Cardiac Lead Design Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 76.2% of all filings sit with five assignees. 266 of 349 records in scope belong to the top five, with a long tail of single- and low-filing entrants behind them.
- Filing activity has cooled from its 2021 peak. Annual filings ran 2021=12 down to 2024=9, a 25% pullback over that three-year span, before the most recent partial years.
- Coil, coating and connector claims are thin. H01B, H01R and C23C each cover only 9 records (2.6% of the 349 in scope), well behind the dominant A61N electrotherapy class.
Filing growth compares 2021 (12 records) with 2024 (9) — 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 349 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 349 published records matching cardiac pacing lead and lead reliability search terms, cross-referenced against conductor coil, insulation abrasion, lead extraction, fracture rate, steroid-eluting tip and fixation mechanism concepts. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, giving a decade-plus view of how lead hardware claims have been filed and where they cluster.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. Read the 2021-2024 window as the reliable signal, and treat 2025 onward as still filling in rather than as a genuine drop-off.
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 349-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filings rose to a 2021 peak, then eased
Annual filings climbed from 2 in 2017 toward a peak of 12 in 2021, then declined to 9 by 2024 – a 25% pullback over that span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because of publication lag and should not be read as a continued slide.
A61N dominates; peripheral hardware classes are thin
A61N (electrotherapy & radiation therapy) appears on 89.4% of the 349 records, confirming this is fundamentally a therapy-delivery-device dataset. A61B (23.8%) and A61M (14.6%) trail as secondary classes tied to implantation and delivery tooling. Materials and connector classes – C23C, H01B and H01R – sit at just 2.6% each, and A61L and B23K lower still, marking the hardware and joining side of lead design as comparatively under-claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 349 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cardiac Lead Design and Reliability with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cardiac lead design and reliability and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US5425755A – Rotatable pin, screw-in pacing and sensing lead having Teflon-coated conductor coil
A rotatable pin, screw-in pacemaker lead assembly has a conductor coil enclosed within a silicone insulating tube. The conductor coil has a distal end secured to a helix electrode and a proximal end including a rotatable connector pin. The outer surface area of the conductor coil is coated with a super thin film of biocompatible Teflon. The Teflon coating substantially reduces the friction between the conductor coil and the inner wall of the insulating tube during lead fixation, thereby substantially reducing the number of turns of the connector pin required to effect fixation of the helix electrode.Filed by Pacesetter, Inc., granted 1995-06-20 – illustrates how early coil-coating and fixation claims were framed before the field's later consolidation.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6512958B1 | Percutaneous medical probe and flexible guide wire | 487 |
| 2 | US6890295B2 | Anatomical space access tools and methods | 458 |
| 3 | US4819662A | Cardiac electrode with drug delivery capabilities | 390 |
| 4 | US5231996A | Removable endocardial lead | 379 |
| 5 | US5921933A | Medical devices with echogenic coatings | 355 |
| 6 | US5796044A | Coiled wire conductor insulation for biomedical lead | 307 |
| 7 | US6296630B1 | Device and method to slow or stop the heart temporarily | 269 |
| 8 | US6795732B2 | Implantable medical device employing sonomicrometer output signals for detection and measurement of cardiac m… | 254 |
| 9 | US20030149456A1 | Multi-electrode cardiac lead adapter with multiplexer | 242 |
| 10 | US6968237B2 | Implantable coronary sinus lead and lead system | 230 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure 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 read-throughs from the concentration, trend and citation data – useful before deciding where to file or who to watch.
The field is a five-player game
With 266 of 349 records concentrated in five assignees and the leader alone accounting for 144, most claim space in core lead hardware and fixation is already staked out. New entrants competing head-on with the leader's coil and fixation claims face dense prior art; differentiation is more likely found in adjacent classes than in direct claim overlap.
Activity has cooled from its peak, not collapsed
The -25% move from 2021's peak of 12 filings to 9 in 2024 reflects a genuine pullback in the last fully-published years, but it follows a real run-up rather than a steady decline. Given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, 2025-2026 figures understate whatever filing is actually happening now.
Hardware and joining claims are thin relative to therapy claims
A61N covers 89.4% of the 349 records, but the physical build of a lead – conductors, connectors, coatings – shows up far less: H01B, H01R and C23C each sit at only 2.6%, and welding/brazing (B23K) at 0.6%. That gap is where claim space is least occupied, not where the technology is least developed.
Influential prior art is old, not current
The most-cited records in this dataset date back to the 1980s-2000s and concern probe, access-tool and echogenic-coating techniques rather than today's fixation or steroid-eluting tip designs. High citation counts here signal historical influence on the field's vocabulary, not present-day competitive relevance.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cardiac lead design and reliability, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where the gate sits
The assignee ranking spans 80 companies counted by patent family, but the distribution is steep: a handful of established device makers hold most of the record count, and the practical gate for a new entrant is set by how those leaders have already claimed fixation, coil and lead-body concepts.
One assignee dominates the ranking
The top-ranked assignee alone accounts for 144 of the 349 records in scope – more than the next four combined. That scale reflects decades of continuation filing around core lead and fixation hardware rather than a single breakthrough design.
A steep drop after the top few
By fifth place the count falls to 21 records, and by tenth place to 7 – the ranking thins quickly outside the leading names. Most of the 80 ranked companies sit well below double digits, forming a long tail of narrow, single-purpose filings.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest recurring pairings cluster around a single major assignee's named inventors rather than cross-company joint ventures. This is largely a field of independent corporate filing, not alliance-driven development.
Leading filers show no latest-year activity yet
Every one of the most active assignees shows zero filings in the latest tracked year – consistent with publication lag rather than a genuine stop in R&D. Treat recent-year momentum figures for any single assignee as provisional until later data cuts fill in.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Medtronic, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. | 0 | — |
| TALPANETICS BV | 0 | — |
| Mainstay Medical | 0 | — |
| PACESETTER INC | 0 | — |
| Sorin CRM | 0 | — |
| OSCOR INC | 0 | — |
| ATACOR MEDICAL INC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a mature core and a thinner periphery. These are practical next steps for teams deciding where to invest or file.
Map the hardware periphery before filing
With H01B, H01R and C23C claims each covering only 2.6% of the 349 records, a focused search of coil coating, connector interface and coating-deposition sub-claims is likely to surface less-crowded ground than a fixation-mechanism filing would.
Explore in EurekaWatch for the 2025-2026 catch-up
Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, filings from the last two tracked years will keep appearing in later data pulls. Re-run this landscape after the next data cut before concluding the field has genuinely slowed.
Explore in EurekaTrack citation influence separately from current relevance
The most-cited records in this corpus are decades old and concern probe and access-tool techniques, not current fixation or coating designs. Use citation rank to understand lineage, and use recent filing activity to understand competitive intent.
Explore in EurekaCommon questions on cardiac lead design and reliability patents
The assignee ranking in this dataset covers 80 companies, but it is heavily concentrated: the top five together hold 266 of 349 records in scope, or 76.2% of all filings, and the single leading assignee alone accounts for 144 records. Beyond the top ten – which together hold 90.3% of the field – filing activity drops sharply into a long tail of companies with only a handful of records each. This means most core fixation and lead-body claim space is already occupied by a small number of established device makers rather than being open to broad new entry.
Filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 12 in 2021, then eased to 9 by 2024, a 25% decline over that three-year span. That is the most reliable read available because publication lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be treated as evidence of a continued slowdown. On the data available, the field has cooled modestly from a real peak rather than collapsed.
IPC composition data shows A61N (electrotherapy) present on 89.4% of the 349 records, dwarfing hardware-adjacent classes: C23C (coating/surface deposition), H01B (cables, conductors and insulators) and H01R (connectors) each sit at just 2.6%, with A61L (sterilising) at 1.4% and B23K (welding/brazing) at 0.6%. These lower shares point to conductor coating, connector interface design and joining processes as comparatively under-claimed relative to the therapy-delivery core of the field.
US5425755A, assigned to Pacesetter, Inc. and granted in 1995, claims a screw-in pacing/sensing lead with a conductor coil coated in a thin biocompatible Teflon film inside a silicone insulating tube, aimed at reducing friction during helix-electrode fixation. Its claims are specific to a Teflon coating reducing turns-to-fixation on a rotatable-pin screw-in lead design, so it constrains that particular coating-and-mechanism combination rather than conductor coatings or fixation mechanisms generally. Anyone designing a coil coating or screw-in fixation system should check this patent's specific claim language, but alternative coating materials or non-rotational fixation approaches sit outside its literal scope.
Among receiving offices in this dataset, the United States leads with 142 records, followed by the European Patent Office with 74 and the WIPO/PCT route with 44. Canada (24) and Australia (21) follow at meaningfully lower volumes, with Austria (AT) at 16. This distribution reflects where device makers have historically sought the broadest and earliest protection for cardiac lead hardware, with the US and Europe as the primary battlegrounds.
Research Cardiac Lead Design and Reliability in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cardiac lead design and reliability 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.