Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/ablation-lesion-assessment-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cardiac ElectrophysiologyAblation Lesion Assessment Patents: Filing Trends and Ownership Concentration
- 39.5% of all filings sit with just five assignees, out of 1,685 records in scope — a tight core around force-time-integral and lesion-index claims.
- Filings peaked in 2021 at 96 and fell 65% to 34 by 2024, the last year the trend can be read as complete; 2025-26 figures are still filling in.
- A61B carries 93.4% of records while imaging-confirmation and informatics classes (G01S, G16H, G06F) each sit near or below 1.3%, marking where claim space stays open.
1,685
Published Records
40%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-65%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (96 records) with 2024 (34) — 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 1,685 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the ablation lesion assessment patent record shows
Ablation lesion assessment covers the instrumentation and software used to judge whether cardiac tissue has been durably ablated: force-time integral tracking, tissue temperature sensing, gap detection between lesion points, and post-procedure imaging confirmation. The field sits at the intersection of catheter hardware and real-time signal processing, which is why A61B (diagnosis and surgery) dominates the classification profile while A61N (electrotherapy) and A61M (body-fluid devices) trail as secondary but substantial categories.
Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2021, and has since declined through 2024 — the most recent year with a complete publication record. Ownership is concentrated: five assignees account for close to two-fifths of all 1,685 records, with a long tail of single- and low-filing entrants behind them.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2017-2024
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Ablation Lesion Assessment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Data
Filing trends and classification breakdown
The figures below are drawn directly from the 1,685 records in scope, spanning filings from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. Publication lag means the most recent one to two years understate true filing volume.
Filing trend: rise, peak, decline
Annual filings climbed from 94 in 2017 to a peak of 96 in 2021, then fell to 34 by 2024 — a 65% drop over that three-year span. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a continuation of the decline.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) appears in 93.4% of the 1,685 records, confirming that most lesion-assessment art is filed as surgical or diagnostic apparatus rather than pure electrotherapy. A61N (21.6%) and A61M (13.6%) form the next tier, while imaging-position (G01S), healthcare informatics (G16H) and data-processing (G06F) classes each sit at or below 1.3% — a sign that algorithmic and imaging-integration approaches to lesion confirmation are comparatively lightly claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,685 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Ablation Lesion Assessment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Ablation Lesion Assessment with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about ablation lesion assessment and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative and most-cited filings
Representative Filing
US12064174B2 — Systems and methods for tissue ablation and measurements relating to the same
HEPTA MEDICAL SAS
An exemplary ablation system is provided. The system is designed for safe and efficacious energy delivery into tissue by, for example, emitting energy in a controlled, repeatable manner that allows for feedback and energy emission titration based on sensed parameters (e.g., tissue temperature) measured during ablation. The system may include a switching antenna for both heating of target tissue and radiometry to monitor the temperature of the heated tissue.Filed by Hepta Medical SAS, published 2024-08-20 — illustrates the current generation of feedback-titrated, temperature-sensed ablation claims.
Most-cited records in the ablation lesion assessment corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6575969B1 | Cool-tip radiofrequency thermosurgery electrode system for tumor ablation | 2,219 |
| 2 | US6558378B2 | RF ablation system and method having automatic temperature control | 1,595 |
| 3 | US6171305B1 | RF ablation apparatus and method having high output impedance drivers | 1,484 |
| 4 | US20080039746A1 | Methods of using high intensity focused ultrasound to form an ablated tissue area containing a plurality of l… | 1,361 |
| 5 | US8657814B2 | User interface for tissue ablation system | 1,267 |
| 6 | US5472441A | Device for treating cancer and non-malignant tumors and methods | 1,056 |
| 7 | US8221402B2 | Method for guiding a medical device | 936 |
| 8 | US20070083193A1 | User interface for tissue ablation system | 934 |
| 9 | US20060106375A1 | Ablation system with feedback | 910 |
| 10 | US5458597A | Device for treating cancer and non-malignant tumors and methods | 836 |
Citation counts favour older filings within the searched corpus and should be read as a signal of influence, not current relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Ablation Lesion Assessment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the concentration and trend data mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the classification breakdown are read together.
Concentration
39.5% of 1,685
held by the top five assignees
Ownership is tight at the top
The top five assignees combined account for 666 of the 1,685 records in scope, and the top ten reach 55.3%. New entrants filing on core force-time-integral or lesion-index claims are filing into occupied ground.
Based on the full 100-company ranking
Momentum
96 → 34
peak-year to 2024 filings
Filing volume has pulled back from its 2021 peak
Annual filings fell 65% between the 2021 peak of 96 and the 2024 figure of 34, the last year with a complete publication record. That decline reflects claim-space saturation among leading assignees more than a shrinking field.
2025-26 figures still incomplete due to publication lag
Classification
93.4% A61B
share of all records
The field files as surgical apparatus, not electrotherapy
A61B outweighs every other subclass by a wide margin, while software- and imaging-adjacent classes such as G16H and G06F sit near 1%. That gap suggests lesion-assessment algorithms are still filed thinly relative to the hardware they run on.
Class shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC codes
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to ablation lesion assessment, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Ablation Lesion Assessment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who holds the ground, and where it opens up
The ranking spans 100 companies drawn from the full 1,685-record dataset. A handful of established electrophysiology device makers hold the bulk of the core force-time-integral and gap-detection claims; the remaining assignees form a long tail of single- or low-filing entrants.
Leader
211 records
leading assignee filings
A single leader holds the largest share
The top-ranked assignee holds 211 of the 1,685 records, well ahead of fifth place at 80 and tenth place at 39 — a steep drop-off that marks the field as leader-dominated rather than evenly spread.
Ranking counted in patent families
Long tail
90 of 100
assignees below tenth place
A long tail sits behind the top ten
Below the top ten, filing counts drop off quickly, indicating that most organisations in this space have filed only a handful of records rather than building a sustained portfolio.
Full 100-company ranking
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee relationships recorded
Co-filing is limited and inventor-centred
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links trace to individual named inventors rather than cross-company joint ventures — collaboration in this niche is largely internal to single organisations.
Strongest pair recorded 42 shared filings
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Biosense Webster (Israel) Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| St. Jude Medical Atrial Fibrillation Division, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Medtronic Vention Inc | 0 | — |
| Medtronic Inc | 0 | — |
| Medtronic CryoCath LP | 0 | — |
| PAUL SAURAV | 0 | — |
| Medtronic Ablation Frontiers LLC | 0 | — |
| Biosense Webster Inc | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Ablation Lesion Assessment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with concentrated ownership at the core and thin coverage at the algorithmic edges. The next step is turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision specific to your own claims.
Map your claims against the leader's portfolio
Before drafting, check whether a proposed force-time-integral or lesion-index claim overlaps with the 211-record leader's existing filings.
Run a claim comparison in Eureka →Watch the under-claimed branches
Imaging-confirmation and informatics-linked lesion assessment remain lightly filed; a well-scoped claim there has more room to stand alone.
Explore white space in Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Ablation Lesion Assessment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on ablation lesion assessment patents
These are patents covering the methods and instrumentation used to determine whether a cardiac ablation lesion is complete and durable, including force-time integral measurement, tissue temperature sensing, gap detection between ablation points, acute reconnection testing, and imaging-based confirmation. The dataset behind this page uses a search string combining these lesion-assessment terms with ablation and lesion-index language, covering 1,685 published records from 2015 through mid-2026. It spans both device hardware claims and the software or signal-processing methods used to interpret sensor data during and after ablation.
Ownership is concentrated: the top five assignees together hold 39.5% of the 1,685 records in scope, and the top ten hold 55.3%. The leading assignee alone holds 211 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 80 and tenth place at 39. Behind that top tier sits a long tail of organisations with only a handful of filings each, which is typical of a field with a few dominant device platforms.
Filings rose from 94 in 2017 to a peak of 96 in 2021, then declined to 34 by 2024, a 65% drop over that three-year window. 2024 is the most recent year that can be read as a complete count, because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures will fill in later and should not yet be read as a continued decline. The pullback from the 2021 peak is more consistent with saturated claim space among leading filers than with a shrinking technology area.
Classification data shows A61B (diagnosis and surgery) present in 93.4% of records, while imaging-position, healthcare-informatics and data-processing classes each sit at or below 1.3%. That gap suggests lesion-assessment approaches built around imaging confirmation, positioning sensors, or informatics-driven durability follow-up are comparatively lightly claimed relative to core hardware and electrotherapy claims. A first claim in these areas would need to tie a specific sensing or imaging modality to a durability or reconnection determination rather than restating general lesion-index measurement.
The most-cited records in this dataset date back to early radiofrequency ablation systems, including patents on cool-tip electrode systems and automatic temperature control, because citation counts accumulate over time within a searched corpus. This makes older patents look more influential by volume, but it does not mean they remain the most legally or commercially relevant filings today. A freedom-to-operate review should weight recent filings and current assignee activity alongside citation counts rather than relying on citation rank alone.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Ablation Lesion Assessment covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Ablation Lesion Assessment in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole ablation lesion assessment 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.