Automated Immunoassay Analyzer Design Patents: Who Leads 2026
- 90.4% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 132 of 146 records in scope — a field with almost no room for a new entrant to out-file the incumbents head-on.
- Filing has picked back up. After a 2017 peak of 13 records, filings dropped, then grew from 2 in 2021 to 6 in 2024 — a +200% rebound in the most recent complete years.
- Material analysis dominates the claims. G01N covers 76.7% of the 146 records, but image-processing claims (G06T) sit at just 12.3%, marking a comparatively open branch.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 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. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 146 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the patent record shows about analyzer design
Automated immunoassay analyzer design covers the mechanical, fluidic and control-software claims that determine throughput per hour, reagent onboard stability, sample carryover and pipetting accuracy in random-access clinical analyzers. The 146 records in scope span filings from 2015 through mid-2026, drawn from a search string built around these named performance parameters rather than a broad diagnostics keyword, which keeps the corpus focused on analyzer mechanics rather than assay chemistry.
Filing is heavily concentrated: five assignees account for 90.4% of the records, and ten account for 98.6%. That leaves very little of the field to the remaining 22 ranked companies, most of which appear as single or double filers rather than sustained programmes.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Trend and technology composition
The filing trend and IPC composition below are drawn directly from the 146 records in scope; class shares are calculated against the full record count and will sum to more than 100% because a single record can carry several IPC classes.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Filings peaked at 13 in 2017, fell over the following years, then rebuilt from 2 in 2021 to 6 in 2024, a +200% increase across that span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the apparent recent dip should not be read as a slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears on 76.7% of records, the expected core for immunoassay measurement claims. B01L (lab apparatus, 47.3%), H01J (electron and discharge tubes, 39.7%) and B29C (plastics shaping, 39.0%) show the mechanical and consumable-fabrication side of analyzer design is claimed almost as heavily as the assay science itself, while G06T (image processing, 12.3%) remains comparatively light.
Shares are the percentage of the 146 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Automated Immunoassay Analyzer Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automated immunoassay analyzer design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative claim
US20080300789A1 — Method for determining the order of execution of assays of a sample in a laboratory automation system
A method for arranging assays in an order for execution across a set of automated clinical analyzers. The method prioritises individual assays for a given sample by assay sensitivity, accounts for sample-to-sample carryover contributions from other samples run on the same system, and compares the cumulative carryover contribution against a threshold before scheduling execution order.Filed by Abbott Laboratories, published 2008-12-04.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5885530A | Automated immunoassay analyzer | 535 |
| 2 | US5885529A | Automated immunoassay analyzer | 321 |
| 3 | US5646049A | Scheduling operation of an automated analytical system | 303 |
| 4 | US5316726A | Automated immunoassay analyzer with pictorial display of assay information | 263 |
| 5 | WO1995008774A2 | Automated continuous and random access analytical system and components thereof | 246 |
| 6 | US6096561A | Scheduling operation of an automated analytical system | 199 |
| 7 | US6190617B1 | Sample container segment assembly | 197 |
| 8 | US5605665A | Reaction vessel | 152 |
| 9 | WO1993020440A1 | Automated continuous and random access analytical system and components thereof | 145 |
| 10 | US5635364A | Assay verification control for an automated analytical system | 141 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more years to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of historical influence on the field's vocabulary, not of current commercial 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 patterns in the data matter more than the raw counts: where citations concentrate, how the technology composition splits between assay science and hardware, and how filing volume has moved since the 2017 peak.
The core claim space is largely occupied
With five assignees holding 90.4% of the 146 records and ten holding 98.6%, most of the foundational scheduling, carryover-control and throughput claims are already staked out. New entrants are more likely to find room in adjacent mechanical or software claims than in core assay-scheduling logic.
Hardware claims run alongside assay claims
B01L, H01J and B29C together show that a large share of records claim fluidic hardware, detection components and moulded consumable parts rather than assay chemistry alone. A design-around strategy focused only on chemistry misses most of the claim surface.
Activity is rebuilding after a post-2017 lull
Filings peaked at 13 in 2017 and declined afterward, but the 2021-2024 window shows a clear rebound. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025-2026 counts are still filling in and should not be read as renewed decline.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to automated immunoassay analyzer design, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where the gate sits
The ranking covers 32 companies with any record in scope. A handful of long-established diagnostics manufacturers hold most of the filings, while the remainder of the ranking consists mostly of single- or double-filing entrants and named inventors filing independently.
One assignee dominates the corpus
The leading assignee holds 92 of the 146 records in scope, far ahead of fifth place at 4 and tenth place at 2. This gap means the leader's granted claims set the effective boundaries for scheduling, carryover-control and throughput-management approaches that competitors must design around.
A thin second tier
Filing volume drops sharply after the leader: fifth place holds only 4 records and tenth place just 2. This is a classic long-tail structure — a handful of established diagnostics manufacturers followed by many low-volume filers rather than a broad competitive middle.
Co-filing is limited but present
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairing linking a corporate assignee to a named inventor across three records. This suggests most core IP is filed solely by the corporate entity, with inventor-linked co-filings occurring at the margins.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Abbott Laboratories | 0 | — |
| Beckman Coulter | 0 | — |
| DPC CIRRUS | 0 | — |
| Bayer Corporation | 0 | — |
| CIRRUS DIAGNOSTICS INC | 0 | — |
| FRITCHIE PATRICK P | 0 | — |
| Meon Medical Solutions | 0 | — |
| Bio-Rad Laboratories | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated core and a handful of thinner branches. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, a design-around, or scouting for a filing gap.
Map the leader's granted claim scope
With one assignee holding 92 of 146 records, a freedom-to-operate review should start by mapping exactly which scheduling, carryover and throughput claims that portfolio has secured, and where its claim language stops short.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches
Image-based verification and bioreactor-integrated sample prep show comparatively low IPC coverage against the corpus. A first claim drafted around either would face a thinner prior-art field than one drafted against core G01N scheduling logic.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee dominates this landscape, holding 92 of the 146 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 4 and tenth place at 2. This concentration means the leading filer's claims effectively set the boundaries for core scheduling and carryover-control approaches. Any competitor entering this space should expect to design around, rather than duplicate, that portfolio's core claims.
Very concentrated: the top 5 assignees hold 90.4% of all 146 records, and the top 10 hold 98.6%. That leaves the remaining 22 ranked companies splitting a very small share of the field, mostly as single or double filers. This is a field where the practical competitive set is small even though the ranked list runs to 32 companies.
Filings peaked at 13 records in 2017 and declined over the following years, but the most recent complete data shows a rebound, growing from 2 records in 2021 to 6 in 2024, a +200% increase. Because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 reflect incomplete data rather than an actual drop in filing. Treat 2024 as the most recent year that gives a reliable read on activity.
US20080300789A1, filed by Abbott Laboratories, claims a method for ordering assay execution across automated clinical analyzers by prioritising assays according to sensitivity and accounting for sample-to-sample carryover contributions from other samples run on the same system. It compares cumulative carryover against a threshold before finalising execution order. For anyone designing a scheduling algorithm that manages carryover risk across multiple queued samples, this filing is a key reference point to review claim-by-claim rather than assume clear of.
The technology composition data shows G01N and B01L claims dominate the corpus at 76.7% and 47.3% of records respectively, while G06T (image data processing) sits at only 12.3%. That gap suggests image-based result verification and related software-driven quality checks are comparatively under-claimed relative to the mechanical and assay-scheduling core. A new filing in that area would likely face a thinner prior-art field than one aimed at core scheduling or carryover-control claims.
Research Automated Immunoassay Analyzer Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole automated immunoassay analyzer design 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.