Tightening regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances is reshaping materials chemistry, and it is opening patent white space for organizations that can develop fluorine-free alternatives. PFAS are used for water, oil, and stain resistance across coatings, textiles, firefighting foams, membranes, semiconductors, and food packaging, and they are now the subject of the broadest chemical restriction ever proposed in Europe. The universal PFAS restriction proposal submitted to the European Chemicals Agency in January 2023 by five national authorities covers on the order of 10,000 substances, and it drew more than 5,600 comments from over 4,400 organizations, an unprecedented response that reflects how many industries are affected.¹ The scope depends on definition: under the 2021 OECD definition, which classifies a substance as PFAS if it contains at least one fully fluorinated carbon, several million catalogued substances qualify, while the number in active commercial use is far smaller.²

The regulatory trajectory is a sequence of tightening actions rather than a single event, which is what makes the resulting innovation demand durable. In the European Union, restrictions moved from PFOS in 2006 to PFOA and related substances in later years, to a PFHxA restriction adopted in 2024, a ban on PFAS in firefighting foams, and a ban on PFAS in food-contact packaging taking effect in 2026, with the universal restriction proposal under scientific evaluation through 2026.¹ In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the first national drinking-water limits for several PFAS in 2024, setting maximum contaminant levels of 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS and higher limits for other compounds, and designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal cleanup statute the same year.³ ECHA has estimated that, absent action, several million tonnes of PFAS would reach the environment over the coming decades.¹

This regulatory pressure is a well-understood driver of innovation. The Porter hypothesis, that well-designed environmental regulation can induce innovation that partly or wholly offsets compliance costs, has been supported across two decades of evidence and a multi-country meta-analysis, and firm-level studies show environmental regulation inducing greener product innovation specifically in chemical industries.⁴,⁵,⁶ For materials developers, the implication is direct: regulation is converting fluorine-free chemistry from a niche into a competitive frontier, and the organizations that build defensible IP positions early will hold advantage as substitution accelerates.

Where the white space is

Firefighting foams. Fluorine-free foams are the most advanced substitution area, driven by bans on PFAS-containing aqueous film-forming foams, though performance and toxicity gaps relative to legacy foams remain an active research and patenting frontier.⁷

Textile and coating treatments. Water- and oil-repellent finishes are a major PFAS use, and fluorine-free hydrophobic and oleophobic coatings, including bio-based and hierarchical-structured approaches, are an active area of development with room for defensible positions.⁸,⁹

Membranes and packaging. Food-contact packaging faces near-term bans, and membrane and barrier applications require substitutes that match performance, which keeps white space open where a fluorine-free chemistry can meet the functional requirement.

Semiconductors and specialty uses. Certain high-performance uses have few current substitutes, so these areas are simultaneously the hardest to displace and the most valuable to solve, and the patent landscape around viable alternatives is comparatively sparse.

How to find PFAS-alternative white space

Scope the application area and functional requirement precisely, since PFAS substitution is application-specific and a fluorine-free chemistry that works for textiles may not work for firefighting foam.

Map patents and scientific literature across the fluorine-free chemistries relevant to that application, because materials research precedes patenting and gives the earliest signal of a viable alternative.

Cluster activity by concept and attribute it to organizations, using an ontology to group related chemistry and normalize assignees, so dense and sparse regions are visible.

Identify the sparse, defensible regions, distinguishing genuine white space from areas that are sparse only because a chemistry does not yet meet the functional requirement.

Monitor continuously, tracking both the chemistry and the regulatory timeline, so filings and restrictions are surfaced as they publish and a white space position is secured before substitution accelerates.

Where Cypris fits

Cypris runs patent landscape and white space analysis for regulation-driven fields such as PFAS alternatives across a corpus of more than 500 million patents and scientific papers, organized through a proprietary R&D ontology. Semantic search across patents and scientific literature surfaces fluorine-free chemistry regardless of nomenclature and connects filings to the underlying materials research, which is where the earliest signals of viable alternatives appear. The ontology clusters activity by application and chemistry and normalizes organizations to canonical entities, so a team can resolve which fluorine-free approaches are crowded and which remain open as white space. Cypris Q, the platform's agentic layer, lets teams run landscape and white space analysis conversationally and chain the search, attribution, and gap analysis, and Agentic Monitoring tracks a defined chemistry over time and flags new filings as they publish. Cypris provides enterprise API partnerships with OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, and is built with enterprise-grade security. Cypris serves hundreds of enterprise customers across pharmaceuticals, chemicals, advanced materials, energy, and other regulated industries.

FAQ

Why is PFAS regulation creating patent white space?

PFAS regulation is creating patent white space by driving demand for fluorine-free alternatives across many applications, faster than defensible IP positions have been established. The EU REACH universal restriction covers roughly 10,000 substances and US EPA rules now limit several PFAS, so substitution is accelerating. Organizations that build fluorine-free IP early can hold advantage as demand rises.

What is the EU REACH universal PFAS restriction?

The EU REACH universal PFAS restriction is a proposal submitted to the European Chemicals Agency in January 2023 by five national authorities to restrict the manufacture and use of PFAS as a class, covering on the order of 10,000 substances. It drew more than 5,600 comments from over 4,400 organizations. It is under scientific evaluation, with the outcome expected to shape substitution across many industries.

What US rules apply to PFAS?

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the first national drinking-water limits for several PFAS in 2024, setting maximum contaminant levels of 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS and higher limits for other compounds, and designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal cleanup statute the same year. These actions increase the pressure to substitute PFAS. They apply alongside state-level restrictions.

Which application areas have the most PFAS-alternative white space?

Firefighting foams, textile and coating treatments, membranes and packaging, and certain semiconductor and specialty uses all have PFAS-alternative white space, though the amount varies. Firefighting-foam alternatives are the most advanced, while high-performance specialty uses have few substitutes and are the most valuable to solve. White space is largest where a fluorine-free chemistry can meet the functional requirement but few patents yet exist.

How does regulation drive innovation in materials?

Regulation drives innovation in materials by creating demand for compliant substitutes, a pattern described by the Porter hypothesis and supported by two decades of evidence and firm-level studies in chemical industries. Well-designed regulation induces innovation that can partly offset compliance costs. For PFAS, this is converting fluorine-free chemistry from a niche into a competitive frontier.

How do you find white space in PFAS alternatives?

Finding white space in PFAS alternatives means scoping a specific application and functional requirement, mapping patents and scientific literature across the relevant fluorine-free chemistries, clustering activity by concept, and identifying the sparse, defensible regions. Because materials research precedes patenting, literature coverage gives early signal. The analysis must distinguish genuine white space from areas that are sparse because no chemistry yet meets the requirement.

Why does PFAS-alternative analysis need scientific literature?

PFAS-alternative analysis needs scientific literature because fluorine-free chemistries appear in research before they are patented, so the literature gives the earliest signal of a viable alternative. Analyzing patents alone gives a lagging view. Cypris analyzes both across more than 500 million patents and scientific papers.

Which teams work on PFAS alternatives?

PFAS alternatives are developed by R&D, innovation, and IP teams in chemicals, advanced materials, coatings, textiles, consumer products, and their suppliers, alongside regulatory affairs. The work is driven by tightening regulation and customer demand for fluorine-free products. Cypris serves hundreds of enterprise customers across chemicals, advanced materials, and other regulated industries.

How do you keep a PFAS-alternatives landscape current? Keeping a PFAS-alternatives landscape current requires continuous monitoring of both the chemistry and the regulatory timeline, because filings and restrictions evolve constantly. A one-time landscape ages quickly as new rules and patents publish. Cypris uses Agentic Monitoring to track a defined chemistry over time and flag new filings as they publish.

Endnotes

1. European Chemicals Agency. Registry of restriction intentions: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) universal restriction proposal (2023) and related consultation and evaluation materials. https://echa.europa.eu/
2. OECD (2021). Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance; and US Environmental Protection Agency PFAS inventory materials.
3. US Environmental Protection Agency (2024). PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; and CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances. https://www.epa.gov/pfas
4. Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S. & Lanoie, P. (2013). The Porter Hypothesis at 20. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/res016
5. Yan, Z., Li, Y., Zhang, X. & Zhu, J. (2024). Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: a multi-country meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02671-9
6. Choi, J., Kang, J. & Chung, S. (2025). Environmental regulation, induced innovation, and greener transition: firm-level evidence. Journal of Development Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2025.103678
7. Hossain, T., Ormond, R. B. et al. (2024). Exploring the Prospects and Challenges of Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams (F3) as Alternatives to AFFF: A Review. ACS Omega. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.4c03673
8. Likozar, B. et al. (2024). Unveiling PFAS-free Solutions for Hydrophobic and Oleophobic Textile Coatings. https://doi.org/10.55295/psl.2024.i19
9. Nicolas, M. et al. (2024). PFAS-free hierarchical superhydrophobic textiles. Advanced Engineering Materials. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.202401736

‍

Freedom-to-operate for GLP-1 receptor agonists and peptide therapeutics is among the most demanding FTO problems in pharmaceuticals, because protection in this class is built as a dense, layered thicket that extends far beyond the active ingredient. Freedom-to-operate determines whether making, using, or selling a product would infringe another party's active patent claims. In the GLP-1 and peptide space, answering that question requires reading many claim types across many patents, because a single product is protected by a stack of filings covering the molecule, its formulation, its dosing, its delivery device, and its manufacture. A peer-reviewed analysis of GLP-1 receptor agonists approved between 2005 and 2021 found that manufacturers listed a median of 19.5 patents per product, that 54 percent of those patents were on delivery devices rather than the active ingredient, that the median expected protection was 18.3 years after approval, and that no generic manufacturer had yet successfully challenged a GLP-1 receptor agonist patent.¹

The commercial stakes are large. Industry analyst forecasts vary widely with scope, placing the GLP-1 market anywhere from the low tens of billions of dollars to well over one hundred billion by 2030 and projecting double-digit annual growth; these are analyst estimates rather than authoritative figures, and they differ mainly in what they count.² The scale of the opportunity is what drives the density of the patent thicket, because each additional protected feature can delay competition on a high-revenue product. For any organization developing a follow-on peptide, a biosimilar, or a differentiated GLP-1 product, FTO is therefore a gating analysis rather than a formality.

Peptide therapeutics compound the difficulty. Peptides can be claimed as sequences and modifications, formulated for stability and half-life extension, delivered by injection or increasingly by oral routes, and manufactured through distinct synthesis and purification processes, so the claim surface is broad. Recent filing activity has shifted toward oral delivery, dual and triple receptor agonists, and combination therapies, which is where both the newest FTO risk and the remaining white space now sit.³ An FTO analysis in this class has to cover all of these dimensions, and it has to stay current as the frontier moves.

What creates FTO risk in GLP-1 and peptide products

Composition-of-matter claims. These cover the peptide itself, including sequences, analogues, and modifications, and are the primary protection, though in a mature class many core molecules approach expiry.

Formulation claims. These cover stabilized, extended-release, and oral formulations, which are heavily patented, as formulation is where much peptide innovation and differentiation occurs.

Dosing-regimen and method-of-use claims. These cover titration schedules and specific therapeutic uses, and can block a product for a particular indication or regimen even when the molecule is otherwise available.

Delivery-device claims. These cover injection pens and other devices and are a large share of the thicket; peer-reviewed analysis found delivery devices accounted for the majority of listed GLP-1 patents and function as a distinct barrier to entry.¹,⁴

Process and manufacturing claims. These cover synthesis and purification routes, so a developer can be free to use a molecule yet blocked from a particular manufacturing method.

A single molecule illustrates the layering. A published patent landscape of one dual GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist identified twelve patent families spanning composition-of-matter, process chemistry, formulation, dosing regimen, and method-of-use, a clean worked example of how all five claim types stack on one product.⁵

The thicket dynamic and the expiry landscape

The density of GLP-1 protection reflects a broader pharmaceutical pattern. Empirical analysis shows the number of patents filed per active ingredient rose from 1.86 in 2001 to nearly six by 2019, driven substantially by continuation applications, which account for roughly a third of small-molecule pharmaceutical patents.⁶ These secondary filings extend the effective protection period, and the economics of that extension, including how patent challenges and settlements shape effective market life, are well documented.⁷ Pharmaceutical thickets also differ structurally from thickets in complex-technology industries, which is why FTO methods developed for electronics do not transfer cleanly to peptides.⁸

The expiry landscape is the other half of the picture. As core molecules approach the end of composition-of-matter protection, the surrounding formulation, device, and process claims determine when and where competition can actually enter. Analysis of one leading GLP-1 molecule found that the timing of primary-patent expiry varies substantially by market, so freedom-to-operate for a follow-on product is jurisdiction-specific, and the practical entry date is governed by the secondary thicket rather than the headline molecule expiry.⁹ For a developer, this means FTO must be assessed claim-by-claim and market-by-market, not at the level of the molecule.

How AI-powered FTO helps

Navigating a thicket of this density by manual search is slow and prone to coverage gaps, which are the main source of FTO risk. AI-powered FTO addresses this with semantic search that retrieves relevant claims regardless of terminology, claim-level analysis that focuses on the independent claims defining infringement scope across all five claim types, and continuous monitoring that keeps a cleared position current as new formulation, device, and combination filings publish. Because peptide innovation appears in scientific literature before it is patented, reading both patents and literature gives earlier warning of where the thicket is extending.

Where Cypris fits

Cypris runs claim-level, semantic, AI-powered freedom-to-operate across a corpus of more than 500 million patents and scientific papers, organized through a proprietary R&D ontology. Semantic search across patents and scientific literature surfaces relevant claims regardless of terminology, across composition, formulation, dosing-regimen, delivery-device, and process claims, which is what a dense peptide thicket demands. The ontology clusters the thicket by concept and normalizes assignees, so a team sees the structure of protection around a molecule rather than a flat list. Cypris Q, the platform's agentic layer, lets teams run and chain FTO analysis conversationally, and Agentic Monitoring tracks a molecule and its surrounding thicket over time, flagging new formulation, device, and combination filings as they publish. Cypris provides enterprise API partnerships with OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, and is built with enterprise-grade security. Cypris serves hundreds of enterprise customers across pharmaceuticals, chemicals, advanced materials, energy, and other regulated industries.

FAQ

Why is freedom-to-operate hard for GLP-1 and peptide therapeutics?

Freedom-to-operate is hard for GLP-1 and peptide therapeutics because protection is built as a dense, layered thicket extending well beyond the active ingredient. A peer-reviewed analysis found GLP-1 products carry a median of 19.5 listed patents each, most of them on delivery devices. Assessing FTO requires reading composition, formulation, dosing, device, and process claims across many patents and markets.

What claim types create FTO risk for GLP-1 products?

Five claim types create FTO risk for GLP-1 products: composition-of-matter claims on the peptide, formulation claims on stabilized and oral forms, dosing-regimen and method-of-use claims, delivery-device claims, and process or manufacturing claims. Each can independently block a product. Delivery-device claims are a particularly large share of the GLP-1 thicket.

How many patents protect a typical GLP-1 product?

A peer-reviewed analysis of GLP-1 receptor agonists approved between 2005 and 2021 found a median of 19.5 listed patents per product, with 54 percent on delivery devices rather than the active ingredient, and a median of 18.3 years of expected protection after approval. No generic manufacturer had successfully challenged a GLP-1 receptor agonist patent as of that analysis. These figures illustrate the density of the thicket.

What is a pharmaceutical patent thicket?

A pharmaceutical patent thicket is a dense set of overlapping patents around a single product that extends protection beyond the core molecule. Empirical analysis shows patents per active ingredient rose from 1.86 in 2001 to nearly six by 2019, driven substantially by continuation applications. Thickets shape when and where competition can enter.

How does the expiry of GLP-1 patents affect freedom-to-operate?

The expiry of GLP-1 patents affects freedom-to-operate market-by-market, because primary-patent expiry timing varies by jurisdiction and the practical entry date is governed by the surrounding formulation, device, and process claims rather than the molecule alone. FTO must therefore be assessed claim-by-claim and market-by-market. A molecule can be off-patent in one country and still protected in another.

Where is the white space in GLP-1 and peptide development?

Recent filing activity has shifted toward oral delivery, dual and triple receptor agonists, and combination therapies, which is where both new FTO risk and remaining white space now sit. Mapping this frontier requires reading patents and scientific literature together, since peptide innovation appears in research first. White space analysis identifies the areas that are still open.

How does AI-powered FTO help with peptide therapeutics?

AI-powered FTO helps with peptide therapeutics by using semantic search to retrieve relevant claims regardless of terminology, claim-level analysis to focus on the independent claims that define infringement across all claim types, and continuous monitoring to keep a cleared position current. This is what a dense, fast-moving thicket requires. Cypris runs this across more than 500 million patents and scientific papers.

Which teams need GLP-1 and peptide FTO analysis?

GLP-1 and peptide FTO analysis is needed by pharmaceutical and biotech R&D, IP, and business-development teams developing follow-on peptides, biosimilars, differentiated formulations, or combination products. It is also relevant to generics manufacturers assessing entry. Cypris serves hundreds of enterprise customers across pharmaceuticals and other regulated industries.

How current does GLP-1 FTO need to be?

GLP-1 FTO needs to be continuously current, because new formulation, device, dosing, and combination filings publish constantly and can change a cleared position. A one-time assessment reflects only the moment it was run. Cypris uses Agentic Monitoring to track a molecule and its surrounding thicket over time and flag new filings as they publish.

Endnotes

1. Tu, S. S., Feldman, W. B., Alhiary, R., Gabriele, S., Kesselheim, A. S. & Beall, R. F. (2023). Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.13872
2. Industry analyst estimates (e.g., Research and Markets; BCC Research). GLP-1 market forecasts vary widely by scope and are presented here as order-of-magnitude estimates, not authoritative figures.
3. Han, J., Zhou, Z., Jiang, N. & Lu, W. (2023). An updated patent review of GLP-1 receptor agonists (2020–present). Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2023.2274905
4. Tu, S. S., Feldman, W. B. et al. (2024). Delivery Device Patents on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.0919
5. Fasi, M. A. (2026). Patent landscape and therapeutic evolution of mazdutide. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2026.2645812
6. Tu, S. S. (2024). The Long CON: An Empirical Analysis of Pharmaceutical Patent Thickets. University of Pittsburgh Law Review. https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2024.1049
7. Hemphill, C. S. & Sampat, B. N. (2012). Evergreening, patent challenges, and effective market life in pharmaceuticals. Journal of Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.01.004
8. Tu, S. S. & Carrier, M. A. (2023). Why Pharmaceutical Patent Thickets Are Unique. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4571486
9. Ramesh, S., Cross, S., Levi, J., Hill, A. & Venter, F. (2026). How Low Could Semaglutide Prices Fall? Implications for Global Access Ahead of Patent Expiry. Obesity. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.70241

‍

Perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells have become the clearest path to a real jump in solar-panel efficiency in decades, and their patent landscape is distinctive because the underlying physics gives every developer the same target while leaving wide latitude in how to reach it. A single-junction silicon cell is capped by a physical ceiling that combines the Shockley-Queisser detailed-balance limit with Auger recombination losses; a Fraunhofer ISE analysis that combines both effects puts the accurate theoretical efficiency limit for a silicon-based monolithic tandem at 43.2 percent¹. The path to that ceiling runs through several distinct patenting layers. Interface passivation is currently the dominant lever on record efficiency: mixed self-assembled monolayer (SAM) contacts first enabled a certified 28.3 percent tandem², further interface-passivation work pushed a certified cell to 31.25 percent³, and subsequent bilayer SAM strategies have continued to close the non-radiative recombination gap⁴. A separate, equally central problem is depositing perovskite uniformly onto the pyramid-textured surface of industrial silicon wafers — the texture that gives production-grade silicon its light-trapping advantage also makes uniform, defect-free perovskite deposition difficult, typically causing localized electrical leakage at the pyramid peaks. Proposed fixes include selective passivation of the pyramid tips specifically (32.9 percent reported)⁵, "iceberg-like" pyramid engineering compatible with industrial texturing (33 percent)⁶, and advanced light-management approaches for textured interfaces more broadly⁷. Because record efficiency and manufacturable durability are driven by different, not always overlapping, sets of techniques, freedom-to-operate and white space analysis must span composition, interface, and texture-compatible process together.

The field has moved from a laboratory curiosity to early commercial shipment within the past two years, even as the record-chasing and the product-shipping efforts remain distinct. The current widely cited two-terminal cell efficiency record is 34.85 percent, announced by LONGi and stated by the company to be NREL-certified — a figure that should be read as certified-per-developer disclosure at cell area, since the independent certification certificate itself was not directly available in this research pass, and it is not (as of this writing) also a peer-reviewed published result⁸. This record is categorically distinct from module-level performance: Oxford PV and Fraunhofer ISE reported a full-size commercial-format module at 25 percent efficiency, a genuinely different, lower, and non-comparable figure because module-area results inherently lag cell-area records⁹. Preserving this cell-versus-module distinction, and the related single-junction-perovskite-versus-tandem distinction, matters throughout any reading of the field's efficiency claims. Commercial shipment and pilot-line status is confirmed via primary company disclosure for Oxford PV⁹; comparable primary shipment-volume disclosures for other major developers were not located in this pass and should be treated as unconfirmed pending each company's own investor-relations or regulatory filing. Because applications publish about eighteen months after filing, the most recent passivation and encapsulation filings are under-represented, so the current frontier is more active than granted-patent counts suggest.

The strategic picture turns on which side of the record-versus-durability divide an owner is defending. Efficiency-record IP, concentrated in interface-passivation chemistry, is advancing quickly through a small number of well-resourced developers and research groups, and durability improvements are increasingly bundled with efficiency claims rather than reported separately in the most recent literature. The more open, commercially decisive ground remains the manufacturing and durability layer: deposition techniques compatible with textured industrial silicon at scale, and encapsulation and barrier-layer chemistry that closes the stability gap with silicon's multi-decade outdoor lifetime. Reading the landscape by layer, technique, and owner, and tracking both the patents and the underlying materials-science research, is what separates a workable manufacturing position from a blocked one.

Where the perovskite-silicon tandem white space is

Textured-silicon-compatible deposition. Depositing a uniform, leakage-free perovskite layer onto the pyramid-textured surface of industrial silicon wafers, rather than the flat substrates used for the highest record cells, is the central manufacturing barrier standing between lab records and mass production, with several distinct proposed solutions still competing⁵,⁶,⁷.

Encapsulation and durability chemistry bundled with efficiency. The most recent passivation literature increasingly targets stability and efficiency together rather than treating them as separate problems, which is itself a signal of where the field is converging.

Verified, primary-sourced commercial shipment data. Commercial shipment status is confirmed for Oxford PV via primary disclosure; comparable confirmation for other major developers remains outstanding, making rigorously verified shipment and production-volume claims a genuine differentiator.

Module-scale (not just cell-scale) efficiency. Because record efficiency is consistently reported at small cell area while commercial products are judged at full module scale, IP and technique that closes this cell-to-module gap is disproportionately valuable relative to further small-area record chasing.

Flexible and building-integrated form factors. Solution-processable, flexible tandem cells for curved surfaces, windows, and other building-integrated applications exploit perovskite's inherent advantages rather than competing directly with rigid silicon, and remain a less-crowded adjacent frontier.

How AI-powered landscape and white space analysis helps

Resolving a landscape that spans perovskite composition, interface chemistry, texture-compatible deposition, and encapsulation — where record-setting efficiency claims are announced by multiple developers within the same quarter, and where cell-area, module-area, certified, and company-announced figures are easily conflated — requires more than keyword search. AI-powered analysis addresses this with semantic search that clusters activity by layer and technique across varied terminology, attribution that normalizes solar-manufacturer, materials-supplier, and research-institution filers to canonical entities, and continuous monitoring that keeps pace with a field where the efficiency record itself changes multiple times a year. Because photovoltaics advances appear in materials-science literature before they are patented, reading both patents and literature gives the earliest signal of which technique is actually closing the gap between record cell and bankable product.

The competitive landscape by the numbers

The perovskite/tandem solar-cell patent family set totals roughly 12,575 documents, though this figure includes broader "tandem solar cell" and general photovoltaics art and therefore overstates perovskite-silicon-specific filings on its own (Cypris corpus, indicative; 2025–26 partial). Geography is led by China (approximately 1,994 families) and the United States (approximately 1,623), followed by Germany (approximately 846), Japan (approximately 773), and South Korea (approximately 758) (Cypris corpus, indicative; 2025–26 partial). Top assignees mix photovoltaics incumbents and materials firms — Trina Solar, Oxford Photovoltaics, Kaneka, LG, BASF, CEA, and JinkoSolar — alongside broader electronics players such as Canon and Toshiba, whose filings contribute some non-perovskite tandem/PV art to the set (Cypris corpus, indicative; 2025–26 partial). Filings show a recent perovskite-driven resurgence, rising from roughly 526 families in 2021 to about 1,191 in 2025 (Cypris corpus, indicative; 2025–26 partial).

Where Cypris fits

Cypris runs patent landscape and white space analysis for fast-moving materials fields such as perovskite-silicon tandem photovoltaics across a corpus of more than 500 million patents and scientific papers, organized through a proprietary R&D ontology. The ontology clusters activity by layer, perovskite composition, interface passivation, tandem architecture, and encapsulation, and normalizes solar-manufacturer, materials-supplier, and research-institution filers to canonical entities, so a team can resolve which layers and techniques are crowded and which remain open as white space. Semantic search across patents and scientific literature connects filings to the underlying materials-science research, which is where tandem-cell advances appear first, often well ahead of the patent record. Cypris Q, the platform's agentic layer, lets teams run landscape and white space analysis conversationally and chain the clustering, attribution, and gap analysis, and Agentic Monitoring tracks a defined layer over time and flags new patents and papers as they publish. Cypris provides enterprise API partnerships with OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, and is built with enterprise-grade security. Cypris serves hundreds of enterprise customers across pharmaceuticals, chemicals, advanced materials, energy, and other regulated industries.

FAQ

What is a perovskite-silicon tandem solar cell? A perovskite-silicon tandem solar cell stacks a perovskite top cell on top of a crystalline-silicon bottom cell so the combined device captures more of the solar spectrum than either material could alone, allowing it to exceed the theoretical ceiling that limits any single-junction silicon cell. That combined ceiling, accounting for both Shockley-Queisser and Auger effects, is calculated at 43.2 percent¹. The current company-reported, NREL-certified cell-area record stands at 34.85 percent⁸.

Why can't a single-junction silicon cell just be made more efficient instead? A single-junction silicon cell cannot exceed its combined Shockley-Queisser/Auger efficiency ceiling because that limit is set by the fundamental physics of extracting energy from a broad-spectrum light source using a single semiconductor bandgap, not by manufacturing quality¹. Continuing to refine single-junction silicon can approach that limit but never exceed it. Stacking a second, complementary-bandgap material is the only way to break through it.

What layers does the tandem patent landscape cover? The landscape covers perovskite composition and bandgap engineering, interface passivation chemistry, tandem cell architecture compatible with industrial silicon texturing, and encapsulation and stability engineering. Interface passivation is currently the dominant lever on record efficiency²,³,⁴, while texture-compatible deposition remains the central manufacturing barrier⁵,⁶,⁷. A bankable product depends on progress across all of these layers together.

Are perovskite-silicon tandem panels available to buy in 2026? Only in limited volume, and only confirmed for certain developers. Oxford PV has a confirmed primary disclosure of a full-size commercial-format module reaching 25 percent efficiency in partnership with Fraunhofer ISE⁹, but comparable shipment-volume confirmation for other major manufacturers was not available in current primary disclosures. The efficiency record (34.85 percent, cell-area) and the shipping product (25 percent, module-area) are currently very different numbers describing different things.

Where is the white space in perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells? The white space includes textured-silicon-compatible deposition, durability chemistry bundled with efficiency gains, verified commercial shipment data, closing the cell-to-module efficiency gap, and flexible or building-integrated form factors. Record-efficiency IP is advancing quickly through interface-passivation chemistry specifically. The manufacturing, durability, and module-scale layers are the more open and commercially decisive ground.

Why is depositing perovskite onto textured silicon so hard? Depositing perovskite onto textured silicon is hard because industrial silicon wafers use a pyramid-textured surface to trap light and boost efficiency, but that same texture makes it difficult to deposit a uniform, defect-free perovskite layer, often causing localized electrical leakage at the pyramid peaks. The highest record cells are typically demonstrated on flatter or smaller-area substrates that partially avoid this problem. Multiple distinct fixes are being pursued in parallel, including selective peak passivation and engineered pyramid geometry⁵,⁶.

Why does perovskite-silicon tandem analysis need scientific literature? Perovskite-silicon tandem analysis needs scientific literature because composition, passivation, and encapsulation advances appear in materials-science research before they are patented, and because distinguishing certified from company-announced figures, and cell-area from module-area results, requires reading the primary literature rather than press coverage. Analyzing patents alone gives a lagging view. Cypris analyzes both across more than 500 million patents and scientific papers.

Which teams use perovskite-silicon tandem patent landscape analysis? Perovskite-silicon tandem patent landscape analysis is used by R&D, IP, and strategy teams at solar manufacturers and materials suppliers, as well as investors assessing the photovoltaics sector. Because record efficiency and commercial durability are driven by different techniques at different maturity levels, and because efficiency claims require careful certified-versus-announced and cell-versus-module verification, structured analysis is essential. Cypris serves hundreds of enterprise customers across advanced materials, energy, and other research-intensive industries.

Endnotes

1. Schubert MC, Glunz SW, Fell A, Bivour M, Messmer C. Elucidating the efficiency limit of silicon-based monolithic tandem cells through the combination of Auger and Shockley-Queisser limits. EES Solar. DOI: 10.1039/d5el00085h.
2. Kishimoto K, Uzu H, Yamamoto K, Yoshida W, Okamoto S. 28.3% efficient perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells with mixed self-assembled monolayers. Applied Physics Express. DOI: 10.35848/1882-0786/ac727b.
3. Artuk K, Sahli F, Jeangros Q, Boccard M, Tabean S. Interface passivation for 31.25%-efficient perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.adg0091.
4. Jia Y, Xu X, Li P, Li Z, Xiao C. Perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with bilayer interface passivation. Nature. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07997-7.
5. Ye JP, Yang X, Ying Z, Du H, Yang W. Selective passivation of pyramid peaks for 32.9%-efficient perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells. Matter. DOI: 10.1016/j.matt.2026.102824.
6. Wei J, Li R, Yu X, Hang P, Wu T. Iceberg-like pyramids in industrially textured silicon enabled 33% efficient perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells. Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-62389-3.
7. Stannowski B, Korte L, Jošt M, Al-Ashouri A, Lipovšek B. Textured interfaces in monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells: advanced light management for improved efficiency and energy yield. Energy & Environmental Science. DOI: 10.1039/c8ee02469c.
8. LONGi Green Energy. 34.85%! LONGi Breaks World Record for Crystalline Silicon-Perovskite Tandem Solar Cell Efficiency Again. Company press release, longi.com.
9. Oxford PV and Fraunhofer ISE. Oxford PV and Fraunhofer ISE Develop Full-sized Tandem PV Module with Record Efficiency of 25 Percent. Fraunhofer ISE press release, ise.fraunhofer.de.
10. Cypris platform corpus analysis, perovskite/tandem solar-cell patent families. Indicative figures; 2025–2026 partial.

‍