Unit Dose Detergent Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One class dominates. C11D detergent and cleaning compositions sits on 89.8% of the 128 records in scope, with B65D packaging claims a distant second at 33.6%.
- Filing has plateaued, not fallen. The tracked growth window shows 2021 and 2024 both at 6 filings, 0% change over that span — treat 2025 onward as still filling in rather than declining.
- A tight leadership cluster. The top-ranked assignee holds 32 records against a fifth-place count of 14 and a tenth-place count of 7, with a 24-company ranking behind them.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (6) — 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.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks unit dose and concentrated liquid detergent filings that address water-soluble film, compartment compatibility, dosing accuracy, child safety, cold-water dissolution or packaging plastic reduction — the technical friction points that separate a lab formulation from a shelf-ready pod or capsule. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, covering 128 published records across a 24-company ranking.
Most of the claim activity sits inside the core detergent-composition class rather than in packaging or film science, which tells a specific story: the harder engineering problem in this field is still the chemistry inside the dose, not the container around it. Packaging claims exist in meaningful volume but trail the composition class by a wide margin.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 128-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which technical classes carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings peaked in 2019 at 27 and the tracked growth window shows 2021 and 2024 both at 6, a 0% change over that three-year span. Recent years understate real activity because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures will keep rising as later publications post.
IPC subclass composition
C11D (detergents and cleaning compositions) appears in 89.8% of the 128 records, with B65D (containers and packaging) in 33.6%. Smaller classes — B32B laminates, C08F addition polymers, D06F laundering equipment, and single-digit-count classes in general cleaning and plastics shaping — each cover a small slice of records. Because a single record can carry more than one class, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 128 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Unit Dose and Concentrated Detergent Formats with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about unit dose and concentrated detergent formats and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
Use of polyglycols to control rheology of unit dose detergent compositions
A method for maintaining a consistent, low-viscosity profile of a unit dose detergent composition for enhanced hydration and dissolution, built around 2.5-15 wt.% of a polyglycol combined with an alkyl-ether sulfate, a linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and a fatty alcohol ethoxylate, with those three surfactant components collectively present at 30-70 wt.% by weight.Filed by Henkel; published 2020-06-25 as US20200199491A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2010116139A1 | Detergent composition | 158 |
| 2 | US20030114332A1 | Unit dose products | 65 |
| 3 | US6479448B2 | Liquid detergent composition | 53 |
| 4 | US6730648B2 | Unit dose detergent film | 46 |
| 5 | US20120097193A1 | Detergent composition | 38 |
| 6 | US20220186144A1 | Unit Dose Laundry Detergent Compositions Containing Soil Release Polymers | 34 |
| 7 | WO2008073299A1 | Improved visual perceptibility of images on printed film | 26 |
| 8 | EP1319706A1 | Unit dose products | 21 |
| 9 | US20040033922A1 | Unit dose detergent film | 18 |
| 10 | WO2022157311A1 | Liquid enzyme composition with sulfite scavenger | 17 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read this as a signal of influence on the field, not of which formulation is current best practice.
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 the trend and class data together points to where claim space is occupied and where the field is still settling.
A cluster at the top, then a fast drop-off
The leading assignee's 32 records are more than double the fifth-place count of 14, and by the tenth position the count is down to 7. That shape favours partnering or licensing around the leaders on core composition claims, and looking further down the ranking for narrower, more approachable positions.
The chemistry, not the pouch, is where the claims sit
Packaging and film classes (B65D at 33.6%, B32B at 3.1%) are present but secondary. A filer assuming the packaging side is the crowded one will misjudge where freedom-to-operate risk actually concentrates.
A plateau, not a decline
Filing counts held flat at 6 in both 2021 and 2024. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent drop-off after 2024 in raw yearly counts is a reporting artefact, not evidence the field has cooled.
Filing activity clusters inside corporate families
The strongest co-assignee pairings link related entities within the same corporate group rather than cross-company joint filings, consistent with internal IP restructuring rather than open collaboration on this technology.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to unit dose and concentrated detergent formats, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it is open
The ranking is dominated by a small set of global consumer-goods filers with a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants behind them.
The largest single filer by a wide margin
The top position holds more than double the fifth-place count, concentrated heavily in core detergent-composition claims rather than packaging.
A viable licensing or watch target
Assignees in the middle of the ranking hold meaningful but not dominant positions, making them more approachable for cross-licensing conversations than the leader.
Room below the leaders
By the tenth position in the ranking, counts have fallen sharply from the leader, indicating a long tail of narrower, more specific filing positions rather than broad platform claims.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Procter & Gamble Co | 0 | -100% |
| Henkel IP & Holding GmbH | 0 | — |
| Unilever NV | 0 | — |
| Unilever PLC | 0 | — |
| Unilever Global IP Ltd | 0 | — |
| CONOPCO INC | 0 | — |
| Colgate-Palmolive Co | 0 | — |
| Unilever IP Holdings BV | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or new formulation work.
Map the composition claims in detail
Since C11D carries the overwhelming majority of records, a freedom-to-operate review should start inside the detergent-composition claims of the ranked leaders before looking at packaging.
Explore composition claims in EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches
Cold-water dissolution, dosing-accuracy sensing and packaging-plastic reduction show thinner filing density than the core chemistry, suggesting room for a defensible first claim.
Run a white-space search in EurekaWatch the mid-tier assignees
Assignees below the leader but above the long tail are more realistic licensing or acquisition targets than the top-ranked filer.
Track assignee activity in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The dataset ranks 24 companies, with the leading assignee holding 32 records against a fifth-place count of 14 and a tenth-place count of 7. That gap shows a small cluster of global consumer-goods filers holding the deepest positions, with a long tail of smaller filers behind them. Because families rather than raw document counts are the fairer comparison, this ranking is counted in records to neutralise aggressive continuation filing in any one jurisdiction.
Filing peaked at 27 in 2019, and the tracked growth window shows filings flat at 6 in both 2021 and 2024, a 0% change. It is not accurate to call the field declining based on the years after 2024, because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months and those later years are still filling in. The honest read is a plateau at the tracked comparison points rather than either growth or decline.
Almost 90% of the 128 records in scope carry the C11D classification for detergent and cleaning compositions, meaning the bulk of claim activity is in the chemistry of the dose itself rather than its packaging. B65D packaging and container claims appear in about a third of records, and smaller classes cover laminates, addition polymers and laundering equipment. A record can sit in more than one class, so these percentages are not mutually exclusive.
Sub-areas like cold-water dissolution kinetics, compartment-to-compartment compatibility, dosing-accuracy sensing and packaging-plastic reduction show comparatively thin filing density next to the dominant detergent-composition class. That does not mean these areas are unclaimed outright, but the claim density is lower, which typically means more room for a narrowly drafted first claim that does not immediately collide with a blocking position. Any first-claim strategy there should still be checked against the specific holders active in that sub-area.
US20200199491A1, filed by Henkel, claims a method for controlling the rheology of a unit dose detergent composition using 2.5 to 15 wt.% of a polyglycol alongside a defined surfactant blend of alkyl-ether sulfate, linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and fatty alcohol ethoxylate, present together at 30 to 70 wt.%. It targets a specific technical problem — maintaining a consistent, low-viscosity profile for enhanced hydration and dissolution — rather than the pod format broadly. Anyone formulating in the same viscosity-control space should check their surfactant ratios and polyglycol loading against this claim's specific ranges.
Research Unit Dose and Concentrated Detergent Formats in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole unit dose and concentrated detergent formats 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.