One assignee holds 81 of the 148 records in this scope, making it by far the largest filer in the field. The next four ranked assignees combined bring the top 5 to 86.5% of all records, and the remaining ranked companies fill out the rest, with the tenth-placed assignee holding just 2 records. This is a field where a small number of players control almost all of the documented filing activity, so any competitive read should start with that leader's specific claim scope rather than the market as a whole.

Filing peaked at 36 records in 2019 and has since settled to a lower, steadier level, with 11 filings in 2021 rising to 12 in 2024 — a +9% gain over that three-year span. The 2025 and 2026 figures in this data set are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so they should not be read as a decline. Based on the complete years, the field looks steady rather than either surging or contracting.

A61B, covering diagnosis and surgery, appears in 90.5% of all 148 records and is by far the dominant classification. A61F (implants and prostheses) follows at 33.8%, with image-processing (G06T), healthcare informatics (G16H) and body-fluid devices (A61M) each present in roughly 10% of records. Because a single record often carries several IPC codes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should be read as independent measures of density, not shares of a whole.

WO2023111227A1, filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. and published in mid-2023, claims a system that locates a clot from contrasted imagery and then derives its composition from a second, lower-contrast image at that same location, outputting both together. It is a specific pipeline — dual-contrast imaging feeding a location determiner and a composition determiner — rather than a broad claim over clot composition analysis generally. Anyone building an interventional imaging system that ties composition assessment to a single co-registered location determined the same way should review its claim set closely, but approaches using a single imaging pass or separate, unlinked composition scoring may sit outside it.

The clearest gaps sit away from the dense A61B procedural core, in classes like G06T, G16H and A61C where record density falls to roughly 10% or less of the 148-record scope. Cost-effectiveness workflow scoring and reperfusion-time-linked device triggers are represented in the underlying search terms but are not concentrated in any single dominant filer's portfolio the way core device and imaging claims are. A new filer is more likely to find open claim space by combining procedural imaging with informatics or workflow scoring than by filing directly against the core device or composition-imaging claims already held by the leading assignees.