CRISPR Gene Editing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing has plateaued, not grown. the 2022 midpoint (282) sits above the 2024 peak-adjacent trend, and counts are already declining into 2026 even before the ~18-month publication lag is accounted for.
- Two institutions dominate the citation graph. the strongest co-assignee pair in the dataset is filed jointly 165 times, far ahead of the next-strongest pairing at 37.
- Momentum has shifted away from the founding assignees. the earliest, most-cited filers are now posting year-on-year declines of 60-89% in the latest year, while smaller institutes hold flat.
What the CRISPR patent record actually shows
The dataset covers 1,679 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine CRISPR, base editing or prime editing claims with specific technical elements: guide RNA design, off-target effect mitigation, delivery vectors, editing efficiency or deaminase chemistry, filtered to the core genetic-engineering and medicinal-preparation IPC classes. This is a claims-level view of a field that is usually discussed in scientific-publication terms, and the two pictures diverge in a useful way: filing peaked at 295 families in 2024, but the growth curve from the 2022 midpoint onward is flat, not rising.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 figures in this dataset are undercounts by construction; treat the apparent decline in the most recent one to two years as partly an artefact of that lag, layered on top of a genuine plateau that started around 2022.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,679-family dataset: how filing volume has moved year on year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A plateau after 2022, not a growth curve
Filings rose from 39 in 2017 to a peak of 295 in 2024, but the 2022 figure of 282 already sat close to that peak — the intervening years show flat-to-declining growth rather than acceleration. The 2025-2026 drop should be read alongside the ~18-month publication lag rather than taken as a sudden collapse in filing activity.
Claim density concentrates in two subclasses
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) appears in 1,668 of 1,679 records — effectively the whole corpus — confirming this is where the core editing-mechanism claims sit. A61K (medicinal preparations, 430) and C07K (peptides and proteins, 346) are the next-heaviest classes, marking where therapeutic formulation and protein-engineering claims layer on top of the core editing mechanism. A01H (plant breeding, 88) and C12Q (DNA/enzyme assays, 77) are comparatively thin, which is worth noting for anyone assuming agricultural or diagnostic CRISPR applications are as heavily claimed as therapeutic ones.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,679 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on CRISPR Gene Editing Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about crispr gene editing technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in the corpus
Fusion protein that improves gene editing efficiency and application thereof (US12674154B2)
The patent covers a fusion protein combining a single-stranded DNA binding domain, a nucleoside deaminase and a nuclease, designed so the binding domain holds single-stranded DNA exposed to the deaminase for longer, raising base-editing efficiency for C-G to T-A conversions in cytosine base editors.Filed by East China Normal University, published 2026-07-07 — among the most recent grants in the dataset.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2020191248A1 | Method and compositions for editing nucleotide sequences | 175 |
| 2 | WO2019126762A2 | CAS12a systems, methods, and compositions for targeted RNA base editing | 139 |
| 3 | WO2020191233A1 | Methods and compositions for editing nucleotide sequences | 124 |
| 4 | WO2019126709A1 | CAS12b systems, methods, and compositions for targeted DNA base editing | 118 |
| 5 | WO2020191234A1 | Methods and compositions for editing nucleotide sequences | 113 |
| 6 | US20190010481A1 | Variants of CPF1 (CAS12a) With Altered PAM Specificity | 108 |
| 7 | WO2020191249A1 | Methods and compositions for editing nucleotide sequences | 97 |
| 8 | WO2020181202A1 | A:t to t:a base editing through adenine deamination and oxidation | 97 |
| 9 | WO2019126716A1 | CAS12b systems, methods, and compositions for targeted RNA base editing | 94 |
| 10 | WO2018195545A2 | Variants of CPF1 (CAS12a) with altered PAM specificity | 91 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings that have simply had more time to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of foundational influence, not of current commercial priority.
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 pattern means for strategy
Three patterns emerge from the trend, citation and co-filing data that matter more than any single ranking.
The core mechanism claims are largely staked out
A field that grows from 39 to nearly 300 annual families and then flattens is telling you the foundational claim space — the editing mechanisms themselves — is occupied. New filers are more likely to find room in delivery, formulation or efficiency improvements than in core Cas-protein or guide-design claims.
A small cluster of families anchors the prior-art landscape
The five most-cited records all sit in the WO2019-WO2020 filing window and cover base-editing systems built on Cas12a and Cas12b variants. Any new filing touching base editing at the nuclease level will almost certainly need to be checked against this cluster first.
One institutional partnership dominates joint filing
Of 10 identified co-assignee pairs, one pairing accounts for far more joint families than the rest combined, with a second pairing trailing well behind. This concentration means a large share of the most defensible claim territory is co-owned rather than singly held, which complicates both licensing and design-around analysis.
The founding filers are slowing while others hold steady
The institutions behind the earliest, most-cited families are now filing at a fraction of their historical rate, while smaller and newer entrants show flat year-on-year activity. That divergence suggests the next wave of contested claims is more likely to come from newer filers working peripheral applications than from the original mechanism patents.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to crispr gene editing technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee landscape and where filing gates sit
Filing is concentrated among a small set of research institutions with strong co-assignment ties, but the momentum data shows that concentration easing at the margins.
Deep, co-owned claim territory
The strongest co-assignee relationship in the dataset spans hundreds of jointly filed families, reflecting the long-running academic partnership behind the field's foundational CRISPR and base-editing patents. Their recent filing rate has fallen sharply, but the existing portfolio remains the reference point for freedom-to-operate work.
Slower filing from clinical-stage base-editing developers
Assignees developing base-editing therapeutics show declining but non-zero recent filing, consistent with portfolios shifting from broad platform claims toward narrower, indication-specific improvements as programmes move into clinic.
Smaller institutes filing at a steady, low rate
Several research institutes outside the founding cluster maintain flat filing counts year on year rather than declining, suggesting continued, incremental investment in narrower technical niches rather than platform-level claims.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| President and Fellows of Harvard College | 2 | -89% |
| Broad Institute, Inc. | 2 | -86% |
| Beam Therapeutics Inc. | 2 | -60% |
| University of Massachusetts | 1 | -67% |
| Institute for Basic Science | 1 | -75% |
| Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences | 1 | 0% |
| PRIME MEDICINE INC | 0 | -100% |
| ShanghaiTech University | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The filing and citation data point to specific next steps depending on whether you're clearing a product, scouting licensing targets, or deciding where to file.
Run a claims-level freedom-to-operate check
Before committing to a base- or prime-editing delivery mechanism, check it against the top-cited WO2019-WO2020 family cluster and the dominant co-assignee portfolio identified here, since these anchor most of the mechanism-level prior art.
Explore the full claims in EurekaTrack momentum, not just rank
The founding assignees' sharp YoY declines suggest the next contested claims will come from newer or smaller filers in delivery and formulation, not from further platform-level filings by the historical leaders.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaEvaluate the under-claimed branches
Delivery vectors for plant genomes, tissue-specific deaminase targeting and non-viral base-editor delivery all show thinner filing density than the core mechanism classes — each is a candidate area for a first-mover claim.
Search white space in EurekaCommon questions about CRISPR patent activity
The most-cited families in this dataset — including the WO2019126762A2 and WO2019126709A1 filings covering Cas12a and Cas12b base-editing systems — sit within a small cluster of academic institutions with a long-running co-filing relationship, one pairing alone accounting for 165 joint families. These families are the ones most frequently cited by later filings, making them the practical starting point for any freedom-to-operate review in base editing. Ownership of the core mechanism claims is concentrated, but downstream delivery and formulation claims are much more widely distributed across smaller filers.
Not meaningfully since 2022. Filings rose from 39 in 2017 to a peak of 295 in 2024, but the 2022 figure of 282 was already close to that peak, meaning the intervening growth was flat rather than accelerating. The apparent drop into 2025-2026 should be read with caution, since patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years are undercounted by construction rather than reflecting a sudden stop in filing activity.
The IPC composition shows core editing-mechanism classes (C12N) are claimed in almost every record, while plant breeding (A01H, 88 records) and DNA/enzyme assay classes (C12Q, 77 records) are comparatively thin. That gap points to under-claimed territory in agricultural delivery vectors and enzymatic verification methods for editing outcomes, both of which sit adjacent to the dense therapeutic core rather than duplicating it. A first claim in these areas is more likely to clear prior art cleanly than one filed against the core Cas-protein or guide-RNA mechanisms.
PCT (WIPO) applications lead the dataset at 406 records, ahead of the United States (305), China (281) and Europe (259), with Australia and Canada trailing. That spread means a clearance or licensing analysis limited to US grants will miss a large share of the relevant family — most serious filers in this field are pursuing international protection through the PCT route before national phase entry, rather than filing nationally from the outset.
The founding institutions behind the field's most-cited families are showing steep year-on-year declines in the latest year — as much as an 89% drop for one leading assignee — while smaller institutes hold flat. This is consistent with a field where the core mechanism claims are already staked out: further platform-level filing by the original assignees has diminishing returns, so their patent activity has shifted toward licensing and enforcement of existing portfolios rather than new filing, leaving room for newer entrants to claim peripheral applications.
Research CRISPR Gene Editing Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole crispr gene editing 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.