SPF Testing Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 36.7% sits with five filers. The top 5 assignees account for 957 of 2,605 records in scope, with a long tail of single-digit filers behind them.
- Filing has cooled from its 2021 peak. Filings ran from 180 in 2021 to 109 in 2024, a 39% decline over that three-year span.
- Cosmetics use and medicinal preparations dominate the class mix. A61K appears on 86.3% of records and A61Q on 70.1%, while testing-specific class G01N appears on only 4.2%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (180 records) with 2024 (109) — 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 2,605 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the SPF testing patent record actually covers
Sun Protection Factor testing sits at the intersection of formulation chemistry and measurement method. The search space combines documents referencing in vivo protocol, in vitro method, substrate plate, irradiation dose, critical wavelength and label claim language alongside SPF or UVA protection terms, which means the corpus captures both the sunscreen formulations being tested and the test methods themselves. That dual nature explains why medicinal-preparation and cosmetics-use classes dominate the composition chart rather than analytical-testing classes.
2,605 records are in scope, spanning filings from 2015 through the partial-year 2026 cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years understate real filing activity and should be read as provisional rather than a genuine falloff.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 2,605-record corpus: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records actually sit in.
Filings peaked in 2021, then eased
Filings climbed to a peak of 180 in 2021, then declined to 109 by 2024, a 39% drop over that three-year span. Earlier years, such as 108 in 2017, show the field was already active well before the peak. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as incomplete rather than as evidence of continued decline, since publication lag means recent filings are still working through the pipeline.
Formulation classes outweigh testing-method classes
A61K (medicinal preparations) covers 86.3% of the 2,605 records and A61Q (cosmetics use) covers 70.1%, confirming that most documents in scope are formulation patents that reference SPF testing rather than testing-apparatus patents in their own right. G01N (material analysis and testing), the class most directly tied to measurement method, appears on just 4.2% of records — a signal that dedicated testing-method claims are comparatively scarce against the formulation backdrop.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,605 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Sun Protection Factor Testing with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sun protection factor testing and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the SPF testing corpus
Optically ascertaining the sun protection factor of sunscreens or other radiation protection agents
The invention ascertains a sun protection factor for cosmetics and sunscreens by taking two measurements of light backscattering on the skin surface, in vivo, in vitro, or on animal or artificial skin models, before and after applying the radiation protection agent. Unlike prior methods, it fixes the distance between the lighting surface and the detection surface along the irradiation path, and the skin lighting dose used during measurement is a defined parameter of the method rather than left variable.Filed by Courage + Khazaka electronic GmbH, published 2018-11-08 as US20180321139A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | EP1308084A1 | Synergistic UV absorber combination | 347 |
| 2 | WO2013011094A2 | Cosmetic and/or dermatological composition containing a merocyanine derivative comprising specific polar grou… | 150 |
| 3 | US7473435B2 | Bioactive compositions form <i>Theacea </i>plants and processes for their production and use | 126 |
| 4 | WO2013010590A1 | Cosmetic and/or dermatological composition containing a merocyanine derivative comprising specific polar grou… | 113 |
| 5 | US5068056A | Aqueous dispersions of acicular titanium dioxide | 106 |
| 6 | US20050265935A1 | Semiconductor nanocrystal quantum dots and metallic nanocrystals as UV blockers and colorants for suncreens a… | 90 |
| 7 | US6375936B1 | Photoprotective cosmetic composition containing an anionic surfactant, compounds for screening out ultraviole… | 85 |
| 8 | US5821237A | Compositions for visually improving skin | 83 |
| 9 | US6503632B1 | Polydialkylsiloxane/polyamide copolymer, process for producing the same, and various materials | 82 |
| 10 | US20140315995A1 | Antioxidant Compositions and Methods of Using the Same | 78 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings and should be read as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking 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 concentration and citation data signal
Reading the ranking, the trend and the citation table together points to where claim space is occupied and where filing activity has genuinely shifted.
Formulation majors set the baseline art
The leader alone holds 431 records, with the fifth-ranked assignee at 81 and the tenth at 45. That steep drop-off from leader to fifth place means the densest prior art sits with a handful of formulation houses, not spread evenly across the ranked field.
Peak-year filing has not been sustained
The 2021 peak of 180 filings gave way to 109 by 2024. Several leading assignees show sharp year-on-year pullbacks in the most recent complete year, though publication lag means 2025-2026 figures cannot yet confirm whether that pullback continues.
A small set of older filings anchors later claims
The most-cited record, on a synergistic UV absorber combination, draws far more citations than the rest of the table. Merocyanine-derivative filings and titanium dioxide dispersion patents also carry high citation counts, marking the chemistry that later formulation claims build against.
Testing-method claims are the minority share
With A61K and A61Q covering the large majority of records, dedicated measurement-method claims under G01N remain a comparatively narrow slice. That gap is where method-specific claims, rather than formulation claims that merely reference SPF testing, are less contested.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sun protection factor testing, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where activity is cooling
The ranked field of 100 companies shows a small group of formulation and ingredient majors at the top, with recent-year filing counts pulling back across several of them.
One formulation major holds a clear lead
The top assignee's 431 records sit well ahead of the rest of the top 5, which combine for 957 records or 36.7% of all 2,605 in scope. That gap suggests the leader's portfolio, rather than any single competitor, defines the baseline claim space newer filers have to work around.
Even active filers are pulling back
One of the ranked leaders filed 4 records in the latest year, down 71% year on year; another leading formulation house dropped to just 1 record, down 93%. These are single-year moves inside a lagging publication window, but the direction is consistent across more than one top-10 name.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 10 recurring co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest of them link a single formulation major with named individual inventors rather than with other corporate assignees. Cross-company joint filing is not a defining feature of this field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| BASF SE | 4 | -71% |
| L'Oreal SA | 1 | -93% |
| Symrise GmbH & Co KG | 1 | — |
| Croda International Plc | 0 | — |
| Shiseido Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| OPKO Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (GB) | 0 | — |
| Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc | 0 | — |
| Eirgen Pharma Ltd | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or R&D prioritisation.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on testing-method claims
With G01N covering only 4.2% of records against A61K's 86.3%, a targeted search on measurement-method claims specifically, rather than formulation claims that merely mention SPF testing, will surface a smaller and more manageable set of blocking patents.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack momentum at the top 10 before committing R&D spend
Several ranked leaders show sharp year-on-year filing pullbacks in the latest complete year. Confirming whether that pullback is a genuine strategic shift or a publication-lag artefact matters before assuming any single competitor has stepped back.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaMap the citation network around the most-cited records
The synergistic UV absorber and merocyanine-derivative filings anchor a large share of later citations. Understanding what design-arounds already exist for those claims narrows the search for genuinely open formulation space.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions on SPF testing patents
The ranked assignee list is led by one company with 431 of the 2,605 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the field. The top 5 assignees combined hold 957 records, or 36.7% of all records in scope, while the tenth-ranked assignee holds 45. This is a field with a clear leader and a long tail of much smaller filers, so a competitive check should start with the top few names rather than treating the ranking as evenly distributed.
Filings rose to a peak of 180 in 2021 and had fallen to 109 by 2024, a 39% decline over that span. However, patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 in the underlying data are provisional and should not be read as continued decline. The 2021-2024 window is the most reliable basis for judging the recent trend.
Both terms appear directly in the search criteria used to build this corpus, and many records reference both approaches within the same filing, since a single patent may describe a testing method usable on live skin, animal models, or artificial substrate plates. The representative filing in this dataset, for instance, describes a method usable in vivo, in vitro, or on skin models. Rather than being cleanly separated into two families, in vivo and in vitro claims tend to sit inside the same formulation or apparatus patents.
Most records in this corpus sit in A61K (medicinal preparations, 86.3% of records) and A61Q (cosmetics use, 70.1%), because the majority of filings are sunscreen formulations that reference SPF testing rather than dedicated testing apparatus. If the goal is testing methodology specifically, G01N (material analysis and testing) is the more targeted class, though it covers only 4.2% of records, meaning a G01N-focused search will return a much smaller, more precise set.
The technology composition data shows heavy concentration in formulation classes (A61K, A61Q) and much thinner coverage in testing-specific areas such as substrate plate standardisation, critical wavelength calibration, and label claim verification protocols. Combined with only 10 recurring co-assignee pairs in the dataset, this suggests limited cross-company collaboration on shared testing standards. A first claim in one of these thinner branches, drafted around a specific calibration or correlation method rather than a broad formulation, is more likely to clear prior art than another formulation filing.
Research Sun Protection Factor Testing in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sun protection factor testing 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.