Cleavable Linker ADC Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated at the top: the top 5 assignees hold 64.0% of all 428 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 81.5% — this is a field with a short list of gatekeepers.
- Filings have cooled since a 2024 peak: annual filings rose from 23 in 2017 to a peak of 69 in 2024, but the leading assignee shows a 91% year-on-year drop in its most recent filings.
- Claim space is medicinal-chemistry heavy: 74.3% of records sit in A61K and 52.1% in A61P, while only 12.9% touch C07H sugar/nucleic-acid chemistry — a narrower band than the crowded payload classes.
Filing growth compares 2021 (25 records) with 2024 (69) — 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 428 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Cleavable linker chemistry sits at the junction of plasma stability and intracellular release rate — the two properties that determine whether an antibody-drug conjugate holds together in circulation and lets go of its payload once inside the target cell. The 428 records in this dataset were pulled using a search string built around that trade-off: protease-cleavable and glucuronide chemistries, disulfide linker mechanisms, bystander effect claims, and the hydrophobicity-driven aggregation problems that follow from linker design choices.
Publication naturally lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent year of the trend understates real filing activity. Family-level counting, used throughout this ranking, is the fairer unit here because a single linker chemistry is often filed across several jurisdictions under continuation practice.
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 428 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings climbed from 23 in 2017 to a peak of 69 in 2024, with a 2022 midpoint of 16 — the growth is not steady; it is a late run-up followed by a marked pullback into 2026, though the final year is partial and undercounted by the publication lag.
IPC subclass composition
A61K (74.3% of records) and A61P (52.1%) dominate, confirming that most claims are framed as medicinal preparations and therapeutic use rather than pure linker chemistry. C07K peptide/protein claims (38.8%) and C07D heterocyclics (18.7%) form the next tier, while C07H sugar and nucleic-acid chemistry (12.9%) and C01B inorganic chemistry (2.6%) are comparatively thin — classes can overlap within a single record, so these figures sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 428 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cleavable Linker Design for Antibody-Drug Conjugates with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cleavable linker design for antibody-drug conjugates and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US20210393795A1 — Compounds comprising cleavable linker and uses thereof
Filed by Intocell, this application claims a cleavable linker built around a sulfoximine-type functional group capable of selectively releasing an active agent, paired with a second functional group that triggers release through an external chemical, physicochemical or biological stimulus. The linker is designed to attach to a binding ligand such as an antibody, positioning the claim squarely in the plasma-stability-versus-release-rate trade-off this landscape tracks.Filed 2021-12-23
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050169933A1 | Method of targeting specific cell populations using cell-binding agent maytansinoid conjugates linked via a n… | 627 |
| 2 | WO2005037992A2 | Method of targeting specific cell populations using cell-binding agent maytansinoid conjugates linked via a n… | 439 |
| 3 | US8088387B2 | Method of targeting specific cell populations using cell-binding agent maytansinoid conjugates linked via a n… | 306 |
| 4 | US8163888B2 | Method of targeting specific cell populations using cell-binding agent maytansinoid conjugates linked via a n… | 264 |
| 5 | EP2019104A1 | Cytotoxic agents comprising new tomaymycin derivatives and their therapeutic use | 140 |
| 6 | WO2013040429A1 | Multimeric oligonucleotide compounds | 134 |
| 7 | US20150247141A1 | Multimeric oligonucleotide compounds | 91 |
| 8 | US20080114153A1 | Method of targeting specific cell populations using cell-binding agent maytansinoid conjugates linked via a n… | 80 |
| 9 | US6525183B2 | Multiple-labelled oligonucleotides synthesized on solid-supports | 80 |
| 10 | WO2014043544A1 | Multimeric oligonucleotide compounds | 79 |
Citation counts favour older records inside a searched corpus — they signal influence on the field's early framing, not current commercial relevance. The four most-cited records here all trace to the same non-cleavable maytansinoid conjugate family, which set the citation baseline that later cleavable-linker filings had to design around.
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-outs from the same dataset, each pointing at a different practical question: where claim density already sits, how fast the field is still moving, and what citation patterns actually tell you.
A short list of gatekeepers
The top 5 assignees combined account for 64.0% of all 428 records in scope, and the top 10 for 81.5%. A field this concentrated means a new entrant's freedom-to-operate analysis should start with the leading filers' claim scope, not with a broad landscape scan.
Growth has already peaked
Filings rose from 23 in 2017 to a peak of 69 in 2024 before falling back toward 4 in the most recent (partial) year, and the leading assignee's own filings dropped 91% year on year. That pattern reads as claim space that has been staked out rather than one still opening up.
Old claims still anchor the field
The most-cited records are all non-cleavable-linker maytansinoid conjugate filings dating back years, which shows citation counts here reward early framing rather than current design practice. Treat citation rank as a map of influence on later claim drafting, not a shortlist of what to license today.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cleavable linker design for antibody-drug conjugates, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space, and where it thins out
The ranked leaders control most of the filing volume, but the technology composition data points to specific sub-areas that remain lightly claimed.
One filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 111 records against a fifth-place figure of 29 and a tenth-place figure of 10 — a steep drop-off that puts most of the remaining 79 ranked assignees into single- or low-double-digit filing counts.
Filing is mostly solo, with one dense pair
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and one pair accounts for 30 shared records — far ahead of any other pairing, which is closer to a couple of shared filings each. Co-filing here is the exception, not the norm.
US filing leads, PCT route well used
The United States receives the most filings at 95, ahead of the EPO at 59 and WIPO/PCT at 48, with Australia, Israel and Canada each in the 20s-to-40s range. That spread suggests applicants are pursuing broad multi-jurisdiction protection rather than filing narrowly in one market.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Amunix Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 1 | -91% |
| ImmunoGen, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Intocell, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Biotest AG | 0 | — |
| Rana Therapeutics, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Heidelberg Pharma Research GmbH | 0 | — |
| R.P. Scherer Technologies, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| TRANSLATE BIO MA INC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with occupied core claims and a few thinner branches. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or new filing.
Map freedom-to-operate against the leaders
With 81.5% of records held by the top 10 assignees, any new linker chemistry should be checked against those portfolios before drafting claims, not against the full 79-assignee ranking.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaTrack the pullback in filing activity
The drop from a 2024 peak of 69 filings toward the most recent partial year suggests the core chemistry is settling; watching which assignees keep filing through the slowdown flags where activity is shifting.
Set up filing alerts in EurekaProbe the thinner IPC branches
C07H and C01B classes carry far fewer records than A61K or A61P, which may reflect genuine white space rather than lack of interest — worth a targeted prior-art pull before committing to a direction.
Explore adjacent IPC classes in EurekaCommon questions on cleavable linker patents
The dataset's leading assignee holds 111 of the 428 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked filer at 29 and the tenth-ranked filer at 10. The top 5 assignees together account for 64.0% of all records, and the top 10 account for 81.5%, so filing activity is heavily concentrated rather than spread evenly across the 79 ranked assignees. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate in this space should start with the leading filers' granted claims rather than treating the field as open.
Filing activity rose from 23 records in 2017 to a peak of 69 in 2024, but has since fallen back sharply, and the leading assignee's own filings dropped 91% year on year in the most recent period. That pattern points to a field that expanded rapidly and has since cooled rather than one still in an early growth phase. The most recent year is also partial, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the true 2025-2026 filing rate is likely higher than the raw count shows.
The most-cited records in this dataset are actually non-cleavable maytansinoid conjugate filings, which set an early citation baseline that cleavable-linker patents have built on and design around. Cleavable linkers are engineered to release their payload inside the target cell via a triggered mechanism — protease cleavage, disulfide reduction or glucuronide hydrolysis, for example — which is intended to improve the bystander effect and intracellular release rate relative to non-cleavable designs. High citation counts on the older non-cleavable filings reflect their age and influence on the field's framing, not that non-cleavable chemistry remains the dominant filing strategy today.
The technology composition data shows A61K and A61P claims dominating at 74.3% and 52.1% of records respectively, while C07H sugar and nucleic-acid chemistry sits at only 12.9% and C01B inorganic chemistry at 2.6%. That gap suggests sub-areas like glucuronide-triggered release mechanisms, disulfide stability tuning, and non-antibody ligand constructs carry comparatively thinner claim density relative to the core medicinal-chemistry classes. A thinner IPC branch does not guarantee an open path, but it is a reasonable place to run a targeted prior-art search before drafting new claims.
The assignee ranking behind this dataset covers 79 companies across the 428 records in scope, though filing volume is far from evenly distributed. A handful of assignees, including the leader with 111 records, account for the bulk of the volume, while most of the remaining ranked companies hold single- or low-double-digit counts. This shape — a few concentrated leaders plus a long tail of lighter filers — is typical of a technical niche where the core chemistry is claimed early and later entrants file narrower, adjacent improvements.
Research Cleavable Linker Design for Antibody-Drug Conjugates in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cleavable linker design for antibody-drug conjugates 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.