Automated Sample Sorting Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- One filer holds 31 of the records in a 10-company ranking, with fifth place at 7 and tenth at 2 — a steep drop-off rather than an even spread.
- 96.6% of the 89 records in scope sit in G01N (material analysis & testing), while robotics-class filings (B25J) and optics (G02B) each cover only 2 records.
- Filing has not grown in a computable trend since 2017, with a 2018 peak of 6 records and the most recent year still partial under publication lag.
What this landscape covers
Automated sample sorting and aliquoting sits at the front end of clinical and laboratory workflows: instruments that read barcodes, decap tubes, route specimens to the right analyser, and manage centrifuge integration before any assay runs. The search behind this page pairs system-level terms — automated sample sorting, automated aliquoting, specimen processing system — with the operational features that distinguish a working instrument from a concept: decapping modules, barcode reading, throughput per hour, misrouting rate and instrument footprint.
The 89 records in scope span filings from 2015 through mid-2026, with receiving offices concentrated across Europe, the United States, Australia and Germany. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one or two years understate real filing activity.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 89 records: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings run from 2 records in 2017 to a peak of 6 in 2018, back down to 2 in the most recent (partial) year. With fewer than four complete years once publication lag is factored in, no growth rate can be stated from this data.
IPC subclass composition
G01N (material analysis & testing) covers 96.6% of the 89 records — effectively the whole field files under this heading. Supporting mechanical and data classes are thin by comparison: B01L (lab apparatus) at 6.7%, B04B (centrifuges) and G06K (data recognition) each at 5.6%, and B25J (robotics) and G02B (optics) each at just 2.2%. Records can carry more than one class, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 89 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Automated Sample Sorting and Aliquoting with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about automated sample sorting and aliquoting and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this field
Specimen processing system and specimen conveyance method (US20100093097A1)
Filed by Sysmex, this system acquires reagent information from containers, determines a conveying destination for each specimen based on that information, and controls a conveyance mechanism accordingly — tying reagent identity directly to routing logic rather than treating conveyance as a fixed path.Abstract condensed from the original filing for readability.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080247914A1 | Sample Preparation System And Method for Processing Clinical Specimens | 244 |
| 2 | US7985375B2 | Sample preparation system and method for processing clinical specimens | 76 |
| 3 | US20100111767A1 | Specimen processing system and specimen container classifying apparatus | 62 |
| 4 | US20100093097A1 | Specimen processing system and specimen conveyance method | 30 |
| 5 | US20100282003A1 | Specimen processing device and specimen processing method | 24 |
| 6 | WO2015150278A1 | Automated specimen processing systems and multistep processing of microscope slides | 22 |
| 7 | US20120036944A1 | Automatic analyzer | 19 |
| 8 | US20100083772A1 | Specimen processing device, specimen conveyance device, and specimen conveyance method | 18 |
| 9 | US20150111299A1 | Centrifuge module, preprocessing system having centrifuge module, and control method for the system | 17 |
| 10 | US20170010194A1 | Automated specimen processing systems and multistep processing of microscope slides | 11 |
Ranked by citation count within this searched corpus. Older records accumulate more citations simply by being available longer, so treat this as a signal of influence, not of current technical importance.
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 filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the class composition are read together.
One filer dominates a short ranking
The leading assignee holds 31 of the records in a ranking of only 10 companies; fifth place holds 7 and tenth place holds 2. That gap suggests the leader built an early, broad filing position that later entrants have not matched in volume.
Nearly every filing sits in one IPC subclass
G01N covers material analysis and testing and appears in 96.6% of the 89 records in scope. The supporting classes — lab apparatus, centrifuges, data recognition, robotics, optics — are each claimed by a small minority, which is where mechanical and software differentiation still has room to move.
Filing has been flat, not accelerating
Annual filings ran from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 6 in 2018 and back to 2 in the latest partial year. There are not enough complete years once publication lag is accounted for to state a growth rate, and the flat pattern argues against reading this as a fast-moving field.
Co-filing is rare and clustered around one group
Only 4 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairing sharing 5 records. Most assignees in the ranking file independently, which points to in-house development rather than joint ventures as the norm in this niche.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to automated sample sorting and aliquoting, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ranked positions
The ranking returns 10 companies total — not a top-50 or top-100 cut — so read every position here as the full picture the data endpoint returns for this search.
A single filer well ahead of the rest
The leading assignee's 31 records outnumber the combined totals of several lower-ranked entrants, consistent with an early-mover position built around clinical specimen processing systems.
Only one assignee still filing in the latest year
Of the assignees with recent-year momentum data, only one shows any filings in the latest year (2, down 67% year over year); the rest — including several ranked leaders — show zero filings in that year, though publication lag makes the most recent year an unreliable read on real activity.
One diagnostics pairing files jointly more than others
The strongest co-assignee pairing shares 5 records, and a related pair of Roche-linked entities shares 3 more — the only visible cluster of joint filing in an otherwise independently-filing field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| GenProbe Inc. | 2 | -67% |
| Sysmex Corporation | 0 | — |
| Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation | 0 | — |
| Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | 0 | — |
| INTEGRITY DATA SOLUTIONS INC | 0 | — |
| Roche Diagnostics GmbH | 0 | — |
| Becton, Dickinson and Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The ranking and the class composition point to specific next steps depending on whether you are scoping freedom to operate or looking for a filing position.
Scope the thin IPC classes
B25J and G02B each cover only 2 of the 89 records. Before assuming that means open space, check whether robotics and optics claims are simply filed under G01N alongside the core analysis claims.
Explore IPC breakdowns in Eureka →Track the one active filer
Only one assignee shows filings in the latest year in this dataset. Watching that filer's continuation strategy is more informative right now than watching the historical leader, whose recent-year activity has gone quiet.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Read the most-cited records closely
The top-cited records date back to the late 2000s. Their claim scope on specimen routing and classification is worth checking against any new conveyance-logic filing before drafting.
Open the citation table in Eureka →Common questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 10 companies drawn from 89 published records, and it is topped by a single filer with 31 records — well ahead of fifth place at 7 and tenth place at 2. This is a short, dedicated ranking rather than a broad top-50 or top-100 list, so it should be read as the full competitive picture the underlying search returns, not a sample of a larger field. The steep drop from the leader to the rest suggests one company built an early filing position in clinical specimen processing systems that has not been matched in volume since.
Based on the years with complete data, filing activity ran from 2 records in 2017 up to a peak of 6 in 2018, then back down to 2 in the most recent, still-partial year. There are fewer than four complete years once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for, so no growth rate can honestly be stated from this evidence. The pattern looks flat rather than accelerating, which argues for treating this as a mature, steady niche rather than an emerging one.
Almost the entire field — 96.6% of the 89 records in scope — carries the G01N classification for material analysis and testing, which is the natural home for specimen processing and measurement claims. Supporting classes appear far less often: lab apparatus (B01L) at 6.7%, centrifuges (B04B) and data recognition (G06K) each at 5.6%, and robotics (B25J) and optics (G02B) each at only 2.2%. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these percentages add up to more than 100%, and the thin secondary classes are where mechanical and sensing differentiation still has visible room.
US20100093097A1, assigned to Sysmex, describes a specimen processing system that acquires reagent information from containers and uses that information to determine where each specimen should be conveyed, controlling the conveyance mechanism accordingly. It is one of the most-cited records in this dataset, with citation counts in this corpus running well above most other filings, indicating it has been treated as a reference point by later applicants. Anyone designing conveyance logic that ties routing decisions to reagent or container identity should review this claim scope closely before finalising a design.
The clearest signal of under-claimed territory is the gap between the dominant G01N class and the much thinner mechanical and sensing classes — robotics (B25J) and optics (G02B) each sit at just 2.2% of the 89 records. Areas like robotic decapping arm kinematics, centrifuge-to-sorter handoff mechanisms and optical cap-read verification show up rarely relative to the core analysis claims. That said, thin IPC coverage can also mean those features are claimed as dependent elements inside G01N filings rather than genuinely open, so any white-space read needs a closer claim-by-claim check before it is relied on.
Research Automated Sample Sorting and Aliquoting in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole automated sample sorting and aliquoting 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.