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-technology-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Continuous Glucose MonitoringContinuous Glucose Monitoring Patents: Who Holds the Ground and Where It Opens Up
- Filing activity peaked in 2018 at 33 families and has run flat-to-declining since, with the 2022 midpoint at just 12 — this is a maturing claim landscape, not a growing one.
- A61B dominates at 173 of 184 records while informatics (G16H, 46) and AI-based computing (G06N, 18) sit as smaller, newer layers on top of the core sensor claims.
- The most-cited records cluster around one filing family on smartphone-integrated CGM, with citation counts from 86 up to 252 — a strong signal of foundational influence, not current freedom to operate.
184
Published Records
92%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+225%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (4 records) with 2024 (13) — 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 184 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the filing record shows
Continuous glucose monitoring patents concentrate overwhelmingly in A61B (diagnosis and surgery), with material-analysis claims under G01N and fluid-delivery claims under A61M forming the next layers down. That structure reflects a technology where the sensor and the insertion mechanism are still the primary battlegrounds, even as G16H healthcare-informatics filings and a smaller but present G06N AI-computing layer show algorithmic glucose-profile work becoming a distinct claim category rather than an afterthought.
Filing volume peaked in 2018 and has not returned to that level since; the 2022 midpoint of 12 families against a 2018 peak of 33 points to a landscape where the core claim space has already been staked out. Publication lag of roughly 18 months means the 2025-2026 figures will revise upward, but the multi-year decline predates that lag and is unlikely to be explained away by it entirely.
Family filings by year, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology 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
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
184 patent families, filtered to records that explicitly address enzyme stability, sensor drift, insertion comfort, wear duration or closed-loop insulin control, give a narrower and more decision-relevant view than the broader CGM literature.
A landscape past its filing peak
Filings ran from 9 in 2017 up to a peak of 33 in 2018, then declined toward a 2022 midpoint of 12 and 4 in the most recent (partial) year. Read the last one to two years as undercounted rather than as evidence of a further drop.
Sensor and delivery hardware still dominate the IPC mix
A61B accounts for 173 of 184 records, with G01N (62) and A61M (54) as substantial secondary categories tied to sensor chemistry and infusion hardware respectively. G16H (46) and G06N (18) mark where informatics and algorithmic layers are being claimed alongside the physical sensor.
Shares are the percentage of the 184 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 Technology 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 Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about continuous glucose monitoring technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The records shaping this space
Representative recent grant
Retrospective retrofitting method to generate a continuous glucose concentration profile (US12226234B2, Dexcom, 2025-02-18)
DEXCOM, INC.
The patent addresses a known limitation of CGM devices: subcutaneous glucose readings lack the accuracy needed to serve directly as outcome metrics in clinical trials, so frequent blood-glucose reference draws are still required. The claimed method retrofits a quasi-continuous blood-glucose profile by combining sparse, high-accuracy blood-glucose reference measurements with the continuous but lower-precision CGM sensor stream.Abstract trimmed for length; see full text for claim scope.
Most-cited records in the dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20140012117A1 | Systems and methods for leveraging smartphone features in continuous glucose monitoring | 252 |
| 2 | US20130060105A1 | Orthogonally Redundant Sensor Systems and Methods | 232 |
| 3 | US20140012118A1 | Systems and methods for leveraging smartphone features in continuous glucose monitoring | 138 |
| 4 | US20160066843A1 | Systems and methods for leveraging smartphone features in continuous glucose monitoring | 91 |
| 5 | US20180303417A1 | Systems and methods for leveraging smartphone features in continuous glucose monitoring | 86 |
| 6 | US20170348482A1 | Control-to-range failsafes | 80 |
| 7 | WO2016161254A1 | Methods and systems for analyzing glucose data measured from a person having diabetes | 71 |
| 8 | US20190076070A1 | Methods, systems, and devices for calibration and optimization of glucose sensors and sensor output | 61 |
| 9 | US20150164371A1 | Use of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) in gross failure analysis | 57 |
| 10 | US20150164387A1 | Use of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) in intelligent diagnostics | 44 |
Citation counts are drawn from within the searched corpus and favour earlier filings; treat them as a measure of influence on later filers, not of present-day commercial weight.
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 Technology 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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once volume, timing and citation weight are read together.
Filing timing
2018 peak: 33
families in the peak year
The core sensor claims are already staked out
A peak in 2018 followed by a decline to 12 at the 2022 midpoint means the foundational hardware and enzyme-stability claims in this dataset were largely filed years ago. New entrants filing broad sensor-accuracy claims now are filing into dense prior art rather than open space.
Based on 184 families, 2017-2026
Claim distribution
173 of 184
records touch A61B
Hardware still outweighs software claims by a wide margin
G16H informatics (46) and G06N AI-based computing (18) are present but small relative to the A61B core. That gap suggests algorithmic glucose-profile and prediction claims are less contested than the sensor and insertion mechanisms themselves.
IPC subclass counts, this dataset
Citation concentration
252 citations
on the top-cited record
Influence is concentrated in one smartphone-integration family
The five most-cited records in this dataset are all variants of one smartphone-feature-leveraging CGM filing, with counts from 86 to 252. That concentration marks a foundational filing that later applicants had to design around or build on, not necessarily a still-active enforcement risk.
Within-corpus citation counts
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 technology, 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 Technology 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
Who is active, and where momentum has stalled
Recent-year momentum data shows a landscape where the historically largest filers have gone quiet rather than one where a new leader has emerged.
Momentum
-100% YoY
for several established filers
Established device makers show zero recent-year filings
Multiple long-standing assignees in this space, including major CGM and infusion device makers, recorded zero families in the latest year with year-over-year drops of -100% where a prior filing existed. This is consistent with the overall post-2018 decline rather than isolated to any one company.
Recent-year momentum, this dataset
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee combinations
Co-filing is limited and concentrated among individuals
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest repeated pairings involving the same named inventor across three separate combinations. That points to internal cross-team collaboration within a single organisation rather than inter-company joint filing.
Co-assignee pair counts
Geography
94 US filings
of the tracked receiving offices
Filing is US-centred with a secondary EPO and Canada presence
The United States receives more than three times the filings of the next-largest office (EPO, 24), with Canada, Australia, India and WIPO/PCT making up a smaller secondary tier. Enforcement and freedom-to-operate diligence should weight US prior art most heavily.
Receiving office counts, this dataset
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Dexcom, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Roche Diabetes Care | 0 | — |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd | 0 | — |
| University of Padova | 0 | — |
| Abbott Diabetes Care | 0 | -100% |
| Tandem Diabetes Care | 0 | — |
| WOLFE KATHERINE T | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology 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 from here
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white-space filing, or competitive tracking.
Run a freedom-to-operate check on the top-cited family
The smartphone-integration filings cited from 86 to 252 times sit at the centre of this landscape. Any new sensor-connectivity claim should be checked against that family specifically, not just the broader A61B corpus.
Explore this landscape in EurekaProbe the informatics and AI layers for open claim space
G16H and G06N filings are a fraction of the A61B volume, which suggests algorithmic glucose-profile and prediction methods carry thinner prior art than the physical sensor and insertion mechanisms.
Explore this landscape in EurekaTrack assignees with zero recent-year filings
Several established filers show -100% year-over-year activity. Confirm whether that reflects a genuine pullback or a publication-lag artefact before treating that claim space as abandoned.
Explore this landscape in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology 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 on CGM patents
The dataset's most-cited records are variants of a single smartphone-integrated CGM filing family, with within-corpus citation counts ranging from 86 to 252. Several long-established device makers in this space filed heavily through the mid-2010s but show zero families in the most recent year, so current filing volume and historical citation weight point to different pictures. Anyone assessing market position should look at both the ranking table and the recent-year momentum figures together rather than either alone.
No, based on this dataset filing activity peaked in 2018 at 33 families and has declined toward 12 at the 2022 midpoint, with only 4 in the most recent, still-partial year. Publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the final one to two years will revise upward somewhat. Even accounting for that lag, the multi-year decline from the 2018 peak is a real trend, not a reporting artefact.
A61B, covering diagnosis and surgery devices, appears in 173 of the 184 records in this dataset, making it by far the dominant category. G01N (material analysis, 62 records) and A61M (body-fluid devices, 54 records) form substantial secondary layers tied to sensor chemistry and delivery hardware. Software and informatics categories, G16H and G06N, are present but comparatively small, suggesting the physical sensor and insertion hardware remain the most heavily claimed ground.
The clearest under-claimed areas sit adjacent to the dense A61B and G01N core: enzyme stability under thermal cycling, sensor drift compensation algorithms, insertion-site comfort mechanisms, and closed-loop dosing tuned to extended wear durations. These branches show thinner filing density than the core sensor-accuracy and insertion-mechanism claims. A first claim in these areas should specify the measurable parameter being controlled, such as drift tolerance over a stated wear period, rather than the sensor hardware itself.
US12226234B2, granted to Dexcom in February 2025, covers a retrospective retrofitting method that combines sparse, high-accuracy blood-glucose reference readings with a continuous but lower-precision CGM sensor stream to produce a quasi-continuous blood-glucose profile. It targets the clinical-trial use case where CGM readings alone are not accurate enough to serve as an outcome metric without frequent reference blood draws. It does not cover the underlying CGM sensor hardware itself, so it sits in the informatics/algorithmic layer rather than the physical sensor claim space.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology 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 Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole continuous glucose monitoring technology 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.