Computational Read-Across Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Computational and read-across patents: mapping who claims QSAR, applicability domain and structural alert methods
Concentrated but not locked up. The top 5 assignees hold 42.3% of all 104 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 65.4% — a leader well ahead of a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants. Filings rose to a peak of 9 records in 2021, held at 9 again in 2024 (0% change across that span), and the partial 2025-2026 counts should not be read as a slowdown given the publication lag.
- 1TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD9
- 2FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS INC9
- 3SELEGO9
- 4UNIV GENT9
- 5ID BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD8
See the full computational and read across approaches analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions about this landscape
What counts as a computational or read-across patent in this landscape?
This landscape covers patent records that combine core computational toxicology methods — read-across, QSAR modelling and in silico toxicology — with the supporting technical work needed to make those methods defensible, such as analogue identification, data gap filling, uncertainty documentation, applicability domain definition and structural alert flagging. It excludes records that only mention these terms in passing without claiming the underlying method. The scope runs from 2015 through mid-2026 across 104 published records.
Who are the leading patent filers in computational read-across toxicology?
The ranking spans 48 companies, with the leading assignee holding 9 of the 104 records and the fifth-ranked holder at 8. The top 5 assignees together account for 42.3% of all records, and the top 10 account for 65.4%, which means the field has meaningful concentration at the top but still leaves a long tail of smaller filers. No single company holds anything close to a majority of filings.
Is patent filing in this field growing or slowing down?
Filing activity peaked at 9 records in 2021 and returned to 9 records again in 2024, a 0% change across that three-year span — best read as a plateau rather than growth or decline. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so recent-looking dips should not be read as a real slowdown yet. 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as reasonably complete.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Computational and Read Across Approaches covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.