Microneedle Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filings peaked in 2021 at 10 records and the 2021-to-2024 span shows a -100% swing, though 2025-2026 numbers are still filling in as publication catches up with filing.
- One co-assignee pair dominates joint filing a pharma-and-print materials partnership files together 10 times, far ahead of the next-strongest pairs at 2 each.
- Device claims outweigh formulation claims A61M (devices for body fluids) touches 67.8% of the 87 records in scope, well ahead of A61K (medicinal preparations) at 51.7%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (0) — 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.
What this landscape covers
Coated and hollow microneedle systems sit at the intersection of drug delivery hardware and formulation science: a needle geometry that must penetrate skin with minimal pain, paired with either a surface coating or an internal bore that carries an active agent. The search set behind this page combines microneedle array claims with process-level terms — coating uniformity, bore diameter, fluid infusion, fabrication mould, sharpness retention and sterilization method — to isolate records that go beyond a bare needle shape claim into how the thing is actually made and used.
The 87 patent families in scope span filings from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with the most recent one to two years understated because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. Reading the trend line therefore means treating 2024 as the last complete year and holding judgement on anything after it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 87-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A sharp peak, then a fall-off that predates the publication lag
Filings rose to a peak of 10 in 2021, then the evidence shows 2024 at 0 – a -100% move over that three-year span. Because 2025 and 2026 are still filling in as publications catch up with filings made in those years, this page treats 2024 as the last year the trend can be read with confidence.
Device engineering outweighs formulation and manufacturing
A61M (devices for body fluids) appears in 67.8% of the 87 records in scope, ahead of A61K (medicinal preparations) at 51.7%. A61B and C12N each sit at 26.4%, B81C (MEMS manufacturing) at 21.8%, A61N at 18.4%, A61P at 11.5% and H10P at 10.3%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to well over 100% and should be read against the 87-record total, not against each other as a pie.
Shares are the percentage of the 87 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Coated and Hollow Microneedle Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about coated and hollow microneedle systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this set
WO2009072830A2 – Hollow microneedle array
A hollow microneedle array with a needle part and supporting substrate, where the upper portion inserted into skin has a reduced outer diameter to limit pain on penetration, a diameter that smoothly increases toward the base to enable deep penetration, and a bore sized to support fluid delivery through the needle length.Filed by Incyto, published 2009-06-11 – abstract condensed from the original filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6334856B1 | Microneedle devices and methods of manufacture and use thereof | 1,850 |
| 2 | WO1999064580A1 | Microneedle devices and methods of manufacture and use thereof | 548 |
| 3 | US20020138049A1 | Microneedle devices and methods of manufacture and use thereof | 391 |
| 4 | US20080213461A1 | Coated Microstructures and Methods of Manufacture Thereof | 234 |
| 5 | US20120123387A1 | Hollow microneedle arrays | 232 |
| 6 | WO2006138719A2 | Coated microstructures and method of manufacture thereof | 149 |
| 7 | WO2011014514A1 | Hollow microneedle arrays | 120 |
| 8 | US8708966B2 | Microneedle devices and methods of manufacture and use thereof | 68 |
| 9 | US20160296149A1 | In Vivo Extraction of Interstitial Fluid Using Hollow Microneedles | 67 |
| 10 | US20090131905A1 | Microneedle devices and methods of manufacture and use thereof | 60 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate references inside the searched corpus – treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not as a marker of which claims are still commercially load-bearing today.
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 filing record actually shows
Three readings of the same dataset, each pointing to a different decision a reader might need to make.
The peak has already passed on complete-year data
2021 was the high point at 10 records in a single year; by 2024, the last year this dataset can treat as complete, filings had dropped to 0 – a -100% move over that span. That is a real signal about the pre-2025 filing rate, not a comment on whether the field is still active, since 2025-2026 publications are still arriving.
Claims skew toward hardware over the drug itself
A61M, devices for body fluids, touches more than two-thirds of the 87 records in scope, ahead of A61K medicinal-preparation claims at just over half. Combined with B81C's 21.8% share for MEMS manufacturing, the claim space is weighted toward how the needle and bore are built and fabricated, not primarily toward what is loaded into it.
One collaboration stands well above the rest
Among 10 identified co-assignee pairs, the strongest pair files together 10 times, while the next two strongest pairs sit at 2 each. That gap suggests a single working relationship, rather than a broad pattern of joint filing, is driving most of the collaborative activity in this set.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to coated and hollow microneedle systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape
The ranking covers 24 companies returned by the data endpoint for this search, counted in records – not a top-50 or top-100 list, and not a share of the 87-record total, since the ranking and the record total are different units.
A single filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 28 records, far above the fifth-place holder at 10 and the tenth-place holder at just 2 – a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-plus-long-tail landscape rather than an evenly split one.
A second tier still worth watching
Fifth place sits at 10 records, roughly a third of the leader's count. Filers in this band are worth tracking for freedom-to-operate work even though none currently rival the top position.
Most of the ranked field files sparingly
By tenth place the count is down to 2 records, and the ranking runs to 24 companies in total. That pattern is typical of a field with one or two anchor filers and a wide base of occasional or single-project entrants.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech Research Corporation | 0 | — |
| Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. | 0 | — |
| 3M Innovative Properties Company | 0 | — |
| Toppan Holdings Inc. | 0 | — |
| THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIV | 0 | — |
| INCYTO | 0 | — |
| PRAUSNITZ MARK R | 0 | — |
| STC.UNM | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up work depending on whether the reader is scoping freedom-to-operate, evaluating a partner, or looking for a filing gap.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's claim set
With one assignee holding 28 of the ranked records, any new coated or hollow microneedle filing should be checked against that portfolio's specific claim language before committing to a design direction.
Explore the leader's portfolio in EurekaTrack the second-tier filers for emerging combinations
The band around fifth place, at 10 records, is where cross-licensing or acquisition activity is more likely to surface next, since none of these filers yet rival the leader's position.
Run a custom assignee comparison in EurekaTest claim language in the under-claimed branches
Sub-areas like sterilization method and coating uniformity verification show thinner representation in this IPC composition, which is where a well-drafted first claim has more room to stand.
Draft and stress-test claims in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked field with 28 records, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 10 and the tenth-place holder at 2. The ranking covers 24 companies in total, so this is a leader-plus-long-tail landscape rather than one split evenly across many firms. Anyone assessing freedom-to-operate should start with that leading portfolio before looking at the smaller filers.
Filings peaked in 2021 at 10 records and fell to 0 by 2024, the last year this dataset can treat as a complete year of publications. That is a genuine -100% move over that span, but 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months. A fair reading is that filing activity had cooled by the mid-2020s on complete-year data, without assuming the most recent partial years continue that decline.
Mostly hardware. A61M, devices for body fluids, appears in 67.8% of the 87 records in scope, ahead of A61K medicinal-preparation claims at 51.7%. MEMS manufacturing claims under B81C also show up in 21.8% of records, reinforcing that fabrication and device geometry carry more claim weight than the payload itself in this dataset.
WO2009072830A2, filed by Incyto and published in 2009, claims a hollow microneedle array with a tapered upper portion sized to reduce penetration pain and a bore geometry sized for fluid delivery along the needle length. It is a foundational hollow-bore design rather than a coating or formulation patent. Anyone designing a new hollow microneedle should check the specific diameter and taper language in this filing before finalising a bore profile.
The IPC composition points to sterilization methods, coating uniformity verification and sharpness retention under repeated use as comparatively thin branches relative to the core device and formulation classes. These are not zero-filing areas, but they sit behind A61M and A61K in claim density across the 87 records reviewed here. A targeted claim in one of these branches, paired with a specific fabrication or testing method, has more room to stand than a broad device-shape claim.
Research Coated and Hollow Microneedle Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole coated and hollow microneedle systems 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.