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/continuous-glucose-monitoring-sensor-chemistry-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Diabetes TechnologyContinuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry Patents
- One assignee dominates the ranked field: the leader holds 52 records against a fifth-place count of 2 and a tenth-place count of 1 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
- Filing has plateaued, not fallen: 2021-to-2024 growth sits at 0% on the same-year figures the dataset supports, after a 2020 peak of 19 filings.
- Enzyme and impedance chemistry dominate the claim map: A61B and A61M together cover the large majority of the 77 records, while C07F organo-metallic mediator chemistry sits at just 10.4%.
77
Published Records
0%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
14
Active Filers Ranked
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (2) — 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.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What this landscape covers
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor chemistry spans the enzyme layer, mediator and membrane choices that determine how an implanted or wearable sensor converts interstitial glucose into a stable electrical signal. This landscape reviews 77 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine glucose sensor chemistry terms with specific technical failure points: glucose oxidase layer composition, mediator chemistry, diffusion limiting membrane design, oxygen dependence, sensor drift and interfering substance rejection.
The scope favours claims that name a chemistry mechanism rather than a generic sensor housing, so the record set is weighted toward the enzymatic and electrochemical layers that sit closest to the skin interface, not toward transmitter electronics or app software.
Records by filing year, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Filing & Classification Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The trend line and IPC composition below are drawn directly from the 77 records in scope; publication lag means the final one to two years will keep rising as more filings publish.
A plateau after a 2020 peak
Filings rose to a peak of 19 in 2020, then settled into a lower band; the 2021-to-2024 comparison the dataset supports is flat at 0% growth. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, so treat the tail as a floor, not a decline.
Diagnosis and body-fluid devices dominate the class map
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) appears in 79.2% of the 77 records and A61M (devices for body fluids) in 44.2%, confirming that most claims are written around the sensor-body interface. Enzyme/DNA measurement (C12Q, 15.6%) and organo-metallic mediator compounds (C07F, 10.4%) are present but far thinner, and nanotechnology applications (B82Y) appear in a single record.
Shares are the percentage of the 77 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 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about continuous glucose monitoring sensor chemistry and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records in this landscape
Most-Cited Record
Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy enabled continuous glucose monitoring sensor systems
ASCENSIA DIABETES CARE HOLDING AG
The use of electrical impedance spectroscopy to adjust calibration settings in an in vivo monitoring system, such as an in vivo continuous glucose monitoring sensor. The adjustments can compensate for the condition of the sensor membrane in vivo.US20110040163A1, assigned to Ascensia Diabetes Care, cited 281 times — the single most-cited record in this landscape.
Highest-cited published records, 2015-2026 scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110040163A1 | Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy enabled continuous glucose monitoring sensor systems | 281 |
| 2 | US20090198117A1 | Analyte sensors having nanostructured electrodes and methods for making and using them | 169 |
| 3 | US20160066843A1 | Systems and methods for leveraging smartphone features in continuous glucose monitoring | 91 |
| 4 | EP2590559A2 | Method and/or system for determining blood glucose reference sample times | 48 |
| 5 | US20170315077A1 | In-situ chemistry stack for continuous glucose sensors | 47 |
| 6 | US8868151B2 | Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy enabled continuous glucose monitoring sensor system | 43 |
| 7 | US20160073964A1 | Retrospective retrofitting method to generate a continuous glucose concentration profile by exploiting contin… | 29 |
| 8 | WO2012006208A2 | Method and/or system for determining blood glucose reference sample times | 24 |
| 9 | US20120006100A1 | Method and/or system for determining blood glucose reference sample times | 15 |
| 10 | WO2009097357A1 | Analyte sensors having nanostructured electrodes and methods for making and using them | 13 |
Citation counts accumulate over time, so older records such as this one are structurally favoured; treat the ranking as a signal of influence on the field, not of current filing activity.
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 Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. 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 say about the field
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the IPC composition are read together.
Concentration
52 vs 2
leader vs fifth place
One filer, then a steep drop
The leading assignee holds 52 of the records in the ranked field, while fifth place holds only 2 and tenth place holds 1. That is not a gradual long tail — it is a single dominant filer followed by a scattered field of small filers, several of them individual inventors rather than corporations.
Based on the 14-company assignee ranking
Momentum
0%
2021→2024 growth
Filing has plateaued since the 2020 peak
After peaking at 19 filings in 2020, the field settled into a lower, flat band: the 2021-to-2024 comparison shows 0% growth on complete-year figures. Recent-year momentum tables show the tracked assignees all at zero in the latest year, consistent with a maturing rather than an expanding filing pattern.
2024 is the last year treated as complete
Claim density
79.2%
of records carry A61B
Diagnosis and body-fluid classes absorb most claims
A61B and A61M between them touch the large majority of the 77 records, meaning most competitive activity sits at the sensor-body interface rather than in the underlying enzyme or mediator chemistry. C07F organo-metallic compounds, the class closest to novel mediator chemistry, covers only 10.4% of records.
Shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple IPC classes
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 continuous glucose monitoring sensor chemistry, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players & Landscape
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
The ranked field contains 14 companies; one name accounts for the great majority of activity documented here, with the rest spread thinly across corporate and individual filers.
Leader
52 records
of the ranked field
A single dominant assignee
One assignee's 52 records dwarf the rest of the ranking, and the strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset also centres on this filer working with academic co-applicants, suggesting a deliberate strategy of covering chemistry variants broadly rather than narrowly.
Leader count taken directly from the assignee ranking
Long tail
1 record
tenth-place count
Individual inventors appear alongside corporates
Several names in the ranked field are individual inventors rather than companies, filing single records. This is typical of a chemistry-heavy niche where a specific membrane or mediator formulation can be claimed by a small team without a large corporate filing programme behind it.
Based on the 14-company assignee ranking
Geography
33 filings
at the US receiving office
US-centred, with a solid European presence
The United States receives the largest share of filings in this set, with the EPO, Canada, Germany, WIPO and Australia following at smaller but non-trivial counts, indicating that protection strategies extend beyond a single jurisdiction for most serious filers.
Receiving office counts from the dataset in scope
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Medtronic MiniMed Inc | 0 | — |
| Dexcom Inc | 0 | -100% |
| I-SENS Inc | 0 | — |
| SOGANG UNIV RES & BUSINESS DEV FOUND | 0 | — |
| University of Padova | 0 | — |
| Bayer Healthcare LLC | 0 | — |
| RAMACHANDRAN MEENA | 0 | — |
| GOTTLIEB REBECCA K | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. 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 a field with one entrenched filer, a flat but not shrinking filing rate, and thin coverage in mediator and interference chemistry. The next steps depend on what the reader needs to decide.
Check freedom to operate against the leader's chemistry claims
With one assignee holding 52 of the ranked records, any new sensor-body interface design should be checked against that portfolio before committing to a claim strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate scan in EurekaScope a filing into the under-claimed mediator branches
C07F organo-metallic mediator chemistry sits at 10.4% of records — thin enough that a well-drafted first claim in non-enzymatic or oxygen-independent chemistry may find open space.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the most-cited prior art before drafting around it
US20110040163A1 and the other highly-cited records set the baseline that examiners and competitors will cite against new filings in this space.
Review cited prior art in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this landscape
One assignee holds 52 of the records in the 14-company ranked field, well ahead of the rest, where fifth place holds only 2 and tenth place holds 1. That gap is steep rather than gradual, meaning the field is not evenly contested. The remaining ranked names include both corporate filers and individual inventors, each typically holding a handful of records rather than a broad portfolio.
On the complete-year figures the dataset supports, filing is flat: the 2021-to-2024 comparison shows 0% growth after a 2020 peak of 19 filings. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts are still filling in and should not be read as a decline. The honest read is a plateau following an earlier surge, not a shrinking field.
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) and A61M (devices for body fluids) dominate, appearing in 79.2% and 44.2% of the 77 records respectively, because most claims are written around the sensor-body interface. C12Q covers enzyme and DNA-related measurement at 15.6%, while C07F, the class closest to organo-metallic mediator compounds, covers only 10.4%. A record can sit in several classes at once, so these figures do not sum to 100%.
US20110040163A1 covers the use of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy to adjust in-vivo calibration settings, compensating for the condition of the sensor membrane over time. It is the most-cited record in this landscape at 281 citations, assigned to Ascensia Diabetes Care. Any new design that uses impedance-based drift compensation as its calibration mechanism should be checked against this claim scope before finalising a chemistry or signal-processing approach.
The thinnest coverage relative to the sensor-body interface classes sits in organo-metallic mediator chemistry (C07F, 10.4% of records) and in nanotechnology-enabled electrode designs (B82Y, a single record). Oxygen-independent enzyme formulations and drift-compensating membrane materials are named within the search scope but are not concentrated under any single dominant assignee. That combination — present in scope, thin in claim density, no entrenched leader — is what marks a branch as open rather than crowded.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor Chemistry in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole continuous glucose monitoring sensor chemistry 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.