Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 68.7% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 443 of 645 records in scope — this field is not open territory for a new entrant filing broad control claims.
- Filings peaked in 2022 at 108. 2021 to 2024 fell -66% (96 to 33), though 2025-2026 counts are still filling in as publication catches up with filing.
- A61M dominates, G05B barely registers. 57.7% of records sit in body-fluid device claims versus 3.9% in control-system claims — the algorithmic core is comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (96 records) with 2024 (33) — 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 645 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Closed-loop insulin delivery, also called artificial pancreas technology, combines a continuous glucose sensor, a dosing algorithm and an insulin pump into a system that adjusts basal and bolus delivery with minimal user input. The patent activity here spans 645 records published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from filings that combine device claims (infusion hardware, sensor integration) with algorithmic claims (model predictive control, meal announcement handling, insulin-on-board tracking, hypoglycemia prevention logic). 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.
The dataset is built from a search string pairing closed-loop and artificial-pancreas terminology with the specific algorithmic mechanisms — model predictive control, meal announcement, insulin on board, hypoglycemia prevention, time in range and algorithm personalization — so it captures both the delivery hardware and the control logic layered on top of it.
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 645 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim volume.
A filing curve that has already peaked
Annual filings rose from 21 in 2017 to a peak of 108 in 2022, then declined to 33 by 2024 — a -66% move over that three-year span. Because publication trails filing by about 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not yet be read as a continued decline.
Device claims outweigh control-logic claims
A61M (devices for body fluids) appears in 57.7% of the 645 records, and G16H (healthcare informatics) in 44.5% — both far ahead of G05B (control and regulating systems) at 3.9% and G01N (material analysis) at 2.6%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares sum to well over 100%; the pattern that matters is the gap between hardware/informatics claims and the narrower control-systems layer underneath the algorithm itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 645 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Algorithms with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about closed-loop insulin delivery algorithms and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
US20210353857A1 — Systems and methods for automated insulin delivery response to meal announcements
Disclosed herein are apparatuses and methods that account for meal announcements in closed loop insulin delivery systems. Rather than simply increasing an insulin delivery rate in response to the meal announcement, the closed loop algorithm can be modified to increase the insulin on board tolerance during eating periods. This approach utilizes the stability of the cascaded loop in the closed loop algorithm to prevent the oscillations in glucose levels that can occur by simply increasing the basal rate.Filed by Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., published 2021-11-18.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7806886B2 | Apparatus and method for controlling insulin infusion with state variable feedback | 827 |
| 2 | US20070173761A1 | Apparatus and method for controlling insulin infusion with state variable feedback | 748 |
| 3 | US20210236729A1 | Redundant staggered glucose sensor disease management system | 412 |
| 4 | US20110098548A1 | Methods for modeling insulin therapy requirements | 295 |
| 5 | US20140066889A1 | Generation and application of an insulin limit for a closed-loop operating mode of an insulin infusion system | 254 |
| 6 | US20100295686A1 | Usability features for integrated insulin delivery system | 249 |
| 7 | WO2008088490A1 | Apparatus for controlling insulin infusion with state variable feedback | 238 |
| 8 | US20110071464A1 | Semi-closed loop insulin delivery | 210 |
| 9 | WO2010135646A1 | Usability features for integrated insulin delivery system | 173 |
| 10 | US8597274B2 | Usability features for integrated insulin delivery system | 132 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
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 patterns stand out once the raw counts are set against each other: where claim density sits, where it does not, and how citation weight is distributed among the oldest filings.
The field is a small-group contest, not an open race
443 of the 645 records in scope belong to just five assignees, and the top 10 combined account for 85.4% (551 records). A new entrant filing broad closed-loop control claims is filing directly into occupied space; differentiation has to come from a specific mechanism, not a general architecture.
Control-logic claims are thin relative to hardware claims
Only 25 of 645 records (3.9%) sit in G05B, the control-and-regulating-systems subclass that most directly maps to the dosing algorithm itself. Device claims under A61M (372 records, 57.7%) and informatics claims under G16H (287 records, 44.5%) dominate instead, suggesting the algorithmic core is often claimed as a feature of a device or software system rather than protected as a standalone control method.
Activity has cooled from its 2022 peak
Filings rose steadily to 108 in 2022 before falling to 33 by 2024, a -66% move over three years. That decline should be read against the 18-month publication lag: 2025-2026 filings are still arriving in the dataset, so the true trajectory for the most recent period is not yet visible.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to closed-loop insulin delivery algorithms, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The assignee ranking covers 65 companies total — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full set the data returns. A handful of device and pharma companies hold the bulk of it, with recent-year filing activity thinning out even among the leaders.
One filer well ahead of the rest
The leading assignee holds 212 of the 645 records in scope, more than five times the fifth-place total of 37. That gap defines the shape of the whole ranking: a dominant filer, a mid-tier of device and pharma companies, then a long tail of single- and double-digit filers.
Recent-year activity has thinned even among leaders
Several previously active assignees show zero filings in the latest year, a -100% year-over-year drop, while the most active recent filer logged just 2 filings in the latest year. This is consistent with the broader post-2022 filing decline rather than any single company's retreat.
Co-assignment is rare but concentrated
Only 4 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest links two pharma-adjacent entities on 16 shared records, with two more pairs at 13 and 9. This points to a small set of formal collaboration or licensing relationships rather than a broad pattern of joint filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Insulet Corp | 2 | -60% |
| Bigfoot Biomedical Inc | 1 | — |
| Medtronic MiniMed Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Dexcom Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Novo Nordisk A/S | 0 | — |
| Eli Lilly & Co | 0 | — |
| MyLife Diabetes Care AG | 0 | -100% |
| Shanghai Microport (Medtrum Technologies) | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking, or identifying a filing angle.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 10
With 85.4% of records held by the top 10 assignees, any new filing in device or informatics claims should be checked against that group's active families before drafting.
Run an FTO scan in EurekaProbe the control-systems gap
G05B claims sit at just 3.9% of records — a narrower search here can surface whether a specific control method is genuinely open or simply under-indexed.
Explore G05B filings in EurekaTrack the post-2022 filing decline as it resolves
2025-2026 counts are still incomplete due to publication lag; revisit the trend once another 12-18 months of data has landed to see whether the decline holds.
Set a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked field with 212 of the 645 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 37 records. The top 5 assignees combined account for 443 records, or 68.7% of the total, and the top 10 combined reach 551 records, or 85.4%. This is a concentrated field: most of the ranked activity sits with a small group of device and pharma companies rather than being spread evenly across the 65 companies in the ranking.
Filing activity peaked in 2022 at 108 records and had fallen to 33 by 2024, a -66% decline over that three-year window. However, publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are still incomplete and understate real filing activity in those years. The honest read is that the field has cooled from its 2022 high, but it is too early to call the most recent years a continued decline.
Control-and-regulating-systems claims under IPC subclass G05B appear in only 3.9% of the 645 records in scope, far below device claims under A61M (57.7%) and informatics claims under G16H (44.5%). Specific sub-areas worth checking include model predictive control tuning methods, standalone hypoglycemia-prevention control logic, and algorithm personalization that adapts without explicit meal announcement. High density in device and informatics classes does not mean the underlying control methods are equally well protected.
US20210353857A1, filed by Tandem Diabetes Care, describes modifying a closed-loop insulin delivery algorithm to increase insulin-on-board tolerance during meal periods, rather than simply raising the insulin delivery rate when a meal is announced. It relies on the stability of a cascaded control loop to avoid the glucose oscillations that a straightforward basal-rate increase can cause. Anyone designing a meal-announcement response mechanism for a closed-loop system should review this filing's specific mechanism — increasing insulin-on-board tolerance rather than delivery rate — as a design-around reference point.
Recent-year momentum data shows activity has thinned even among historically active filers: several assignees recorded zero filings in the latest year, a -100% year-over-year change, while the most active recent filer logged only 2 filings. This pattern is consistent with the broader post-2022 decline in filing volume across the field rather than a single company exiting. Given the 18-month publication lag, the most reliable read on current activity will only be clear once 2025-2026 data has fully landed.
Research Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Algorithms in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole closed-loop insulin delivery algorithms 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.