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/cell-disruption-continuous-disruption-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cell DisruptionContinuous Cell Disruption Patents: Filing Trends and Where Claim Space Is Still Open
- 23.1% of all 616 records sit with just five assignees, yet the ranked leader holds only 44 records — concentrated at the top without a dominant single owner.
- Filing peaked in 2020 at 47 and fell 67% from 2021 (15) to 2024 (5), the last year the dataset treats as complete.
- C12M and C12P sit near 29% each of records alongside the dominant C12N class, showing disruption claims are drafted tightly around bioreactor and fermentation contexts rather than generic mechanical lysis.
616
Published Records
23%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-67%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (15 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 616 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 616 published records at the intersection of cell disruption or lysis methods and continuous-process controls — feed rate, residence time, energy input, temperature control and throughput. The search spans C12N1/06, B02C19/18 and B01J19/10, capturing both the biological classification of the disrupted material and the mechanical or thermal apparatus used to disrupt it continuously rather than in a single batch step.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than the underlying filing activity actually was.
Records by filing year, 2017–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption 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
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below cover the same 616 records from different angles: when the filings happened, and which IPC subclasses they were tagged with.
A 2020 peak followed by a real decline
Filings rose from 26 in 2017 to a peak of 47 in 2020, then declined to 15 by 2021 and 5 by 2024 — a 67% drop over that three-year span. Because 2025 and 2026 are still filling in under the publication lag, treat 2024 as the last complete data point rather than reading the tail as a further slowdown.
Bioreactor and fermentation context, not generic mechanics
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) tags 90.7% of the 616 records, with C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) and C12M (bioreactors and enzyme apparatus) each near 29%. C12Q, G01N and C07K each appear in a meaningful minority, while B01J and B01F — the more purely mechanical mixing and catalysis classes — sit under 10%, suggesting most claims are anchored to what is being disrupted rather than the disruption hardware alone.
Shares are the percentage of the 616 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 Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cell disruption continuous disruption and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited prior art
Representative Record
US6699706B1 — Cell lysis method using a vortex mixer
ACCENTUS PLC
Cell lysis is brought about by contacting a cell suspension with a lysis reagent such as sodium hydroxide, with intimate mixing achieved by passage through a fluidic vortex mixer. The mixer is arranged so residence time is shorter than the time needed for lysis to complete, potentially under 0.1 seconds, using a baffle-free cylindrical chamber with an axial outlet and tangential inlet under low shear stress.Filed by Accentus PLC; published 2004-03-02.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6043066A | Cell separation using electric fields | 298 |
| 2 | US7238522B2 | Devices and methods for biomaterial production | 248 |
| 3 | US20030075446A1 | Microfluidic systems and methods of transport and lysis of cells and analysis of cell lysate | 237 |
| 4 | WO1999032654A1 | Direct RT-PCR on oligonucleotide-immobilized PCR microplates | 193 |
| 5 | US6605454B2 | Microfluidic devices with monolithic microwave integrated circuits | 178 |
| 6 | US6197553B1 | Method for large scale plasmid purification | 165 |
| 7 | US6506584B1 | Apparatus and method for ultrasonic treatment of a liquid | 145 |
| 8 | US6783647B2 | Microfluidic systems and methods of transport and lysis of cells and analysis of cell lysate | 115 |
| 9 | US20030199050A1 | Cell separation using electric fields | 112 |
| 10 | US20020115201A1 | Microfluidic devices with monolithic microwave integrated circuits | 109 |
Citation counts reflect influence inside this 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.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption 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 mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the concentration, timing and classification data are read together.
Concentration
23.1% / 616
top 5 assignees' share of all records
A crowded top without a single gatekeeper
The leading assignee holds 44 records and the fifth-ranked holds 21 — a real lead but not a blocking position. With the top 5 combined at only 23.1% of all 616 records, no single company's claim estate covers the field; freedom-to-operate work has to check multiple mid-sized portfolios rather than one dominant one.
Based on the 616-record assignee ranking.
Timing
47 in 2020
peak filing year
Filing cooled sharply after the 2020 peak
Activity climbed from 26 filings in 2017 to 47 in 2020, then fell to 15 by 2021 and 5 by 2024 — a 67% decline over that span. That is a genuine pullback in a completed data window, not an artefact of publication lag, since 2024 is the last year treated as fully reported.
2021–2024 change: -67%.
Classification
90.7% C12N
share of 616 records
Claims are anchored to the biological substrate
Nearly all records sit in C12N, with C12P and C12M each near 29% and C12Q at 23.4%. The purely mechanical classes B01J and B01F stay under 10%, meaning most drafting in this space ties disruption method claims to a specific organism, enzyme or bioreactor context rather than claiming the mixer or apparatus in isolation.
Shares exceed 100% combined because records carry multiple IPC classes.
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 cell disruption continuous disruption, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption 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 leaders span pharmaceutical, industrial-biotech and specialty-equipment firms; momentum in the most recent year is thin across the board, consistent with the post-2020 pullback.
Leader
44 records
ranked leader's total
A lead position, not a monopoly
The top-ranked assignee's 44 records outpace the field but still represent a small slice of the 616 total in scope. Co-assignee pairings around this leader and a named individual inventor recur across several records, suggesting a stable core team rather than a broad multi-business filing program.
Compare against the 10-strong co-assignee pair data.
Mid-field
21 at fifth, 13 at tenth
drop-off across the ranked leaders
A steep drop after the top few
Fifth place holds 21 records and tenth place 13, a fast taper that flattens into a long tail among the remaining ranked companies. That shape rewards monitoring the top ten closely rather than trying to track the full ranked list for competitive signal.
Ranking covers 100 companies, counted in records.
Momentum
2 in latest year
highest recent-year count among tracked assignees
Almost no one is filing heavily right now
Across the named assignees with recent-year momentum data, only one shows any filings in the latest year, and even that is just 2. The rest show zero, which is consistent with the broader post-2020 decline rather than any one company stepping back specifically.
Recent-year counts are understated by publication lag.
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Corbion Biotech Inc | 2 | — |
| Centelion SAS | 0 | — |
| Greenlight Biosciences Inc | 0 | — |
| Genentech Inc | 0 | — |
| Merck & Co Inc | 0 | — |
| International N&H Denmark ApS | 0 | — |
| CLAREMONT BIOSOLUTIONS LLC | 0 | — |
| Corsham Science Ltd | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption 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 analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing or new filing.
Check the mid-field, not just the leader
Because the top 5 hold only 23.1% of all 616 records, a freedom-to-operate review that stops at the ranked leader will miss most of the relevant claim estate. The steep drop to 21 records at fifth and 13 at tenth means the next tier deserves individual review.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTreat 2025–2026 filings as undercounted
The apparent decline after 2021 is real through 2024, but anything filed in 2025 or 2026 will still be arriving in the public record. Re-check the trend in a later data pull before concluding the field has gone quiet.
Track filing trends in EurekaDraft around substrate-specific claim language
With B01J and B01F each under 10% of records against C12N at 90.7%, apparatus-only claims decoupled from a named organism or enzyme system remain comparatively open. That gap is worth testing against the most-cited prior art before committing to a claim strategy.
Search prior art in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption 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 about this landscape
The ranked leader in this dataset holds 44 of the 616 records in scope, with the fifth-ranked assignee at 21 and the tenth at 13. That is a real lead but far from a majority position — the top 5 combined account for only 23.1% of all records, so no single company controls the field. A freedom-to-operate review needs to look well beyond the top name.
Filings peaked in 2020 at 47 and then declined sharply, falling from 15 in 2021 to 5 in 2024 — a 67% drop over that span. 2024 is the most recent year in this dataset treated as complete, since publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months. The 2025 and 2026 figures will rise as more records publish, so they should not yet be read as continued decline.
The dominant class is C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering), covering 90.7% of the 616 records, reflecting that most claims are tied to a specific biological substrate rather than generic apparatus. C12P (fermentation) and C12M (bioreactors) each cover close to 29%, and C12Q (enzyme/DNA testing) covers 23.4%. Purely mechanical classes like B01J and B01F stay under 10%, which is worth noting if you are trying to claim disruption hardware independent of the material being processed.
US6699706B1 claims a cell lysis method using a fluidic vortex mixer with a baffle-free cylindrical chamber, an axial outlet and tangential inlet, tuned so residence time in the mixer is shorter than the time needed for lysis — potentially under 0.1 seconds. It is a specific apparatus-and-timing combination rather than a claim over continuous lysis broadly. New work using different mixing geometries, longer controlled residence times, or non-vortex agitation is unlikely to fall inside its claims, but any vortex-based low-shear design should be checked against it directly.
The IPC composition shows dense claim coverage anchored to specific organisms and bioreactor contexts (C12N, C12P, C12M) but comparatively thin coverage in purely mechanical or control-focused categories like B01J and B01F, both under 10% of records. Practically, that points to under-claimed territory in apparatus-level claims for residence-time metering, in-line temperature control during continuous feed, and throughput-linked energy input control, drafted independent of the specific cell type being processed. These are the sub-areas worth a novelty search before assuming the space is occupied.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption 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 Cell Disruption Continuous Disruption in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cell disruption continuous disruption 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.