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-ultrasonic-disruption-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Cell DisruptionCell Disruption and Ultrasonic Disruption Patents: Who Holds the Claims
- Filing is concentrated but not locked up. the ranked leader holds 24 records and the top 5 combined account for 28.2% of all 277 records in scope — a strong front but a long tail behind it.
- Growth is real, not flat. filings rose from 2 in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 150% increase over that three-year span, even before the most recent, still-incomplete years are counted.
- Claims cluster around biology, not acoustics. 87.4% of records sit in C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) versus 14.8% in B01J (chemical/physical processes), showing where the drafting activity actually lands.
277
Published Records
28%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+150%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 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 277 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 landscape tracks 277 patent records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine cell disruption or lysis language with ultrasonic and acoustic disruption mechanics — pulse duration, cavitation, energy density, temperature rise — under the core classification codes for microorganism handling, bioreactor apparatus and chemical/physical processing (C12N1/06, B02C19/18, B01J19/10). It spans biomass processing, diagnostics sample prep, and industrial-scale lysis equipment, wherever the claim language ties biological material release to a defined ultrasonic or cavitation parameter.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will understate actual filing activity; treat 2024 as the last complete year for growth comparisons.
Filing activity by year, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Ultrasonic 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
The Numbers
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 277-record dataset: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filings climbed into 2023 before recent-year reporting lag sets in
Volume rose from 6 records in 2017 to a peak of 13 in 2023. The 2021-to-2024 span shows the clearest complete-year signal: 2 filings growing to 5, a 150% increase. 2025 and 2026 figures will continue to rise as publications catch up.
Claims concentrate in biology and bioreactor classes, not acoustic hardware
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) touches 87.4% of the 277 records, with C12M (bioreactors and enzyme apparatus) at 37.2% and C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis) at 30.7%. B01J, the chemical/physical processing class most tied to the ultrasonic mechanism itself, appears in just 14.8% of records — a gap between where the biological outcome is claimed and where the disruption mechanism is claimed.
Shares are the percentage of the 277 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 Ultrasonic 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 Ultrasonic Disruption with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cell disruption ultrasonic disruption and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The records shaping this field
Representative Filing
Methods of improving intracellular biomolecule extraction yield and methods of cell lysis (US20230203428A1)
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
The present invention relates to methods of improving cell lysis procedures and yields of intracellular biomolecules extracted from biomass. The methods comprise storing the microbial cells in ultra-low temperature (ULT) conditions for at least 10 minutes prior to lysing the cells.Filed by Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of Arizona State University, published 2023-06-29.
Most-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050170479A1 | Method for producing lipids by liberation from biomass | 306 |
| 2 | US6043066A | Cell separation using electric fields | 298 |
| 3 | US5374522A | Method for releasing RNA and DNA from cells | 169 |
| 4 | US6506584B1 | Apparatus and method for ultrasonic treatment of a liquid | 145 |
| 5 | US20030199050A1 | Cell separation using electric fields | 112 |
| 6 | WO2003008636A2 | Universal method and composition for the rapid lysis of cells for the release of nucleic acids and their dete… | 112 |
| 7 | US4683293A | Purification of pichia produced lipophilic proteins | 103 |
| 8 | US7101691B2 | Alcohol production using sonication | 84 |
| 9 | US5380826A | Supercritical fluid disruption of and extraction from microbial cells | 83 |
| 10 | US9063136B2 | Cell concentration, capture and lysis devices and methods of use thereof | 71 |
Citation counts favour older filings within this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later drafting, not as a marker of current 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 Ultrasonic 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 data means for strategy
Reading the concentration, class distribution and citation pattern together points to where filing pressure sits and where it does not.
Concentration
28.2% of 277 records
top 5 combined share
A strong front, a long tail behind it
The leading assignee holds 24 records, more than double the fifth-placed entrant's 10, but the top 5 together account for only 28.2% of all 277 records in scope. That leaves most of the field held by single- or few-filing entrants rather than by a small blocking group.
Top 10 combined reach 41.2% of the total, so no assignee approaches majority control.
Growth
+150%, 2021-2024
complete-year filing growth
Momentum is building, not plateauing
Filings moved from 2 in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 150% increase across the last three years with reliable publication coverage. The 2023 peak of 13 records suggests renewed interest that the still-incomplete 2025-2026 figures have not yet fully reflected.
Treat 2025 onward as provisional given the ~18-month publication lag.
Technology mix
87.4% vs 14.8%
C12N share vs B01J share
Biological outcome claims outnumber mechanism claims
Almost nine in ten records touch C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering), while only 14.8% sit in B01J, the class tied most directly to the physical/chemical disruption process. Drafting activity favours describing what the disruption achieves biologically over how the acoustic mechanism itself is engineered.
A record can carry several IPC classes, so these shares are not mutually exclusive.
Citations
306 citations
highest-cited record
Older foundational filings still anchor the field
The most-cited record in scope, on lipid liberation from biomass, carries 306 citations — well ahead of the next-most-cited filing on electric-field cell separation at 298. High citation counts here mark influence on later drafting rather than current commercial weight, since older records accumulate citations simply by being available longer.
Use citation rank as a map of prior art density, not a freshness signal.
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 ultrasonic 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 Ultrasonic 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 assignee list covers 100 companies counted in records — the whole ranking the dataset returns, not a curated top tier. Recent-year momentum across the most active names has gone quiet, which is consistent with publication lag rather than a real pullback.
Leader
24 records
leading assignee filings
A clear front-runner without a monopoly
The top-ranked assignee holds 24 of the 277 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-placed entrant at 10. That gap shows sustained filing activity from one organisation, but the broader 28.2% share for the top 5 confirms the field stays open beyond the leader.
Ranking is drawn from the full 100-company list the data endpoint returns.
Mid-field
10th place: 7 records
records held by the tenth-ranked assignee
A shallow drop-off through the mid-field
Moving from fifth place (10 records) to tenth place (7 records) is a gentle slope, not a cliff. That pattern points to a moderately competitive second tier rather than a single dominant cluster plus scattered single filers.
Top 10 combined hold 41.2% of all 277 records.
Collaboration
10 co-assignee pairs
joint-filing relationships identified
Collaboration is limited but concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairings appear across the dataset, and the strongest of them link a small set of research-heavy organisations and named inventors filing repeatedly together. Most assignees in this field file alone rather than through joint ventures.
The strongest pairing recurs across multiple co-filed records.
Recent-year filing momentum by leading assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Genentech, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Qvella Corp | 0 | — |
| Covaris, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Battelle Memorial Institute | 0 | — |
| DNA Genotek Inc. | 0 | — |
| Infectio Diagnostic (I.D.I.) Inc. | 0 | — |
| SRS ENERGY | 0 | — |
| SRS Energy | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Ultrasonic 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 published dataset shows where claims sit today. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper on specific branches and specific blocking claims.
Map the mechanism gap
B01J-classed filings sit at only 14.8% of records against 87.4% for the biological-outcome classes, suggesting the acoustic mechanism itself is comparatively under-claimed. A focused search on cavitation and pulse-duration claim language would clarify how open this branch really is.
Explore mechanism claims in EurekaWatch the mid-field for consolidation
The gentle slope from fifth to tenth place leaves room for a mid-tier filer to pull ahead through a single strong continuation or acquisition. Tracking recent-year momentum by assignee is the fastest way to catch that shift early.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Ultrasonic 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 on this landscape
The ranked leader in this dataset holds 24 of the 277 records in scope, notably ahead of the fifth-placed assignee at 10 records. Even so, the top 5 assignees combined account for only 28.2% of all records, meaning no single organisation controls the field. The ranking itself covers 100 companies counted in records, not a hand-picked top tier, so the picture includes a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants alongside the leader.
Filings grew from 2 in 2021 to 5 in 2024, a 150% increase over that three-year window, with a peak of 13 records in 2023. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any trend chart are still incomplete and should not be read as a slowdown. Based on the complete-year data through 2024, the trend is upward rather than flat.
The overwhelming majority, 87.4% of the 277 records, fall under C12N, the class covering microorganisms and genetic engineering, with bioreactor apparatus (C12M) at 37.2% and fermentation/enzymatic synthesis (C12P) at 30.7%. Chemical and physical process claims tied more directly to the ultrasonic mechanism (B01J) appear in only 14.8% of records. This means most claim language centres on what the disruption achieves biologically rather than on the acoustic engineering itself.
Based on the class distribution, branches tied directly to the disruption mechanism rather than its biological outcome look thinner: cavitation-parameter feedback control, pulse-duration optimisation for viscous biomass, and continuous-flow acoustic reactor design all sit in the smaller B01J and G01N classes rather than the dominant C12N biology claims. A claim anchored to a specific, measurable acoustic parameter rather than a general lysis outcome is more likely to land in open space, though a full freedom-to-operate search on the specific claim language is still necessary before filing.
US20230203428A1, filed by Arizona State University's Board of Regents and published 2023-06-29, claims methods of storing microbial cells at ultra-low temperature for at least 10 minutes prior to lysis, as a way to improve intracellular biomolecule extraction yield. It blocks approaches that combine that specific pre-chilling step with subsequent lysis, but it does not cover lysis methods that skip the ultra-low-temperature hold entirely. Anyone designing a competing process should check whether their protocol relies on a comparable cold-storage pretreatment before assuming this filing is relevant to them.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Cell Disruption Ultrasonic 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 Ultrasonic Disruption in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cell disruption ultrasonic 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.