CGM Closed-Loop / Artificial Pancreas Patent Landscape
The University of Virginia Patent Foundation dominates this highly concentrated field, holding by far the largest share among the hundred largest filers, with commercial device makers forming a distinct but smaller second tier. The field reached peak annual volume in 2023 and remains in a multi-year growth phase, with the most recent filing years still subject to publication lag.
University of Virginia leads a concentrated field; commercial challengers cluster in a tight second tier
The University of Virginia. Patent Foundation ranks first among all filers, well ahead of any commercial entity. Tandem Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, and Insulet form a compact commercial tier, each holding meaningful but substantially smaller positions.
The top five filers account for 65% of the combined total across the hundred largest filers, signalling a highly concentrated competitive structure where a single academic institution and four device companies dominate. The gap between the top applicant and the fifth-ranked is large, indicating a clear leading position rather than a contested field.
| # | Applicant | Patent records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | University of Virginia Patent Foundation | 82 | |
| 2 | Tandem Diabetes Care Inc | 29 | |
| 3 | Dexcom Inc | 22 | |
| 4 | Abbott Diabetes Care Inc | 21 | |
| 5 | Insulet Corp | 19 | |
| 6 | Cambridge Enterprise Ltd | 16 | |
| 7 | Nudge BG Inc | 10 | |
| 8 | Animas Corp | 8 | |
| 9 | Tingo Medical Ltd | 5 | |
| 10 | OREGON HEALTH & SCI UNIV | 4 |
| # | Applicant | Patent records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Universitat Politecnica de Valencia | 4 | |
| 12 | MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH | 3 | |
| 13 | Boris P. Kovatchev | 3 | |
| 14 | Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona | 3 | |
| 15 | Novo Nordisk A/S | 2 | |
| 16 | Stephen D. Patek | 2 | |
| 17 | Bigfoot Biomedical Inc | 2 | |
| 18 | Marc D. Breton | 2 | |
| 19 | University of Padova | 2 | |
| 20 | BHARATH INST OF HIGHER EDUCATION & RES | 2 |
The University of Virginia’s position reflects sustained foundational research in closed-loop control algorithms; commercial players’ presence indicates active translation of that research into patented device and software implementations. Entrants outside this tier face a formidable prior-art landscape and may need to differentiate by sub-application or adjacent technology branch.
Filing years 2024–2026 are underrepresented due to typical patent publication lag of 18–24 months; apparent slowing in those years should not be read as a structural decline. Longer-window growth, applicant concentration, and technology-route coverage are therefore more reliable signals than the latest-year bar alone.
Annual volume peaked in 2023; healthcare informatics and delivery devices dominate the technology mix
Two lenses — the annual filing trend and the IPC class composition — together reveal where activity has been concentrated and where adjacent branches remain comparatively sparse.
Annual filing trend
Filings rose steadily from 2017 through 2023, reaching a peak in 2023, then appear lower in 2024–2026; this tail-off reflects publication lag rather than a real decline and should be read with caution. The three-year recent window nonetheless sits well above the prior three-year window, confirming a growth-stage field on a multi-year basis.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaTechnology composition
G16H (Healthcare informatics) and A61M (Devices for body fluids) together account for the dominant share of IPC classifications, reflecting the dual software-algorithm and physical-delivery architecture of closed-loop systems. A61B (Diagnosis & surgery) is a sizeable third branch, while G06F, G01N, A61P, A61K, G05B, and communications classes each hold single-digit shares, marking them as comparatively under-served branches.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaHighly cited patent families surfaced by the query
Citation-heavy patent families returned by the query. Use this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents.
Wearable dual closed-loop insulin delivery systems…
A wearable dual closed-loop insulin delivery system is provided that integrates both a chemical closed-loop and an electronic closed-loop for precise glycemic control. The system includes a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) configured to obtain real-time blood glucose concentrations of a subject, and a glucose-responsive insulin (GRI) delivery device… (excerpt from the patent abstract)
| # | Patent | Citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Methods for reducing false hypoglycemia alarm occu… | 214 |
| 2 | System and method for mitigating risk in automated… | 169 |
| 3 | Method and system for closed-loop control of an ar… | 161 |
| 4 | CGM-based prevention of hypoglycemia via hypoglyce… | 152 |
| 5 | Overnight closed-loop insulin delivery with model … | 144 |
| 6 | Temporary suspension for closed-loop medicament th… | 138 |
| 7 | CGM-based prevention of hypoglycemia via hypoglyce… | 138 |
| 8 | Overnight closed-loop insulin delivery with model … | 135 |
Ranked by total forward citations. Citation counts favour older and broadly cited patent families, and broad or adjacent patents may appear when they match the search scope. Treat this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents. Some patent titles may be shown in their original, non-English language where an accurate translation could not be guaranteed.
What the competitive structure means for R&D investment decisions
The combination of high concentration, academic leadership, and a growth-stage lifecycle shapes the strategic environment for both incumbents and new entrants.
Growth stage with annual volume easing from a 2023 peak
The field is classified as Growth: the recent three-year filing window sits well above the prior three-year window, confirming continued expansion on a multi-year basis. Annual volume has eased from its 2023 peak, though publication lag inflates this apparent softening for 2024–2026. New entrants can still establish positions, but the foundational algorithm and sensor-integration art is increasingly dense.
Lifecycle: GrowthSingle academic institution holds the dominant position; commercial tier is tight
The top five filers hold 65% of the combined total among the hundred largest filers, with the University of Virginia Patent Foundation alone accounting for 82 patent records. The four next-ranked commercial entities — Tandem Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, and Insulet — are clustered between 19 and 29 patent records each. This structure means any new entrant must either carve a differentiated sub-domain or accept navigating a dense prior-art environment anchored by one dominant academic licensor.
High concentrationAbbott–Cambridge co-filing is the dominant partnership; limited broader ecosystem
The most active co-filing pair is Abbott Diabetes Care and Cambridge Enterprise, with 14 joint patent records — a notably high count relative to the field’s size. Dexcom and the University of Padova share 2 co-filed records, and the University of Virginia Patent Foundation has co-filed with both Boris P. Kovatchev (2 records) and Novo Nordisk (1 record). Collaboration activity is sparse beyond these pairs, suggesting that most filers operate independently rather than through formal co-development arrangements.
Limited co-filingStrongly US-centric; Europe and PCT are secondary; Asia minimal
The United States leads with 121 patent records, far ahead of Europe (EPO) at 38 and WIPO PCT at 21. Canada (14) and Australia (6) follow, with China, Germany, and Japan each at 3. This distribution reflects the US-heavy origin of the dominant academic and commercial filers, and signals that protection in key Asian markets — particularly China and Japan — remains limited, potentially leaving those jurisdictions more open to challengers with local manufacturing or market ambitions.
US-dominant geographyGo beyond the landscape: Eureka’s TRIZ Solution agent breaks down an R&D problem and returns patented concept solutions, each with a technical approach and cited patent & literature evidence.
| Applicant | Collaborator | Co-filings |
|---|---|---|
| Abbott Diabetes Care Inc | Cambridge Enterprise Ltd | 14 |
| Dexcom Inc | University of Padova | 2 |
| Boris P. Kovatchev | University of Virginia Patent Foundation | 2 |
| University of Virginia Patent Foundation | Novo Nordisk A/S | 1 |
Co-filing pairs, ranked by the number of jointly-filed patent families.
University of Virginia anchors algorithm IP; commercial players lead on device and software integration
The leader and top challenger occupy distinctly different technology routes — foundational closed-loop informatics versus physical delivery hardware — making them complements as much as competitors.
University of Virginia Patent Foundation
Holding 82 patent records, the University of Virginia Patent Foundation concentrates heavily on healthcare informatics (G16H subclasses), covering closed-loop decision algorithms, therapy management, and risk-mitigation logic. Its momentum trend is listed as a new entrant in the recent window, reflecting a base that grew substantially in recent filing cohorts. As the primary academic licensor in this space, its portfolio sets the foundational prior-art boundary that all commercial players must navigate.
patent records: 82Tandem Diabetes Care
With 29 patent records, Tandem Diabetes Care is the leading commercial filer, emphasising physical delivery hardware (A61M 5) alongside healthcare informatics (G16H 20 and G16H 40). Its recent filing trend shows a decline of 62% versus the prior period, suggesting a consolidation or portfolio-pruning phase rather than continued aggressive expansion. Its device-centric focus differentiates it from the algorithm-heavy university portfolio above.
patent records: 29| Applicant | Recent (3 yrs) | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| University of Virginia Patent Foundation | 23 | ▲ new entrant |
| Tandem Diabetes Care Inc | 6 | ▼ -62% |
| Dexcom Inc | 12 | ▲ new entrant |
| Insulet Corp | 17 | ▲ new entrant |
| Nudge BG Inc | 4 | ▲ new entrant |
| Boris P. Kovatchev | 1 | ▲ new entrant |
Under-served branches adjacent to the dominant informatics and delivery core
Several IPC classes appear at low share relative to the dominant G16H and A61M branches; these are observations of relative sparsity, and some carry plausible technical value for teams considering differentiated entry.
G05B · Control & Regulating Systems
G05B accounts for only 9 patent records and a 2% share of IPC classifications — notably sparse given that closed-loop insulin delivery is fundamentally a control-systems problem. The technical rationale for entry is strong: formal control-theoretic frameworks (model-predictive control, robust control) are core to next-generation artificial pancreas algorithms, yet this branch is lightly populated. Nudge BG Inc is the only ranked applicant with a notable G05B subclass focus (G05B 23), suggesting limited incumbent density. Teams with control-engineering expertise could find room to establish differentiated positions here.
Search this in Eureka →G06N · Computing Based on AI Models
G06N (AI/ML computing models) holds only 4 patent records — the lowest non-trivial count in the technology composition. Given the rapid adoption of machine-learning approaches for glucose prediction, personalized dosing, and anomaly detection in closed-loop systems, this sparsity is notable. No single ranked applicant shows a dominant G06N focus, indicating that the AI-native approach to closed-loop control is not yet well-staked in the patent record. This branch may represent an observation of early-stage activity rather than a fully validated opportunity, but teams pursuing learned-model controllers or federated-learning CGM analytics face relatively sparse prior art here.
Search this in Eureka →How leading filers differ across technology routes
Route coverage across the main technology branches in the current evidence set.
| Player | G16H 20 · Healthcare informatics | A61M 5 · Devices for body fluids | G16H 40 · Healthcare informatics | A61B 5 · Diagnosis & surgery | G16H 50 · Healthcare informatics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Virginia Patent Foundation | Strong · 75 | Strong · 52 | Strong · 57 | Strong · 52 | Strong · 53 |
| Abbott Diabetes Care Inc | Strong · 20 | Strong · 16 | Moderate · 8 | Moderate · 10 | Emerging · 4 |
| Dexcom Inc | Strong · 17 | Strong · 12 | Strong · 12 | Absent | Strong · 13 |
| Tandem Diabetes Care Inc | Moderate · 8 | Strong · 29 | Moderate · 7 | Emerging · 3 | Emerging · 4 |
| Insulet Corp | Strong · 12 | Strong · 13 | Moderate · 4 | Moderate · 5 | Moderate · 5 |
| Animas Corp | Strong · 9 | Strong · 8 | Strong · 9 | Strong · 7 | Absent |
| Cambridge Enterprise Ltd | Strong · 14 | Strong · 10 | Absent | Strong · 8 | Absent |
Frequently asked questions
The University of Virginia Patent Foundation leads with 82 patent records among the top 100 filers — more than double the next-ranked applicant, Tandem Diabetes Care, which holds 29 patent records. This reflects the university’s long-running foundational research program in closed-loop insulin delivery algorithms.
Yes, on a multi-year basis. The field is classified as Growth: the recent three-year filing window sits well above the prior three-year window, representing a 40% increase. Annual volume peaked in 2023; apparent softening in 2024–2026 is largely attributable to the typical 18–24 month patent publication lag rather than a real decline in inventive activity.
Among commercial device makers, Tandem Diabetes Care (29 patent records), Dexcom (22), Abbott Diabetes Care (21), and Insulet (19) form the leading tier. Cambridge Enterprise (16), which co-files extensively with Abbott, is the most active non-US institutional filer.
Healthcare informatics (G16H) and devices for body fluids (A61M) together account for the largest share of IPC classifications, reflecting the dual software-algorithm and physical-delivery architecture of closed-loop systems. Diagnosis and surgery (A61B) is a sizeable third branch. Control systems (G05B) and AI computing models (G06N) are comparatively sparse.
The United States dominates with 121 patent records, followed by Europe via EPO (38 records) and WIPO PCT (21 records). Canada and Australia are secondary markets. China, Germany, and Japan each hold only 3 records, indicating that Asian market coverage is limited relative to the technology’s commercial relevance.
The most-cited works cover hypoglycemia alarm reduction methods (214 citations), risk mitigation in automated insulin delivery (169 citations), closed-loop control system methods (161 citations), and CGM-based hypoglycemia prevention approaches (152 and 138 citations). Overnight closed-loop delivery using model-predictive approaches also appears among the top-cited group, pointing to algorithm-level innovations as the field’s foundational prior art.
Built on Patsnap Open Platform
This report’s underlying patent dataset — filings, assignees, technology clusters — is open for developers via MCP and REST API. Free to start, 10,000 credits, no credit card required.
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.