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns in the data change where a new filing should sit.
Concentration
28.3% of 1,076
held by top 10 assignees
The top of the field is modest, not dominant
The leader holds 51 records and the tenth-ranked assignee holds 22 — a real gap, but nowhere near a lockout. With 71.7% of records spread outside the top 10, no single company's claim scope defines the field the way a true oligopoly would.
Ranked across 100 assignees, the full ranking the data endpoint returns.
Growth Window
+44%
2021 → 2024 filings
A rebuilding trend after the 2018 peak
Filings peaked at 36 in 2018, cooled, then rebuilt to the same 36 by 2024 from a 2021 base of 25. That three-year run is the only complete-year growth figure the dataset supports; anything from 2025 onward is still arriving.
Publication lag of roughly 18 months applies to the tail years.
Class Gap
13.9% vs 94.1%
A61Q vs A61K coverage
Cosmetic-use claims are thin relative to medicinal framing
Only 150 of 1,076 records carry the A61Q cosmetics-use class, against 1,012 carrying A61K. Most penetration-enhancer chemistry in this corpus is claimed as a drug-delivery invention first, leaving room for filings that frame the same mechanism explicitly for cosmetic use.
Classes overlap on records, so shares are read against the 1,076-record total, not against each other.
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 skin penetration of cosmetic formulations, with the prior art for and against each one.
Co-filing is rare in this field
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| YU CHONGXI | Techfields, Inc. | 13 |
| YU CHONGXI | Techfields Pharma (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. | 10 |
| Juhua Company | CHAN THOMAS | 5 |
| YU CHONGXI | XU LINA | 4 |
| Juhua Company | GUO CHUNFENG | 3 |
| Juhua Company | KRAUSER SCOTT F | 2 |
| Juhua Company | KRAUSER SCOTT | 2 |
| NexMed Holdings, Inc. | Ferring International Center S.A. | 2 |
The dataset surfaces only 10 co-assignee pairs, and the strongest of them involve a single individual inventor paired with affiliated corporate entities rather than cross-company collaboration — most work here is filed solo.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations 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
Competitive Set
Who holds claim scope, and where the gate still opens
The ranked leaders cover a fraction of the field; recent-year filing activity among the named assignees has gone quiet across the board, which is more likely a lag artefact than a genuine exit.
Leader
51 records
top-ranked assignee
A single leader well ahead of fifth place
The top assignee's 51 records compare with 29 at fifth place and 22 at tenth — a steep early drop-off that flattens into the long tail making up the rest of the 1,076-record field.
Counted in patent families, the fairer unit across jurisdictions.
Receiving Offices
US 161 · EPO 150
top two offices
Filing activity spans US, Europe and China roughly evenly
United States (161) and Europe (150) lead, with China (143), WIPO/PCT (90), Canada (89) and Australia (85) close behind — this is a genuinely multi-jurisdictional field, not one concentrated in a single office.
Six receiving offices each carry meaningful volume.
Momentum
0 latest-year
across named leaders
Recent-year filings from named leaders read as zero
Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year — consistent with publication lag rather than a genuine industry-wide halt, since 2025-2026 records are still being published.
Read alongside the 18-month publication lag noted above.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Juhua Company | 0 | — |
| NexMed Holdings, Inc. | 0 | — |
| YU CHONGXI | 0 | — |
| Promius Pharma, LLC | 0 | — |
| DERMATECH | 0 | — |
| Riker Laboratories, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Egis Gyógyszergyár (Egis Pharmaceuticals) | 0 | — |
| 3M Company | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations 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
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The landscape points to specific questions worth running against the full claim text rather than the summary view.
Check freedom-to-operate against the cited baseline
The most-cited records date from the 1980s-2000s and set the mechanism-level prior art for chemical enhancers and adhesive delivery systems. Any new chemical-enhancer claim should be checked against this baseline before drafting.
Explore prior art in EurekaMap the A61Q gap against your own formulation
With only 13.9% of records explicitly claiming cosmetic use, a formulation vehicle or enhancer already proven in the A61K literature may still be open for a cosmetic-specific claim.
Run a gap analysis in EurekaWatch the long tail, not just the leader
With 71.7% of records outside the top 10 assignees, competitive monitoring needs to track single- and few-filing entrants, not only the named leaders whose recent-year activity has gone quiet.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations 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 on this landscape
The ranked leaders cover 100 assignees in total, with the top-ranked holder at 51 records and a steep drop to 29 at fifth place and 22 at tenth. Together the top 10 hold 28.3% of all 1,076 records in scope, which means the field is led but not locked up. The remaining 71.7% of records are spread across a long tail of individual inventors and smaller filers, so competitive monitoring needs to look well beyond the named leaders.
Filings grew 44% between 2021 and 2024, rising from 25 to 36 published records, which is the most reliable complete-year window in the dataset. The apparent decline in 2025 and 2026 numbers is an artefact of publication lag, since patent publication typically trails filing by around 18 months. The 2018 peak of 36 records shows this is a field that has already had one growth cycle and appears to be building toward a second.
A61K covers medicinal preparations generally and appears on 94.1% of the 1,076 records in scope, reflecting that most skin-penetration inventions are framed as drug-delivery mechanisms. A61Q is the class specific to cosmetic use and appears on only 13.9% of records. That gap matters for drafting strategy: a mechanism already well-covered under A61K may still have open claim space when framed explicitly for cosmetic application under A61Q.
The United States leads with 161 records, closely followed by the European Patent Office at 150 and China at 143. WIPO/PCT filings account for 90 records, with Canada at 89 and Australia at 85. The spread across six major offices indicates this is a genuinely multi-jurisdictional filing pattern rather than one concentrated in a single market, so freedom-to-operate work should check all of the major offices rather than just one.
US20180311143A1, filed by Xiamen University, claims a penetration enhancer made from sponge spicules applied to skin to overcome the stratum corneum barrier, covering use with drugs, vaccines and cosmetics. It is a physical/particulate mechanism rather than a chemical enhancer, which sets it apart from most of the highly-cited chemical and adhesive-based prior art in this corpus. Anyone working with particulate or abrasive penetration-enhancement approaches should review its claim scope directly rather than assume the older chemical-enhancer prior art is the only relevant baseline.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations 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 Skin Penetration of Cosmetic Formulations in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole skin penetration of cosmetic formulations 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.