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/automated-liquid-handling-accuracy-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Laboratory AutomationAutomated Liquid Handling Accuracy Patents: Filing Trends and Leaders
- Concentrated at the top. the top 5 assignees hold 81.3% of all 48 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 97.9% — this is a field with almost no long tail left to claim into.
- Growth has resumed. filings rose from 4 in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 25% increase over that span, after peaking earlier at 17 in 2017.
- Testing and measurement dominate the claims. G01N covers 75.0% of the 48 records, far ahead of enzyme/DNA measurement (C12Q, 43.8%) and lab apparatus (B01L, 29.2%).
48
Published Records
81%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+25%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
EP
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (5) — 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 48 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Automated liquid handling accuracy sits at the intersection of instrument engineering and analytical verification: how a system measures, dispenses and confirms the volume it moves, and how it detects error before a result downstream is compromised. The scope here spans air displacement mechanics, tip loading, volume verification, viscous liquid handling, carryover contamination control and calibration frequency — the technical levers that determine whether a pipetting system's stated accuracy holds up in routine use rather than only under calibration conditions. The corpus is small and recent: 48 published records filed between 2015 and 2026, concentrated in a short list of assignees.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in this dataset are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown. The clearer signal is the resumption of filing activity into 2024 after an earlier peak, alongside a filing base that is small enough that a handful of assignees account for nearly the entire record set.
Filing activity by year, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy 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 trend and technology composition
The two views below cover the same 48 records from different angles: when they were filed, and which IPC subclasses they claim into. Because a single record can carry more than one IPC class, the class shares add up to more than 100% of the record total.
Filing trend
Filings peaked at 17 in 2017, cooled through the early 2020s, and have since climbed back from 4 records in 2021 to 5 in 2024 — a 25% increase over that three-year span. Treat 2025 and 2026 as incomplete rather than declining.
Technology composition
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears in 75.0% of the 48 records, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement), B01L (lab apparatus) and C12M (bioreactor and enzyme apparatus) each sit in the 29-44% range, while B25J (robotic manipulators) and G01F (flow/volume measurement) each appear in only 4.2% of records.
Shares are the percentage of the 48 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 Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automated liquid handling accuracy and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited records
Representative record
Automated System and Method for Single Dye Volumetric Verification and Calibration of Automated Liquid Handling and Pipetting Systems (US20220404269A1)
STOJADINOVIC, PETAR
The method determines the volume dispensed by any liquid handling device, automated or manual, by first generating a reference curve from spectroscopic readings of a fixed-volume set of known, variable-concentration derivatives of a single dye. During testing, the device dispenses an unknown volume of known-concentration dye into a known volume of diluent, producing a resultant concentration whose absorbance is compared against the reference curve to back-calculate the dispensed volume.Filed by Stojadinovic, Petar; published 2022-12-22.
Most-cited records in this landscape
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180088141A1 | Performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing and related systems and methods | 51 |
| 2 | US20110020919A1 | Automated liquid handling device and associated assay unit | 24 |
| 3 | WO2017185012A1 | Performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing and related systems and methods | 22 |
| 4 | US20190107548A1 | System and method for liquid handling quality assurance | 20 |
| 5 | WO2020159659A1 | Liquid handling instrument and pipetting head for and method of aspirating and/or dispensing liquids | 12 |
| 6 | US10161948B2 | Performing antimicrobial susceptibility testing and related systems and methods | 10 |
| 7 | WO2017173380A1 | System and method for liquid handling quality assurance | 7 |
| 8 | US20220091147A1 | Liquid handling instrument and pipetting head for and method of aspirating and/or dispensing liquids | 6 |
| 9 | US8124028B2 | Automated liquid handling device and associated assay unit | 6 |
| 10 | WO2009079661A1 | Automated liquid handling device and associated assay unit | 6 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to be cited within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not of present-day importance.
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 Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy 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 numbers say
Three patterns stand out once the filing trend, the assignee ranking and the IPC composition are read together.
Concentration
81.3% / 97.9%
top 5 / top 10 share of 48 records
A small group holds nearly the whole field
The top 5 assignees account for 81.3% of all 48 records in scope, and the top 10 account for 97.9%. With a ranked list of only 13 companies in total, there is very little unclaimed ground among the entities already active here — the opportunity for a new entrant is more likely to be a technical gap than an open assignee slot.
Assignee ranking, 13 companies
Momentum
+25%
2021 to 2024 filing growth
Filing activity has picked back up
After a 2017 peak of 17 records, filings cooled before climbing from 4 in 2021 to 5 in 2024. That is a modest base in absolute terms, but the direction matters more than the magnitude here: this is not a field in decline.
2021=4 → 2024=5
Technology focus
75.0%
of records classified under G01N
Testing and verification claims dominate
Three in four of the 48 records carry a G01N classification for material analysis and testing, well ahead of C12Q (43.8%), B01L and C12M (29.2% each). Robotics-specific claims under B25J and flow/volume measurement under G01F each sit at only 4.2%, suggesting most of the inventive effort is going into verifying accuracy rather than into the mechanical dispensing hardware itself.
G01N 36 records, C12Q 21, B01L 14, C12M 14
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 automated liquid handling accuracy, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy 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 is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked assignee list covers 13 companies against 48 total records, with filing volume falling off sharply after the leader. None of the ranked assignees show fresh activity in the most recent year captured, consistent with the 18-month publication lag rather than a pullback.
Leader
20 records
leading assignee's record count
One assignee sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 20 of the 48 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place assignee's 4. That gap defines the shape of this field: a single dominant filer, a small cluster of mid-volume competitors, and then a fast drop to single-record entrants.
Leader 20, fifth place 4
Long tail
1 record
tenth-place assignee's count
The tail thins out fast
By tenth place in the ranking, an assignee's count is down to a single record. Combined with only two identified co-assignee pairs in the whole dataset, most of this landscape is being built by companies filing solo rather than through joint development arrangements.
Tenth place 1 record; 2 co-assignee pairs total
Receiving offices
13 EPO filings
leading receiving office
Europe and the US lead filing venues
Europe (EPO) and the United States are the two largest receiving offices, with WIPO/PCT, Australia, the UK and Canada each taking a smaller share. That spread points to a field where applicants are pursuing multi-jurisdiction protection rather than filing domestically only.
EPO 13, US 12, WIPO 6, Australia 5, UK 5, Canada 2
Recent-year momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| SeLux Diagnostics | 0 | — |
| Integra Biosciences Corp | 0 | -100% |
| Artel | 0 | — |
| MOLE GENETICS | 0 | — |
| BIOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LLC | 0 | — |
| Formulatrix Inc | 0 | — |
| VEON SCI LTD | 0 | — |
| Agilent Technologies Inc | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy 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
The dataset points to a field with a dominant filer, a thin long tail, and claim density concentrated in verification rather than mechanical dispensing.
Map the leader's claim boundaries
With one assignee holding 20 of 48 records, understanding exactly where their claims stop is the fastest way to find room to file.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaCheck the under-claimed branches
B25J and G01F each sit at only 4.2% of records — worth a closer technical read before assuming the space is open.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack the 2024 filing uptick
The 2021-2024 growth of 25% is a real signal, but 2025-2026 data is still incomplete; monitor it as it fills in.
Set up filing alerts in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy 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
It is highly concentrated. The top 5 assignees account for 81.3% of all 48 records in scope, and the top 10 account for 97.9%. The full ranked list covers only 13 companies, so a new entrant is competing in a field where nearly every existing record already sits with a known player rather than scattered across many small filers.
Filings peaked at 17 records in 2017, cooled afterward, and then grew from 4 records in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 25% increase over that span. The years 2025 and 2026 look lower only because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so those figures are still filling in rather than showing a genuine decline.
G01N, material analysis and testing, appears in 75.0% of the 48 records and is by far the most claimed subclass. C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement) follows at 43.8%, with B01L (lab apparatus) and C12M (bioreactor and enzyme apparatus) each at 29.2%. Robotic manipulation (B25J) and flow/volume measurement (G01F) are each present in only 4.2% of records, marking them as comparatively open ground.
It is a method for determining the volume dispensed by a liquid handling device, automated or manual, using a single-dye spectroscopic reference curve. A known-concentration dye is dispensed into a known volume of diluent, and the resulting absorbance is compared against the pre-generated reference curve to back-calculate the dispensed volume. It is a verification and calibration method rather than a claim on the dispensing hardware itself, so it is most relevant to anyone building volume-verification workflows around a liquid handling system.
The IPC composition points to viscous liquid dispensing calibration, robotic manipulator integration, in-line flow or volume sensing, carryover contamination detection and calibration-frequency scheduling logic as areas with markedly lower claim density than the dominant testing and verification classes. These are not guarantees of an open field, but they carry far fewer of the 48 records than G01N or C12Q, and are worth a focused freedom-to-operate check before committing engineering resources.
Europe (EPO) leads with 13 filings, closely followed by the United States at 12. WIPO/PCT, Australia and the UK each see a moderate number of filings, while Canada trails with 2. The spread across multiple offices suggests applicants in this field are generally pursuing protection in more than one jurisdiction rather than filing domestically only.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy 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 Automated Liquid Handling Accuracy in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole automated liquid handling accuracy 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.