Cryo-EM Workflow Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Cryogenic Electron Microscopy Workflow Patents: Leaders, Filing Trends and Open Ground
395 filings, 44.5% of the field, sit with five assignees — the rest of the 888 records in scope trail behind a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants. Filings ran from 18 in 2017 to a peak of 155 in 2022, then fell to 101 by 2024 — a 29% decline over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in under normal publication lag and should not be read as a continued fall.
- 1REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC213
- 2RGT UNIV OF CALIFORNIA64
- 3UNITED KINGDOM RESEARCH AND INNOVATION59
- 4BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO30
- 5VRIJE UNIV BRUSSEL29
See the full cryogenic electron microscopy workflow 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 on cryo-EM workflow patents
Who holds the most patents in cryogenic electron microscopy workflow technology?
One assignee leads clearly with 213 of the 888 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked entity at 29 and the tenth-ranked at 19. The top five assignees combined hold 395 records, or 44.5% of the field, while the remaining ranked companies and a long tail of single-filing entrants divide the rest. This concentration pattern is typical of a workflow where foundational reagent and method claims were staked early by a small number of well-resourced institutions.
Is patent filing in this field growing or slowing down?
Filing activity peaked in 2022 at 155 records and declined to 101 by 2024, a 29% drop over that three-year span using the most recent years that can be treated as complete. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as evidence of a continuing slide. The pattern is more consistent with a maturing claim space than with a technology losing relevance.
What technology areas dominate cryo-EM workflow patent claims?
Peptide and protein claims under C07K appear in 61.6% of the 888 records, with medicinal preparation claims (A61K, 40.9%) and therapeutic activity claims (A61P, 37.3%) close behind. Material analysis and testing methods (G01N) reach 23.6%, while electron-optics hardware (H01J) trails at 10.6%. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these figures overlap rather than summing to a whole, but the pattern shows biological-reagent claims far outweighing imaging-hardware claims in filing density.
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 Cryogenic Electron Microscopy Workflow 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.