Cryo-Electron Tomography Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Top-heavy from the start. the leading assignee alone accounts for 22 of 82 records, and the top 5 combined hold 62.2% of all 82 records in scope.
- Filing peaked in 2020, at 11 records for the year, with no complete year since showing a comparable level once publication lag is factored in.
- Technology claims spread across eight IPC subclasses, from electron-tube hardware (H01J, 25.6%) to image processing (G06T, 23.2%) and peptide/protein work (C07K, 22.0%) — no single subclass dominates.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 82 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the cryo-electron tomography patent record shows
Cryo-electron tomography sits at the intersection of electron-microscope hardware, computational image reconstruction and structural biology, and the patent record reflects that split. Filings tied to missing-wedge correction, dose-budget management and specimen-thickness handling co-exist with claims on subtomogram averaging workflows and fiducial-based tilt-series alignment. The dataset in scope covers 82 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026.
The assignee ranking is concentrated: a small number of research universities and one instrument maker account for most of the filing activity, while a long tail of single- or double-digit filers rounds out the remaining share. Receiving-office data shows the United States as the primary filing venue, with PCT and European filings trailing behind.
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 82-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Recorded filings begin at 1 in 2017, climb to a peak of 11 in 2020, and taper toward 2026 (0, but the year is only partially published as of the 2026-07-31 cut-off). Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the last one to two years understate true filing activity; treat the apparent decline after 2020 with that caveat rather than as a confirmed slowdown.
IPC subclass composition
G01N (material analysis and testing) leads at 29.3% of the 82 records in scope, followed closely by H01J (electron and discharge tubes) at 25.6% and G06T (image data processing) at 23.2%. C07K (peptides and proteins), A61B (diagnosis and surgery), A61K (medicinal preparations), G06K (data recognition) and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) each cover between roughly 15% and 22% of records. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares sum to well over 100% — they describe overlap, not a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 82 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cryo-Electron Tomography with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cryo-electron tomography and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the dataset
Apparatus for determining 3-dimensional atomic level structure and method thereof (US20220188696A1)
The filing describes a data-generation pipeline: building a three-dimensional atomic model of a nanomaterial, deriving three-dimensional atomic-level structure volume data from that model, simulating a tilt series by projecting the volume data across a range of tilt angles, and reconstructing a three-dimensional atomic-structure tomogram from the simulated series.Filed by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, published 2022-06-16.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170309441A1 | System for orienting a sample using a diffraction pattern | 33 |
| 2 | US20090232377A1 | Iterative methods for dose reduction and image enhancement in tomography | 29 |
| 3 | WO2008017076A2 | Iterative methods for dose reduction and image enhancement in tomography | 21 |
| 4 | US20140131574A1 | Control imaging methods in advanced ultrafast electron microscopy | 20 |
| 5 | US20200150266A1 | Synthetic Apertures for Long-Range, Sub-Diffraction Limited Visible Imaging Using Fourier Ptychography | 18 |
| 6 | US20120309904A1 | Direct Hierarchical Assembly of Nanoparticles | 17 |
| 7 | US20200272805A1 | Using convolution neural networks for on-the-fly single particle reconstruction | 14 |
| 8 | US9978557B2 | System for orienting a sample using a diffraction pattern | 14 |
| 9 | WO2020160671A1 | Systems and methods for performing serial electron diffraction nanocrystallography | 13 |
| 10 | US20110103681A1 | 3D atomic scale imaging methods | 9 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations; read them as a signal of influence within the searched set, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the assignee ranking, filing trend and IPC composition are read together.
Filing activity sits with a small group
The top 5 assignees combined account for 62.2% of all 82 records in scope, and the top 10 extend that to 85.4%. A single leader holds 22 records outright. New entrants filing broad claims in core tilt-series or subtomogram-averaging methods are filing into space with an established prior-art base.
Peak filing activity has already passed — probably
Recorded filings peaked at 11 in 2020 and have not matched that level since. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the drop-off visible in 2024-2026 is at least partly an artefact of the data cut-off rather than a confirmed retreat from the field.
No single technology axis owns the field
G01N, H01J and G06T each cover roughly a quarter of the 82 records, with C07K, A61B, A61K, G06K and C12N close behind. That spread means claims on hardware (electron optics), software (reconstruction algorithms) and biological application (structural targets) are all active simultaneously rather than sequentially.
US filing dominates, but international coverage is thin
Of the receiving offices recorded, the United States carries the largest share at 37, ahead of WIPO/PCT at 20 and Europe at 13, with Israel, Australia and Canada each in single digits. A filer clearing the US bar has not necessarily cleared equivalent bars elsewhere.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cryo-electron tomography, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and who is moving
The ranked assignee list covers 45 companies and research institutions counted by patent family, from a clear leader with 22 records down through a long tail of low-volume filers.
One assignee sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 22 of the 82 records in scope — well ahead of fifth place at 5 records and tenth place at 3. That gap is the clearest signal in the dataset: a broad prior-art base already sits under the field's most obvious claim territory.
A shallow drop-off after the leader
Fifth place holds 5 records and tenth place holds 3 — a gentle slope rather than a cliff, consistent with several research institutions and one instrument maker filing steadily rather than one company running away with the category.
Filing often happens in university-inventor pairs
Ten co-assignee pairings appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairs each sharing 5 filings — patterns consistent with a university research group filing jointly with named principal investigators rather than pure corporate R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | — |
| FEI Company | 0 | — |
| Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen | 0 | — |
| European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) | 0 | — |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 0 | — |
| POLMAN ALBERT | 0 | — |
| DIONNE JENNIFER A | 0 | — |
| COENEN TOON | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing or R&D scoping.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 5
With 62.2% of the 82 records held by five assignees, any new filing in core tilt-series, alignment or subtomogram-averaging methods should start with a clearance search against that concentrated set.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaWatch the 2020 peak for expiring priority windows
The 2020 filing peak of 11 records is now old enough that priority and continuation windows on some of those families are closing, which can open licensing or design-around opportunities.
Track family status in EurekaScope the under-claimed branches directly
Focused ion milling, dose-fractionation scheduling and fiducial-free alignment show thinner claim density than the core IPC subclasses — a faster path for a first-mover claim than the crowded G01N/H01J space.
Map white space in EurekaCommon questions about cryo-electron tomography patents
The assignee ranking in this dataset covers 45 companies and institutions, counted by patent family, out of 82 total records in scope. One assignee leads with 22 records, well ahead of fifth place at 5 and tenth place at 3, and the top 5 combined hold 62.2% of all 82 records. That pattern points to a small group of research universities and at least one electron-microscope instrument maker driving most of the filing activity, with a long tail of single- and double-digit filers behind them.
Recorded filings rose to a peak of 11 in 2020 and have not matched that level in any complete year since, based on the 2017-2026 trend in this dataset. However, publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so the apparent decline in the most recent one to two years is at least partly a reporting artefact rather than a confirmed drop in inventive activity. A reliable read on the post-2020 trend will only be possible once those years are fully published.
The 82 records in scope span eight overlapping IPC subclasses: G01N (material analysis and testing) at 29.3%, H01J (electron and discharge tubes) at 25.6%, G06T (image data processing) at 23.2%, C07K (peptides and proteins) at 22.0%, A61B (diagnosis and surgery) at 19.5%, A61K (medicinal preparations) at 18.3%, G06K (data recognition) at 15.9%, and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) at 14.6%. Because a record can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages add up to more than 100%, reflecting genuine overlap between imaging hardware, computational reconstruction and biological-application claims rather than a clean split of the field.
Based on the technology composition and claim density in this dataset, branches like focused ion milling lamella preparation, dose-fractionation scheduling algorithms, missing-wedge deep-learning correction, fiducial-free alignment methods and in-situ correlative cryo-FIB/SEM workflows show thinner coverage than the core G01N, H01J and G06T subclasses. That does not guarantee an open field — it means these areas warrant a targeted freedom-to-operate check before assuming they are unclaimed, since coverage can be uneven rather than absent.
US20220188696A1, filed by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology and published 2022-06-16, describes a method for generating simulated three-dimensional atomic-level structure data and a corresponding simulated tilt series, then reconstructing a tomogram volume from that simulated series. It is narrower than a general tilt-series or subtomogram-averaging claim: it centres on generating training or reference data from an atomic model rather than on acquiring or reconstructing tomograms from real specimen data. Anyone building synthetic training pipelines for tomogram reconstruction should read its claim language closely, but it does not on its face block conventional experimental cryo-ET acquisition or reconstruction workflows.
Research Cryo-Electron Tomography in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cryo-electron tomography 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.