Solubility Enhancement Screening Patents: Top Filers & Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five most active filers account for 36.9% of all 241 records in scope, and the top ten hold 52.7% — over half the field sits with a small group of repeat filers.
- Filing has kept climbing, not flattened. Complete-year filings rose from 6 in 2021 to 7 in 2024, a 17% increase over that span, with a peak of 9 records in 2022.
- Nearly every record touches one IPC class. 96.3% of the 241 records carry an A61K medicinal-preparations classification, while adjacent process classes like B01J and F26B each cover only 6.6% and 4.1% — a sign of where formulation claims cluster and where process-side claims are thinner.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (7) — 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 241 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Solubility enhancement screening spans the methods used to identify and validate formulations for poorly water-soluble drugs — polymer and precipitation-inhibitor screening, biorelevant dissolution testing, particle-size reduction, and supersaturation-based delivery systems. The 241 records in scope run from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, capturing both the formulation chemistry and the in vitro test methods used to qualify it.
Filing activity is split between formulation composition claims and process or testing claims, and the receiving-office pattern shows this is an actively litigated, multi-jurisdiction space rather than a single-market niche. Publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one or two years in any trend understate real activity.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 241-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records fall under.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings moved from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 9 in 2022, then to 3 in 2026 — a partial year still filling in under the usual publication lag. The complete-year comparison of 6 in 2021 to 7 in 2024 (+17%) is the more reliable read on direction: activity has grown, not slowed.
IPC subclass composition
A61K dominates at 96.3% of the 241 records, confirming that most filings are framed as medicinal-preparation claims rather than pure process claims. A61P (therapeutic activity, 29.0%) is the largest secondary class, while process-oriented classes — A61M, B01J, C07D and F26B — each sit under 7%, leaving process and equipment claims comparatively less crowded than composition claims.
Shares are the percentage of the 241 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Solubility Enhancement Screening with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about solubility enhancement screening and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art in this field
Water-insoluble drug particle process
This invention relates to a process for preparing small particles of a poorly water-soluble drug by mixing the drug at high shear with a surface-active substance in an aqueous carrier, without organic solvent, at or above the drug's melting point to form a heated suspension, then homogenizing that suspension under pressure, then cooling the homogenate to crystallize the drug into fine particles.Filed by Jagotec AG; granted 2004-01-27. Referenced here as the representative claim scope for solvent-free, high-shear particle-size-reduction processes in this dataset.
View full filing| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6465004B1 | Solubility enhancement of drugs in transdermal drug delivery systems and methods of use | 162 |
| 2 | US20040067251A1 | Preparation of drug particles using evaporation precipitation into aqueous solutions | 91 |
| 3 | US7611728B2 | Osmotic delivery of therapeutic compounds by solubility enhancement | 86 |
| 4 | US20120076862A1 | Methods of enhancing drug delivery and effectiveness of therapeutic agents | 85 |
| 5 | US20050053653A1 | Osmotic delivery of therapeutic compounds by solubility enhancement | 84 |
| 6 | US20110106006A1 | Implantable device for long-term delivery of drugs | 82 |
| 7 | US6682761B2 | Water-insoluble drug particle process | 81 |
| 8 | US20020012704A1 | Water-insoluble drug particle process | 74 |
| 9 | WO2009010837A2 | Nanoparticles comprising a non-ionizable polymer and an anionic cellulosic polymer | 71 |
| 10 | WO2001080828A2 | Improved water-insoluble drug particle process | 58 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings — a signal of influence on later filers, not of current commercial 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 a filing decision
Reading concentration, growth and classification together points to where a new filing is likely to face dense prior art, and where it is not.
Half the field sits with a handful of firms
The top five assignees combined account for 36.9% of all 241 records, and the top ten reach 52.7%. That leaves the remaining roughly 90 ranked companies splitting under half the field, which is the signature of a market where a handful of formulation specialists built durable portfolios early and everyone else files thinner, more targeted claims around them.
Growth held through the last complete years
Filings rose from 6 in 2021 to 7 in 2024, a 17% increase, with a peak of 9 in 2022. That is a modest but real upward trend on the years that have finished publishing — 2025 and 2026 figures will keep rising as pending applications publish.
Composition claims dominate over process claims
Almost every record in scope carries an A61K medicinal-preparation classification, while process-heavy classes such as B01J (chemical/physical processes, 6.6%) and F26B (drying, 4.1%) are comparatively sparse. A filing anchored purely in drying or particle-processing method claims, rather than the formulation itself, faces less crowded prior art on classification alone.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to solubility enhancement screening, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| MILLER WARREN KENYON | CREW MARSHALL DAVID | 6 |
| Novartis AG | NOVARTIS PHARM GMBH | 5 |
| MILLER WARREN KENYON | Pfizer Products Inc | 4 |
| Bend Research Inc | MILLER WARREN KENYON | 3 |
| Bend Research Inc | CREW MARSHALL DAVID | 3 |
| Bend Research Inc | BLOOM COREY J | 3 |
| Novartis AG | LUCKEL BARBARA | 3 |
| Novartis AG | AMBUHL MICHAEL | 3 |
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the strongest linking two individual inventors across six shared records — a reminder that some of the busiest filing activity here runs through named inventors and licensing partners rather than single corporate assignees.
Who is active, and who has gone quiet
The leader in this dataset holds 28 records, with the fifth-ranked company at 12 and the tenth at 7 — a steep drop-off that confirms the top-heavy concentration seen in the overall numbers. Several of the historically largest filers, including some in the leading five, show no filings in the most recent year, which is consistent with the publication lag rather than necessarily a sign of retreat.
A clear single leader
The top-ranked assignee holds 28 of the 241 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 12 — a gap wide enough to suggest one organisation built a deliberately broad portfolio rather than accumulating share incidentally.
A fast taper after the top five
Filings drop from 12 records at fifth place to 7 at tenth, and continue tapering into a long tail beyond the top ten. New entrants are more likely to find open claim space by targeting narrow process or testing methods than by competing head-on with the leader's composition claims.
Historic leaders show no recent activity
Multiple companies that rank among the most active historical filers, including entries tied to Novartis and the University of Texas System, show zero filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this is more likely pending applications not yet published than a genuine pullback.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Abraxis BioScience LLC | 0 | — |
| Bend Research Inc | 0 | — |
| KEMESTRIE | 0 | — |
| Delpor Inc | 0 | — |
| Novartis AG | 0 | — |
| Board of Regents, The University of Texas System | 0 | — |
| Kashiv Pharma LLC | 0 | — |
| RTP Pharma Inc | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or scouting for a first filing.
Map claim scope against the leading portfolios
With over half of all records held by ten assignees, a freedom-to-operate check should start with the leader's composition claims before broadening to the mid-field.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaTest a filing against the under-claimed branches
Process and equipment classes like drying and particle-size reduction carry far fewer records than formulation classes, which may leave room for a narrower, defensible first claim.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack publication as the lag closes
2025 and 2026 filing counts will keep rising as pending applications publish; re-checking momentum in six to twelve months will sharpen the recent-year picture.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked field with 28 of the 241 records in scope, noticeably ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 12 records. The top five assignees combined hold 36.9% of all records, and the top ten hold 52.7%, so the field is concentrated but not dominated by a single monopoly. Beyond the top ten, filings taper into a long tail spread across roughly ninety further ranked companies, each holding a handful of records.
Growth has continued through the most recent complete years: filings rose from 6 in 2021 to 7 in 2024, a 17% increase, after peaking at 9 in 2022. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication rather than an actual slowdown. Any read on 'recent' activity should treat the last one to two years as incomplete.
Almost all records — 96.3% of the 241 in scope — carry an A61K medicinal-preparations classification, confirming that most claims are framed around the drug formulation itself. Therapeutic-activity classification (A61P) covers 29.0% of records as a secondary class, while process-side classes such as chemical/physical processing (B01J), drying (F26B) and heterocyclic compounds (C07D) each appear in under 7% of records. That gap suggests formulation composition claims are far more crowded than process or equipment claims.
The IPC composition data shows process and testing-equipment classes are comparatively under-claimed relative to formulation classes — drying, particle-size-reduction equipment, and biorelevant dissolution apparatus each sit in the low single digits of record share. A first filing built around a specific test method, screening workflow, or process control step is likely to face less dense prior art than one built around a new drug-formulation composition. Confirming this requires a targeted claim-by-claim search rather than relying on classification density alone.
US6682761B2, assigned to Jagotec AG, covers a specific process for producing small particles of a poorly water-soluble drug: high-shear mixing with a surfactant in an aqueous carrier without organic solvent at or above the drug's melting point, followed by pressure homogenization and controlled cooling. It blocks that particular solvent-free, high-shear, melt-based route to particle formation, not solubility enhancement generally. Formulations using organic-solvent precipitation, mechanical milling below the melting point, or polymer-based amorphous dispersion would sit outside its literal claim scope, though a full freedom-to-operate check should compare claim language directly.
Research Solubility Enhancement Screening in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole solubility enhancement screening 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.