Book a demo

AI Drug Discovery Patent Landscape 2026

AI Drug Discovery Patent Landscape 2026
Competitive Landscape

AI Drug Discovery Patent Landscape in 2026

The AI drug discovery patent corpus spans 52 patent families, with activity concentrated in computational chemistry and bioinformatics and no single applicant holding a dominant position. The field expanded sharply through 2020 and again in 2024–2025, though annual volume has eased from its earlier peak on a multi-year view.

52
Patent families in scope
28%
Top-5 share of top-100 filers
-11%
3-yr filing growth (lag-adj.)
United States
Leading jurisdiction
↗ Tap any metric to explore the underlying patents and uncover deeper insights in PatSnap Eureka
Published byPatSnap Insights Team··6 min readVerified by PatSnap Eureka data
Overview

Fujitsu leads a fragmented, early-stage landscape

Fujitsu Ltd holds the top position with 6 patent records, followed by Avalon Pharmaceuticals with 5 and Atomwise and the Regents of the University of Michigan each with 4. The top five filers account for 28% of the hundred largest filers’ combined total — a relatively modest share that signals an open, fragmented competitive structure rather than entrenched dominance.

No applicant commands a controlling position: a gap of only one or two patent records separates the first through fourth ranks. This thin tier-gap means incumbency is shallow and a focused filing campaign by a new entrant could rapidly alter the ranking.

Leading applicants
#ApplicantPatent recordsShare
1Fujitsu Ltd6
2Avalon Pharmaceuticals Inc5
3Atomwise Inc4
4Regents of the University of Michigan4
5Genentech Inc3
6Purdue Research Foundation3
7Cosyne Therapeutics Ltd3
8Chengdu Anticancer Biosciences Ltd3
9GBS Global Biopharma Inc2
10Stephen K. Horrigan2
#ApplicantPatent recordsShare
11SB Tech Inc2
12Hunan University2
13Hoffmann-La Roche Inc2
14F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE & CO AG2
15Insilico Medicine IP Ltd2
16Daniel R. Soppet2
17Insilico Medicine AI Limited2
18BVRIT Hyderabad College of Engineering for Women1
19University of Southern California1
20Vaibhav Sharma1
↗ Hover a row · click a company to ask Eureka

The presence of both pure-play AI biotechs (Atomwise, Insilico Medicine) and large pharma and tech incumbents (Genentech, Roche entities, Fujitsu) alongside academic institutions (University of Michigan, Purdue Research Foundation) indicates the field has not yet consolidated around a single organizational model.

Filings from roughly the last 18–24 months are subject to publication lag and are likely under-represented in the current corpus; conclusions about very recent activity should be treated as provisional. Longer-window growth, applicant concentration, and technology-route coverage are therefore more reliable signals than the latest-year bar alone.

Source: PatSnap Eureka. Chart shows the top applicants ranked by patent records; the corpus total is measured in patent families. These figures use different units and should not be compared directly.Explore deeper in Eureka →
Trends & Structure

Activity surged in 2024–2025 after an earlier peak; computational chemistry dominates the technology mix

Two views together reveal where the field is heading: the annual trend shows when competitive intensity shifted, while the IPC composition shows which technical approaches are drawing the most attention.

Annual filing trend

Filings accelerated from 2018 through a 2020 peak of 8 records, softened through 2022–2023, then rebounded sharply to 8 in 2024 and 16 in 2025. The 2025 figure is almost certainly under-counted due to publication lag and should be read as a lower bound rather than a ceiling. The multi-year trajectory remains expansionary.

Annual filing trendAnnual values from 2017 to 2026, peaking at 16 in 2025.020172201852019820205202152022320238202416202502026↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask Eureka

Technology composition

G16C (Computational chemistry) is the dominant IPC branch, followed by G16B (Bioinformatics) and G06N (Computing based on AI models). Healthcare informatics (G16H) and combinatorial chemistry (C40B) contribute materially. The cluster of AI-core and chemistry-core branches confirms that drug discovery work here is primarily in silico rather than wet-lab, and that machine-learning model development is still secondary to molecular modelling workflows.

Technology compositionG16C · Computational chemistry leads with 45; G16B · Bioinformatics 25.G16C · Computational che…45G16B · Bioinformatics25G06N · Computing based o…17G16H · Healthcare inform…14C40B · Combinatorial che…7G01N · Material analysis…7G06F · Electric digital …5A61K · Medicinal prepara…4↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask Eureka
Source: PatSnap Eureka. Technology-branch counts are measured in patent records; a single patent family can carry several IPC classes, so class totals can exceed the family total in scope.Explore deeper in Eureka →
Key Patents

Highly cited patent families surfaced by the query

Citation-heavy patent families returned by the query. Use this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents.

Highly cited patent families surfaced by this query
#PatentCitations
1Method and systems for phytomedicine analytics for…39
2Target molecule-ligand binding mode prediction com…35
3Systems and methods for screening compounds in sil…18
4Systems and methods for in silico drug discovery17
5System and methods for ai-enhanced cellular modeli…14
6Computer representations of peptides for efficient…12
7Graph based machine learning for generating valid …4
8Method of extracting drug information based on bio…4

Ranked by total forward citations. Citation counts favour older and broadly cited patent families, and broad or adjacent patents may appear when they match the search scope. Treat this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents.

Source: PatSnap Eureka. Citation-ranked patent families surfaced by this query.Open in Eureka →
Insights

What the patent structure means for R&D investment

The combination of fragmented ownership, computational-chemistry dominance, and a dual-peak filing trend creates distinct implications for teams evaluating where to position.

Decline

Field is in decline phase from its peak, but recent rebound complicates the read

The lifecycle stage is characterized as decline, with annual filings easing back from the 2020 peak. However, the 2024–2025 rebound — the largest single-year volume in the corpus — suggests either a second wave of interest or significant publication lag inflating recent counts. Teams should monitor 2026 actual grant data before concluding the field is contracting.

Lifecycle: Decline
Concentration

Low concentration leaves the ranking open to disruption

The top five filers hold only 28% of the hundred largest filers’ combined total, and the gap between first and fourth rank is just two patent records. An applicant filing 8–10 targeted patents in a focused sub-area could plausibly enter the top three within a single filing cycle. This low barrier to ranking prominence is unusual compared with more mature technology fields.

Fragmented
Collaboration

Genentech–Roche co-filings and Avalon multi-inventor clusters are the primary partnerships

The most active co-filing pairs are Genentech with the two Roche entities (Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc), each pairing sharing 2 records. Avalon Pharmaceuticals appears in three separate co-filing relationships — with Paul Young, Daniel Soppet, and James Meade — each at 2 records, indicating a small-team inventor model rather than broad industry-academia consortia. No evidence of large multi-party consortia appears in the data.

Sparse collaboration
Geography

US filing dominance with meaningful PCT and European coverage

The United States is the leading jurisdiction with 23 patent records, followed by WIPO PCT filings at 15 and Europe (EPO) and India each at 6. China holds 3 records. The strong PCT presence relative to direct national filings suggests applicants are preserving international optionality rather than committing to narrow geographic strategies. India’s parity with EPO is notable and may reflect growing domestic AI-pharma activity.

US-led, PCT-hedged
PatSnap Eureka · TRIZ Solution Agent
Facing a specific technical bottleneck in this field?

Go beyond the landscape: Eureka’s TRIZ Solution agent breaks down an R&D problem and returns patented concept solutions, each with a technical approach and cited patent & literature evidence.

Solve it in Eureka →
Top collaboration links
ApplicantCollaboratorCo-filings
Genentech IncF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG2
Genentech IncHoffmann-La Roche Inc2
YOUNG PAULAvalon Pharmaceuticals Inc2
Daniel R. SoppetAvalon Pharmaceuticals Inc2
MEADE JAMESAvalon Pharmaceuticals Inc2

Co-filing pairs, ranked by the number of jointly-filed patent families.

Source: PatSnap Eureka. Insight cards are grounded in applicant ranking, collaboration pairs, jurisdiction counts, and lifecycle data from the AI drug discovery corpus.Explore insights →
Leaders

Fujitsu and Avalon lead, with distinct computational and pharmaceutical orientations

The top two applicants differ markedly in profile: Fujitsu is a broad-based technology company with computational chemistry emphasis, while Avalon Pharmaceuticals is a drug-focused organization. Applicant momentum data are not available for this corpus, so trajectory commentary relies on the filing trend alone.

Leader · Fujitsu Ltd

Fujitsu Ltd

Fujitsu holds 6 patent records, the highest count in the corpus, consistent with its established position in enterprise AI and high-performance computing applied to life sciences. The company’s filing emphasis aligns with computational and AI-model branches (G16C, G06N), reflecting a platform-tool orientation rather than proprietary drug-candidate development. Specific recent trajectory data are not available in the evidence.

patent records: 6
Challenger · Avalon Pharmaceuticals Inc

Avalon Pharmaceuticals Inc

Avalon Pharmaceuticals holds 5 patent records and appears as the anchor in three separate inventor co-filing pairs, suggesting a concentrated inventor team driving output. Its positioning closer to the drug-candidate end of the pipeline distinguishes it from technology-platform filers. Specific recent filing trajectory data are not available in the evidence.

patent records: 5
🔍
See the full applicant breakdown
Access ranked profiles for all applicants in the AI drug discovery corpus, including Atomwise, University of Michigan, Genentech, and Insilico Medicine.
Atomwise IncInsilico Medicine AI Limited+ more
Unlock full assignee analysis →
Source: PatSnap Eureka. Player cards cite patent record counts from the applicant ranking; technology emphasis is inferred from IPC composition data.Explore players →
Adjacent Branches

Under-served branches adjacent to the computational core

Several IPC branches appear at low share relative to the dominant computational chemistry and bioinformatics clusters. These are observations of relative sparsity; only those with plausible technical relevance to AI drug discovery are highlighted as worth watching.

A61K · Medicinal preparations

With only 4 patent records and a 3% share, A61K coverage is sparse relative to the volume of in silico discovery work in this corpus. AI-guided formulation optimization and delivery-system design are downstream applications that could logically bridge the computational discovery layer to this branch. Teams with wet-lab capability could differentiate by connecting AI-predicted candidates directly to formulation IP, a step currently under-protected in this corpus.

Search this in Eureka →

C12Q · Measuring & testing involving enzymes and DNA

C12Q holds only 3 patent records and a 2% share, making it the sparsest branch with direct biological relevance. AI-driven assay design, enzyme activity prediction, and genomic target validation are natural intersections between machine learning and this IPC class. The low filing count may reflect that applicants are filing assay-related work under G16B (Bioinformatics) instead, or that the experimental validation step remains outside the current filing strategy of most corpus participants.

Search this in Eureka →
🔒
Unlock the full white-space map
See all under-served IPC branches, including combinatorial chemistry libraries and material analysis, with applicant overlap analysis.
C40B · Combinatorial chemistry librariesG01N · Material analysis and testing+ more
Unlock full analysis →
Source: PatSnap Eureka. Adjacent branches are identified by low patent-record count and share relative to dominant IPC classes in the corpus.Explore emerging →
Route Matrix

How leading applicants differ across technology routes

Strength of each leader across the main technology routes.

PlayerG16C 20 · Computational chemistryG16B 40 · BioinformaticsG16B 15 · BioinformaticsG06N 3 · Computing based on AI modelsG16H 50 · Healthcare informatics
Regents of the University of MichiganAbsentStrong · 4AbsentAbsentStrong · 4
Fujitsu LtdStrong · 6AbsentAbsentAbsentAbsent
Chengdu Anticancer Biosciences LtdStrong · 3AbsentAbsentStrong · 3Absent
Purdue Research FoundationStrong · 3AbsentStrong · 3AbsentAbsent
Atomwise IncAbsentStrong · 3Strong · 2AbsentAbsent
Avalon Pharmaceuticals IncStrong · 4AbsentAbsentAbsentAbsent
Cosyne Therapeutics LtdStrong · 3AbsentAbsentModerate · 1Absent
Source: PatSnap Eureka. Matrix values are measured in patent records and should not be compared directly with family-level applicant totals.Compare in Eureka →
Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka answers them from patent and research data.Ask Eureka →
PatSnap Eureka

Ready to map your own AI drug discovery landscape?

Join 18,000+ innovators using PatSnap Eureka to map any technology landscape: search 2B+ patents and papers, surface key assignees, and generate a report like this in minutes.

18,000+innovators worldwide
2B+patents & papers
< 5 minper landscape report

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.

Explore in Eureka ↗
Powered by PatSnap Eureka

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.