Transdermal Patch Adhesive Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
- 24.1% of all 2,079 records sit with just five assignees, yet the ranked leaders list runs 100 companies deep — concentration at the top with a long tail behind it.
- Filing has cooled since its 2018 peak of 68 and the 2021→2024 span shows a 42% decline, though 2025–2026 figures are still filling in under normal publication lag.
- A61K carries 85.9% of records while A61Q cosmetics use and A61B diagnosis/surgery sit under 6% each — signalling adjacent claim space that is comparatively open.
Filing growth compares 2021 (31 records) with 2024 (18) — 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 2,079 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This review covers patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine transdermal patch adhesive chemistry — pressure-sensitive adhesive formulation, cold flow, drug crystallization control, wear adhesion, skin irritation — with skin permeation enhancement and flux-rate claims. The scope spans 2,079 records, examined as families rather than raw filings so that continuation practice and multi-jurisdiction refiling in the same invention do not inflate the picture.
The dataset draws on records filed across major receiving offices including the United States, the EPO, WIPO's PCT route, Australia and Canada, giving a reasonably complete view of where applicants have sought protection for this combination of adhesive mechanics and delivery performance.
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 2,079-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose to a peak of 68 in 2018, then eased; the 2021 to 2024 window shows a 42% decline, from 31 down to 18. The final two years in the chart are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent-year totals should not be read as the trend's current trajectory.
IPC subclass composition
A61K (medicinal preparations) touches 85.9% of the 2,079 records, confirming that most filings frame the invention as a drug formulation first. A61P therapeutic-activity claims follow at 31.6%, with device-oriented classes A61M and A61F each above 11%. Electrotherapy (A61N), sterilising (A61L), cosmetics (A61Q) and diagnosis/surgery (A61B) each sit at or below 6.5%, marking the field's less-crowded adjacent branches.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,079 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Transdermal Patch Adhesives and Permeation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about transdermal patch adhesives and permeation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
WO2025147698A1 — Devices and methods for transdermal delivery of ozanimod
The filing describes a pharmaceutically acceptable transdermal patch and drug matrix combining ozanimod, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, with a permeation enhancer. Disclosed embodiments target defined dosage rates — 0.23, 0.46 and 0.92 mg/day — through the adhesive matrix, tying formulation chemistry directly to a controlled delivery profile rather than claiming permeation enhancement in the abstract.Filed by Corium Innovations, Inc., published 2025-07-10.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6219574B1 | Device and method for enchancing transdermal sampling | 1,391 |
| 2 | WO1997048440A1 | Device for enhancing transdermal agent delivery or sampling | 602 |
| 3 | US6083196A | Device for enhancing transdermal agent flux | 586 |
| 4 | US6050988A | Device for enhancing transdermal agent flux | 579 |
| 5 | US6230051B1 | Device for enhancing transdermal agent delivery or sampling | 497 |
| 6 | WO1998028037A1 | Device and method for enhancing transdermal agent flux | 453 |
| 7 | US6322808B1 | Device for enhancing transdermal agent flux | 441 |
| 8 | WO2001058447A1 | Controlled-release compositions containing opioid agonist and antagonist | 389 |
| 9 | US5770219A | Solid matrix system for transdermal drug delivery | 349 |
| 10 | US20090214628A1 | Methods and compositions for treatment of skin | 315 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat them as a marker of influence on later filings, not of present-day 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
Three read-throughs from the concentration, composition and citation data above.
The top of the field is dense, the rest is thin
Five assignees hold 24.1% of all records in scope, and the top ten extend that to 36.6%. Below that, the ranked list of 100 companies thins out quickly into single- and few-filing entrants, meaning most competitive risk is concentrated among a small set of known holders rather than spread evenly.
Volume has eased from its 2018 peak
After peaking at 68 filings in 2018, the field's complete-year data shows a 42% drop between 2021 and 2024. That is a real cooling in new filing activity, not just a data artefact — though the last two years shown are still filling in under normal publication lag and should not be read as confirming further decline.
Formulation claims dominate; device and cosmetic framing is scarce
A61K medicinal-preparation claims touch the large majority of records, while device-side classes (A61M, A61F) sit in the 11-12% range and cosmetics or diagnosis-framed filings (A61Q, A61B) sit under 6% each. That gap is where claim space is comparatively unoccupied, not necessarily where the science is unsolved.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to transdermal patch adhesives and permeation, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Agile Therapeutics, Inc. | KYDONIEUS AGIS | 13 |
| Agile Therapeutics, Inc. | ROSSI THOMAS M | 9 |
| Agile Therapeutics, Inc. | ROSSI THOMAS | 6 |
| Agile Therapeutics, Inc. | ARNOLD CHARLES G | 5 |
| Agile Therapeutics, Inc. | FOEGH MARIE | 4 |
| Agile Therapeutics, Inc. | CONWAY ROBERT G | 4 |
| Cygnus Solutions | AUDETT JAY | 4 |
| Microbion Corp | BAKER BRETT HUGH JAMES | 4 |
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in this dataset, and the strongest pairing links a single lead applicant with two individual named inventors repeatedly — a pattern more consistent with inventor continuity than with joint-venture filing.
Assignee landscape and where activity has stalled
The ranked list covers 100 companies drawn from all 2,079 records — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the whole ranking the dataset returns.
One applicant sits well ahead of the field
The leading assignee's 183 records put it clearly ahead of fifth place at 56 and tenth place at 49 — a steep early drop-off that flattens out across the rest of the ranked 100.
Even top filers show zero activity in the latest year
Multiple assignees among the historical leaders, including the top-ranked filer, show zero filings in the most recent year with year-on-year declines as steep as -100%. Given publication lag, this likely reflects incomplete recent-year data rather than an actual exit, but it is worth confirming directly with any specific competitor before drawing conclusions.
Collaboration is rare; most filings are solo
With only ten identifiable co-assignee pairs across 2,079 records, joint filing is the exception in this field. The strongest pairing repeats a lead applicant with individually named inventors, suggesting internal R&D continuity rather than cross-company partnership.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Agile Therapeutics, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Alza Corp | 0 | — |
| Watson Pharma, Inc. | 0 | — |
| 3M Innovative Properties Co. | 0 | — |
| Cygnus Solutions | 0 | — |
| Euro-Celtique S.A. | 0 | — |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0 | — |
| LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a stable leadership tier and several under-filed branches. The next steps depend on whether the goal is defensive clearance or identifying open claim territory.
Map freedom-to-operate around the leader's 183 records
With one assignee holding more than three times the fifth-place count, any new adhesive or permeation formulation should be checked against that portfolio specifically before broader searching.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest claim language against the under-6% classes
Cosmetics-use, diagnosis-integrated and electrotherapy-assisted branches carry markedly fewer records than the A61K core, worth probing for genuinely open claim scope.
Run a white-space search in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads with 183 records in this dataset, well ahead of the fifth-ranked company at 56 and the tenth at 49. The top five assignees combined hold 24.1% of all 2,079 records in scope, and the top ten hold 36.6%. Below that tier, the ranked list of 100 companies thins quickly into firms with only a handful of filings each, so the competitive core is narrower than the full ranking suggests.
Filing peaked in 2018 at 68 records and has since cooled; comparing 2021 to 2024, the two most recent complete years available, filings dropped 42% from 31 to 18. That is a genuine decline in complete-year data, not a projection. The 2025 and 2026 figures shown in any chart are understated because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so those years will rise as more records publish.
Medicinal preparation claims under IPC class A61K appear in 85.9% of the 2,079 records, making formulation chemistry the dominant framing. Therapeutic activity claims (A61P) follow at 31.6%, and device-related classes for body fluids (A61M) and implants (A61F) each sit above 11%. Cosmetics use, electrotherapy, sterilising and diagnosis/surgery classes each account for 6.5% or less, marking the less-crowded adjacent territory.
The IPC composition data points to cosmetics-use formulations, diagnosis- or surgery-integrated patch devices, and electrotherapy-assisted flux enhancement as comparatively under-claimed relative to the dominant A61K formulation core. Low claim density in a class does not guarantee the underlying science is unsolved, but it does indicate less prior art to design around. Anyone filing in these branches should still run a targeted freedom-to-operate search against the leading assignees' full portfolios first.
Ownership is concentrated at the very top and then spreads thin. The leading assignee alone holds 183 of the 2,079 records, and the top five combined account for 24.1% of all records in scope. Co-filing is rare, with only ten identifiable co-assignee pairs across the entire dataset, meaning most patents in this field are filed by a single organisation rather than through joint ventures.
Research Transdermal Patch Adhesives and Permeation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole transdermal patch adhesives and permeation 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.