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/clinical-decision-support-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Digital Health & Health InformaticsClinical Decision Support Patents: Who Leads and Where the Field Is Still Open
- 19.9% concentration at the top. The top five assignees hold 2,854 of 14,311 records in scope, a leadership position but well short of lock-out — the remaining 80% is spread across a long tail.
- Filing has cooled, not collapsed. Complete-year filings ran 1,001 in 2021 down to 909 in 2024, a 9% pull-back, while 2025's provisional count already exceeds prior peaks as later filings continue to publish.
- Healthcare informatics dominates the claim map. G16H appears on 52.6% of records, more than any other class, while AI-specific G06N claims sit at just 17.3% — a gap that signals where new filings can still stake specific ground.
14.3K
Published Records
20%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-9%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,001 records) with 2024 (909) — 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 14,311 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What the clinical decision support patent record actually contains
Clinical decision support (CDS) patents cover systems that surface rules, alerts or recommendations to clinicians at the point of care — spanning everything from remote patient monitoring to bioinformatics-driven diagnosis support. The 14,311 records in scope span 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, filed across a mix of hospital-system incumbents, imaging majors and a long tail of single-filing entrants. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend understate the true filing volume.
Reading this landscape by patent family rather than raw publication count matters here: CDS filings frequently span multiple jurisdictions and generate continuations, so family-level counts give a fairer picture of where genuine innovation effort sits rather than where filing paperwork is heaviest.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trends and technology composition
The chart below tracks published records by year alongside the IPC subclasses that recur most often across the corpus. Because a single record can carry several classes, subclass shares are read against the full record count, not against each other.
Filing trend: growth, then a plateau
Annual filings rose from 560 in 2017 to a complete-year figure of 909 in 2024, having peaked at 1,001 in 2021 — a 9% pull-back over that span. 2025 already shows 1,508 published records and 2026 is still accumulating at 1,208, both of which will keep rising as later filings publish; neither year should be read as a fall in real filing activity.
Where the claim density sits
Healthcare informatics (G16H) touches 52.6% of the 14,311 records in scope, well ahead of general digital data processing (G06F) at 28.7% and diagnosis-and-surgery hardware (A61B) at 26.8%. AI-model computing (G06N) sits lower at 17.3%, and bioinformatics (G16B) lower still at 7.1% — the gap between where informatics claims already sit and where AI-specific method claims sit is one of the clearer signals in the composition data.
Shares are the percentage of the 14,311 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 Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about clinical decision support patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
A representative filing and the most-cited prior art
Representative Filing
Clinical Decision Support Triggered From Another Clinical Decision Support
CERNER INNOVATION, INC.
Proactive and interactive clinical decision support events are triggered based on information provided by a user during other clinical decision support events. User-provided clinical information received during a first event and stored clinical information are compared against rules for initiating further events. Based on the comparison, a determination is made that a rule associated with a second clinical decision support event has been satisfied, and that second event is initiated by presenting stored or user-provided information from the first event.Filed by Cerner Innovation and published 2008-04-03, this filing sits early in the chaining pattern that later multi-event CDS architectures build on.
Most-cited records in the corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20130201316A1 | System and method for server based control | 1,727 |
| 2 | US20020010679A1 | Information record infrastructure, system and method | 1,634 |
| 3 | US20030036683A1 | Method, system and computer program product for internet-enabled, patient monitoring system | 1,393 |
| 4 | US6198394B1 | System for remote monitoring of personnel | 1,300 |
| 5 | US20050055242A1 | System and method for medical data tracking, analysis and reporting for healthcare system | 841 |
| 6 | US20210090694A1 | Data based cancer research and treatment systems and methods | 715 |
| 7 | US20040167465A1 | System and method for medical device authentication | 691 |
| 8 | US20190209022A1 | Wearable electronic device and system for tracking location and identifying changes in salient indicators of … | 626 |
| 9 | US20040172301A1 | Remote multi-purpose user interface for a healthcare system | 556 |
| 10 | US10303851B2 | Physician-centric health care delivery platform | 537 |
Citation counts reward older, foundational filings within this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current commercial importance.
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 Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. 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 a filing decision
Three patterns recur across the concentration, technology and citation data — each has a direct bearing on where a new filing is likely to clear examination cleanly.
Concentration
19.9%
of 14,311 records held by the top five assignees
Leadership without lock-out
The leading assignee alone accounts for 1,951 records, and the top five combine for 19.9% of the full record set. That is real concentration at the very top, but it leaves roughly four-fifths of the corpus to a long tail of hospital systems, imaging vendors and single-filing entrants — meaning freedom-to-operate risk is generally distributed rather than blocked by one or two gatekeepers.
Based on the 100-company ranked assignee list
Technology mix
52.6% vs 17.3%
G16H share vs G06N share of records
Informatics claims outweigh AI-method claims
Healthcare informatics classifications appear on more than half the corpus, while AI-model computing classifications sit at under a fifth. That gap suggests informatics workflow claims are heavily occupied ground, while method-level AI claims tied specifically to CDS reasoning have more room to be filed with precision.
IPC subclass shares, all 14,311 records in scope
Filing momentum
-9%
change in complete-year filings, 2021 to 2024
A plateau, not a decline
Complete-year filing volume eased from 1,001 in 2021 to 909 in 2024. Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the higher counts already visible in 2025 and 2026 are provisional and will continue to rise — the near-term data is not evidence of a cooling field.
2021-2024 complete-year filings only
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 clinical decision support patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where activity is shifting
The ranked assignee list covers 100 companies spanning device incumbents, EHR platform vendors and university systems. Recent-year momentum diverges sharply even among the most active filers.
Momentum leader
+98% YoY
SR University, latest year
A university system accelerating fast
SR University filed 83 records in the latest year, up 98% year-on-year — a pace of growth well outside the pattern of the established corporate filers, worth tracking as an emerging source of prior art in specific sub-claims.
Latest-year filings, year-on-year change
Established leader, slowing
-88% YoY
Koninklijke Philips, latest year
The largest historical filer has pulled back sharply
The corpus leader shows only 2 filings in the latest year, down 88% year-on-year. Given publication lag, this likely reflects filings still working through the pipeline rather than an actual exit from the space, but it changes the near-term competitive picture.
Latest-year filings, year-on-year change
Tail movement
10 pairs
co-assignee pairings identified
Co-filing is concentrated around a few corporate families
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, and the strongest is an intra-group pairing within the same corporate family, followed by a university-industry pair. Cross-company co-filing outside these clusters is rare, which keeps most freedom-to-operate analysis to single-assignee review.
Co-assignee pair counts across the corpus
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| SR UNIVERSITY | 83 | +98% |
| Gyrus ACMI, Inc. | 17 | -53% |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 2 | -88% |
| Cerner Innovation, Inc. | 1 | -93% |
| The Regents of the University of California | 1 | -86% |
| General Electric Company | 0 | — |
| Caris MPI, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Siemens Healthineers AG | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. 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 filing strategy, freedom-to-operate review, or competitive tracking.
Scope a filing around the informatics-AI gap
With G16H claims dense but G06N claims comparatively thin, a new filing that ties a specific AI reasoning method to a CDS trigger event has more open claim space than a general workflow filing.
Explore the technology map in EurekaTrack the momentum shift away from the historical leader
A sharp pull-back in the top assignee's latest-year filings, against a fast-accelerating university filer, changes who to watch for competitive citation and opposition risk over the next 18 months.
Monitor assignee momentum in EurekaRun freedom-to-operate against the most-cited prior art
The five most-cited records anchor much of the later CDS chaining and remote-monitoring architecture; any new filing in those sub-areas should be checked against them directly rather than against the corpus average.
Search citation chains in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about the clinical decision support patent landscape
One assignee leads the ranked list with 1,951 records, and the top five combined hold 2,854 records, or 19.9% of the 14,311 records in scope. That is a clear leadership position but not a lock-out, since roughly 80% of the corpus is spread across a long tail of other filers, including hospital-system technology arms, imaging vendors and university research groups. Anyone assessing competitive risk should look at both the leader's portfolio and the broader tail, since the tail collectively outweighs the top five.
Complete-year filing data shows a pull-back from 1,001 records in 2021 to 909 in 2024, a 9% decline over that span. However, publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and already show higher counts than the supposedly declining years. The honest read is a plateau in confirmed filings rather than a clear downward trend, and the most recent years should not be used to argue the field is cooling.
Healthcare informatics (IPC class G16H) appears on 52.6% of the 14,311 records in scope, making it the most common classification by a wide margin. Digital data processing (G06F) and diagnosis-and-surgery hardware (A61B) follow at 28.7% and 26.8% respectively, while AI-model computing (G06N) sits lower at 17.3%. Because records often carry multiple classes, these figures overlap rather than sum to 100%, and the relative gap between informatics and AI-specific classes is a useful signal of where claim space is more or less occupied.
The clearest gap sits between the heavily claimed informatics workflow space (G16H, over half the corpus) and the comparatively thin AI-model-specific reasoning space (G06N, under a fifth). Sub-areas such as AI-driven CDS trigger logic, bioinformatics-linked decision events, and image-data-driven decision triggers show lower filing density relative to the informatics core. These are not guaranteed clear of prior art, but they warrant a closer freedom-to-operate check before assuming the space is occupied the way the core informatics claims are.
The United States receives the largest share of filings in this corpus at 5,265 records, followed by India at 2,446, WIPO's PCT route at 1,830, and the European Patent Office at 1,768. China and Australia follow at 521 and 439 respectively. The heavy US and PCT presence reflects the commercial weight of US health IT and device vendors, while India's strong showing points to significant filing activity tied to outsourced or regional health IT development.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Clinical Decision Support Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole clinical decision support 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.