Bone Cement Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has cooled sharply. the peak year was 2017 at 66 filings, and the 2022 midpoint of 27 shows the trend is flat to declining, not growing.
- The top of the field is not overcrowded. the leading assignee holds 44 records but the top 5 combine for only 16.9% of all 1,175 records in scope — most of the field is a long tail.
- Sterilising and disinfecting claims dominate the classification map. A61L appears on 86.3% of records, far ahead of A61F implant claims at 35.7%, showing where drafting effort has concentrated.
What this landscape covers
This landscape draws on 1,175 published records filed under bone cement, bone graft substitute and calcium phosphate cement claims, filtered to documents addressing setting time and exotherm, injectability, osteoconductivity and resorption, antibiotic-loaded formulations, or mechanical strength. The scope is bounded by IPC classes A61L24, A61L27 and A61F2, which together capture the chemistry of the cement itself and the implant hardware it is delivered through.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the third quarter of 2026, with the most recent year necessarily undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months. Receiving-office data spans the United States, Europe, China, the WIPO PCT route, Canada and Australia, giving a reasonably complete view of where applicants seek protection rather than only where they are headquartered.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,175-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend: a 2017 peak followed by decline
Filings ran from 66 in 2017 down to 3 in the partial-year 2026 count. The 2022 midpoint of 27 sits below the peak, confirming the trajectory is contracting rather than recovering — a pattern worth weighing before committing new R&D budget to broad composition claims.
IPC composition: sterilising and disinfecting claims lead by a wide margin
A61L (sterilising and disinfecting, the home of antimicrobial and antibiotic-loaded cement claims) appears on 86.3% of the 1,175 records, well ahead of A61F implants and prostheses at 35.7% and A61K medicinal preparations at 21.2%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares sum to well over 100% — the ranking shows where drafting attention sits, not a partition of the dataset.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,175 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Bone Cement and Bone Graft Substitutes with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about bone cement and bone graft substitutes and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US9446170B2 — Multiphasic bone graft substitute material
Filed by Agnovos Healthcare, this 2016 patent claims a particulate composition for a bone graft substitute cement built on a calcium sulfate hemihydrate powder present at no less than about 50 weight percent, combined with monocalcium phosphate monohydrate and both non-porous and porous beta-tricalcium phosphate powders. The claims cover the powder composition itself, the resulting cement, a kit format, and methods of making and using it.Composition, kit and method claims filed together — a pattern common among the higher-cited records in this dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7008433B2 | Vertebroplasty injection device | 1,375 |
| 2 | US6740093B2 | Method and apparatus for treating a vertebral body | 772 |
| 3 | US4671263A | Device and process for mixing and applying bone cement | 587 |
| 4 | US20020058947A1 | Method and apparatus for treating a vertebral body | 374 |
| 5 | US6261586B1 | Bone graft composites and spacers | 359 |
| 6 | US5972368A | Bone graft composites and spacers | 357 |
| 7 | US5149368A | Resorbable bioactive calcium phosphate cement | 336 |
| 8 | US4963151A | Reinforced bone cement, method of production thereof and reinforcing fiber bundles therefor | 325 |
| 9 | US6117456A | Methods and products related to the physical conversion of reactive amorphous calcium phosphate | 305 |
| 10 | US20040215344A1 | Method and apparatus for treating a vertebral body | 298 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a measure of current 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
Read together, the concentration, trend and classification figures point to a field where the loudest claim space is already occupied but the leadership itself is not locked down.
Leadership is real but not dominant
The single leading assignee holds 44 records out of 1,175, and the top 5 combined account for 16.9% of the field. That leaves the large majority of filings spread across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, which is a different competitive picture than a field controlled by two or three players.
The trend is contracting, not accelerating
Filing peaked at 66 in 2017 and has declined since, with the 2022 midpoint at 27 confirming a downward trajectory rather than a temporary dip. Recent-year momentum among several previously active assignees shows zero filings in the latest year, though the most recent year is always undercounted due to publication lag.
Antimicrobial and disinfecting claims dominate
A61L is present on 86.3% of the 1,175 records in scope, far ahead of A61F implant claims at 35.7% and C04B ceramics and cement claims at 12.2%. That imbalance suggests antibiotic-loaded and disinfecting cement formulations are the most heavily claimed technical route, while ceramics-focused composition work is comparatively less crowded.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to bone cement and bone graft substitutes, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
The ranked leaders span device makers, materials specialists and university research groups, with several strong co-filing relationships between academic and industrial partners.
A single leader without a runaway lead
The top-ranked assignee holds 44 of the 1,175 records, roughly a quarter of what the entire top 5 hold combined. That is a meaningful position but not a monopoly on the technology, leaving room for challengers to build a comparable portfolio in specific sub-branches rather than across the whole field.
University partnerships anchor several portfolios
Co-assignee data shows university and national-research-centre partners appearing alongside commercial filers at meaningful volume, with the strongest pairs each recording between 23 and 25 joint records. This points to sustained, multi-year research collaborations rather than one-off licensing deals.
Several established filers have gone quiet
Multiple assignees who built substantial portfolios show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Combined with the overall declining trend since 2017, this suggests consolidation of existing claim positions rather than active expansion — though publication lag means the very latest activity is not yet fully visible.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Tecres SpA | 0 | — |
| Summit Medical | 0 | — |
| Agnovos Healthcare, LLC | 0 | — |
| Graftys | 0 | — |
| Howmedica Osteonics Corp | 0 | — |
| Howmedica Osteonics Corp | 0 | — |
| Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha Ltd | 0 | — |
| University of Nantes | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio building, or partnership scouting.
Check claim scope before filing in A61L
With 86.3% of records touching sterilising and disinfecting claims, a new antibiotic-loaded cement filing needs a tight novelty search against this subclass specifically, not the dataset as a whole.
Run a claim scope check in Eureka →Explore the under-claimed branches
Mixing apparatus, resorption-tuned ceramics and vinyl polymer additives show comparatively lower filing density than the core cement composition claims, which may leave room for a defensible first-mover position.
Explore white space in Eureka →Track the quiet incumbents
Several established assignees show zero filings in the latest year despite large existing portfolios; understanding whether that reflects consolidation, licensing, or a pause ahead of new filings matters for competitive planning.
Monitor assignee activity in Eureka →Common questions about bone cement patents
The ranking covers 100 companies across 1,175 records, with a single leader holding 44 records and the top 5 combined accounting for 16.9% of all records in scope. That leadership is meaningful but not overwhelming, since the majority of filings sit outside the top 10, which together hold 29.8% of the field. Device manufacturers, dedicated cement and biomaterials specialists, and university research groups all appear among the ranked leaders, often connected through co-filing relationships with academic partners.
Filing has been declining since a peak of 66 in 2017, with the 2022 midpoint sitting at 27 and the latest partial year showing only 3. This is a contracting trend, not a growing one, though the most recent one to two years are always undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months. Several previously prolific assignees also show zero filings in the latest tracked year, reinforcing the slowdown.
US9446170B2, assigned to Agnovos Healthcare and dated 2016-09-20, claims a particulate composition for a bone graft substitute cement built primarily on calcium sulfate hemihydrate at no less than about 50 weight percent, combined with monocalcium phosphate monohydrate and both porous and non-porous beta-tricalcium phosphate powders. The claim set extends beyond the raw composition to the resulting cement, a bone graft substitute kit, and methods of making and using the material. Anyone formulating a multi-phase calcium sulfate and tricalcium phosphate cement should review this filing's specific weight-percent thresholds before finalising a formulation.
Classification data shows sterilising and disinfecting claims under A61L present on 86.3% of records, while subclasses like B01F mixing and stirring apparatus (7.5%) and C08F vinyl-based polymer additives (4.8%) carry noticeably less filing density. Ceramics and cement composition under C04B sits at 12.2%, also comparatively open relative to the dominant A61L category. These lower-density branches are reasonable starting points for a freedom-to-operate review before committing to a novel formulation or delivery mechanism.
The United States leads with 273 filings, followed by the European Patent Office at 204, China at 126, the WIPO PCT route at 125, Canada at 87 and Australia at 86. This spread indicates that applicants in this field routinely pursue protection across multiple major markets rather than concentrating in a single jurisdiction, which is typical for implantable medical device technology subject to varied regulatory regimes.
Research Bone Cement and Bone Graft Substitutes in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole bone cement and bone graft substitutes 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.