LAA Occluder Patents: Who Leads, Trends & Gaps 2026
A data-backed look at left atrial appendage occluder patents: filing trends since 2017, the concentration among the top filers, IPC composition across A61B, A61F and A61M, and the most-cited priority documents shaping de
Filing growth = 2021 (18 records) → 2024 (29); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 341 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the left atrial appendage occluder patent record shows
Left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders are catheter-delivered implants designed to seal off the appendage in patients with atrial fibrillation, reducing stroke risk without long-term anticoagulation. The scope analysed here spans 341 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, drawn from IPC classes covering surgical implants, body-fluid devices and electrotherapy. Most records sit in A61B (diagnosis and surgery), with smaller but consistent activity in implant-specific claims and sterilisation.
Reading the field through patent families rather than raw document counts removes the noise of continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction duplicates, which matters here because several leading filers pursue dense filing strategies across China, the US and Europe. The trend data should be read with one caveat: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and cannot yet be compared against the confirmed peak in 2023.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend, receiving offices and technology composition
Three views of the same 341-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, where applicants are filing, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A three-year growth run, then a lag-affected tail
Annual filings rose from 22 in 2017 to a peak of 32 in 2023. The confirmed growth window is 2021 to 2024, up 61% from 18 to 29 filings; 2025 and 2026 are not yet complete because of the usual 18-month gap between filing and publication, so a dip in the final years is an artefact of timing rather than a real slowdown.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Claims concentrate in diagnosis and surgery classes
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) appears on 91.2% of the 341 records, by far the dominant class, reflecting how closely occluder claims are tied to delivery and deployment procedures rather than the implant material alone. A61F (implants and prostheses) follows at 14.4%, with A61M (body-fluid devices), A61L (sterilising) and A61N (electrotherapy) each in single-digit percentages — smaller footprints that point to where device-material and adjunct-therapy claims remain comparatively open.
Shares are the percentage of the 341 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cardiovascular Devices: Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cardiovascular devices: left atrial appendage occluder patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited priority documents in this field
US20140142612A1 — Left Atrial Appendage Occluder
Filed by Lifetech Scientific (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., this application describes an occluder with an elastic closure disc and a supporting structure of interconnected, bent struts fitted to one side of the disc, with anchoring thorns set near the strut ends and angled back toward the disc for fixation against appendage tissue.Numbered references in the abstract correspond to structural elements in the original filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120323270A1 | Left atrial appendage occluder | 91 |
| 2 | CN202143640U | 左心耳封堵器 | 71 |
| 3 | US8764793B2 | Left atrial appendage occluder | 65 |
| 4 | US20170095256A1 | Left Atrial Appendage Occluder | 63 |
| 5 | US20140142612A1 | Left Atrial Appendage Occluder | 63 |
| 6 | US9808253B2 | Left atrial appendage occluder | 50 |
| 7 | US20160100844A1 | Left Atrial Appendage Occluder | 46 |
| 8 | CN204246182U | 一种新型伞状左心耳封堵器 | 44 |
| 9 | WO2015189307A1 | Left atrial appendage occluder | 33 |
| 10 | CN203634235U | 左心耳封堵器 | 33 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older records; they are not a measure of current commercial importance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 concentration and citation data mean for filing decisions
The numbers point to a field where the top of the ranking is settled but the technology composition still leaves room to file around adjunct claims.
The leader board is settled, not open
One assignee alone holds 114 records, and the combined top five account for 56.3% of the entire 341-record dataset. A new entrant filing core deployment or anchoring claims is filing directly against incumbents with large existing portfolios, not into open space.
Activity is still rising through the last complete year
Filings climbed from 18 in 2021 to 29 in 2024, and 2023 remains the highest single year recorded at 32. Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the apparent tapering in 2025-2026 should not be read as a real decline.
China is now the centre of filing activity
China's receiving office recorded 116 filings, ahead of the United States (77) and the EPO (64), with WIPO PCT filings at 42. That ordering signals where competitive and freedom-to-operate checks matter most for anyone planning a launch sequence.
Procedural claims dominate; adjunct classes are thinner
A61B covers the large majority of records, while A61M, A61L and A61N each sit below 4% of the 341 records. That gap is where device-material, sterilisation-integration and electrotherapy-adjunct claims remain comparatively under-filed relative to the core deployment mechanism.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cardiovascular devices: left atrial appendage occluder patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Turning this landscape into a filing decision
The dataset shows where claims are dense and where they are thin. Translating that into a specific filing or freedom-to-operate position requires drilling into the individual claim sets.
Map the anchoring and disc-strut claim family
The most-cited records share closure-disc and strut-anchoring architecture. Before drafting around that structure, pull the independent claims of the highest-cited filings to see exactly what geometry and materials are already blocked.
Explore claims in EurekaCheck the under-filed adjunct classes
A61M, A61L and A61N each cover a small share of records. If a design integrates sterilisation, fluid delivery or an electrotherapy element alongside the occluder, that combination claim space is comparatively open.
Run a white-space search in EurekaTrack the incumbent portfolios directly
With over half of all records held by five assignees, monitoring their continuation filings and new priority applications is more informative than watching the field as a whole.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaCommon questions about left atrial appendage occluder patents
The assignee ranking covers 79 companies across 341 records, and it is heavily concentrated at the top: one leader holds 114 records on its own, and the top five combined account for 56.3% of all 341 records in scope. That means a small number of organisations control most of the filed claim space around core occluder deployment and anchoring mechanisms. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should start with those top filers' claim sets rather than treating the field as fragmented.
Yes, through the most recent year that can be treated as complete. Annual filings rose from 18 in 2021 to 29 in 2024, a 61% increase, with 2023 standing as the peak year so far at 32 filings. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower only because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, not because activity has actually slowed.
China's receiving office leads with 116 filings, ahead of the United States at 77 and the European Patent Office at 64. WIPO's PCT route accounts for 42 filings, with India and Austria further behind at 10 and 9 respectively. This ordering suggests China is currently the most active jurisdiction for both domestic filers and international applicants seeking coverage.
This Lifetech Scientific filing describes an occluder built around an elastic closure disc paired with a supporting structure of interconnected, bent struts on one side of the disc, with anchoring thorns positioned near the strut ends and angled back toward the disc for tissue fixation. It is one of the most-cited documents in this dataset, cited 63 times, indicating it is frequently referenced as prior art by later filings in the same structural family. A design that uses a comparable disc-and-anchored-strut architecture should be checked against this claim set specifically, not just against the general concept of an occluder.
The IPC composition shows claims concentrated in A61B (91.2% of the 341 records), which covers deployment and surgical procedure aspects, while A61M (body-fluid devices), A61L (sterilisation) and A61N (electrotherapy) each sit under 4%. That gap indicates combination claims — for example an occluder integrating a sterilisation or fluid-management feature, or an electrotherapy adjunct — are comparatively under-filed relative to the core deployment mechanism. It is a narrower opportunity than an open field, but a real one given how thin those adjacent classes are.
Research Cardiovascular Devices: Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cardiovascular devices: left atrial appendage occluder patent landscape 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.