Cytometry Data Analysis Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees hold 36.9% of all 1,021 records in scope, and the top ten hold 51.5% — filing here is not evenly spread.
- Filings cooled after a 2020 peak. Annual filings peaked at 125 in 2020 and fell from 103 in 2021 to 65 in 2024, a 37% decline over that three-year span.
- Software classes rival the wet-lab ones. G06F digital data processing appears on 19.2% of records and G16B bioinformatics on 16.0% — nearly as often as the medicinal-preparations class A61K at 22.8%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (103 records) with 2024 (65) — 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 1,021 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This review covers patent filings and grants at the intersection of cytometry data analysis and standards work — automated gating, dimensionality reduction, batch-effect correction, clustering algorithms, file formats and population annotation applied to flow cytometry data. The scope spans 1,021 records published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawn from filings at the USPTO, EPO, WIPO and national offices including Australia, Canada and Germany.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real filing activity; 2024 is the last year that can be read as a complete picture. The analysis below uses patent families rather than raw document counts where possible, since families neutralise continuation filings and multi-jurisdiction duplicates.
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
Annual filing counts and IPC subclass shares across the 1,021 records in scope, drawn directly from the underlying dataset.
Filings rose to a 2020 peak, then eased back
Filings climbed from 71 in 2017 to a peak of 125 in 2020, then declined from 103 in 2021 to 65 in 2024 — a 37% drop over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in due to publication lag and should not be read as a continued fall.
Material analysis and digital processing dominate the classification mix
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears on 60.5% of the 1,021 records, reflecting the instrumentation and assay core of the field. A61K (medicinal preparations, 22.8%) and G16B (bioinformatics, 16.0%) show how much of the activity sits at the intersection of therapeutics and computation rather than in cytometry hardware alone. Because records can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be summed.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,021 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Cytometry Data Analysis and Standards with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about cytometry data analysis and standards and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a recent representative filing
System and method for measuring and analyzing minimal residual disease in childhood B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia by multiparameter flow cytometry
The filing describes a system for measuring minimal residual disease in pediatric B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia using multiparameter flow cytometry, comprising an acquisition subsystem with an MPFC instrument, a control and file generation subsystem, and an analytical subsystem for risk stratification and treatment-response monitoring.Filed by Medical University – Plovdiv, published 2026-01-22 as WO2026017796A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20080263468A1 | Graphical User Interface for Analysis and Comparison of Location-Specific Multiparameter Data Sets | 367 |
| 2 | WO2019097305A2 | Materials and methods for engineering cells and uses thereof in immuno-oncology | 115 |
| 3 | US10613017B2 | Biexponential transformation for particle sorters | 109 |
| 4 | US10113967B2 | Absorbance sprectrum scanning flow cytometry | 109 |
| 5 | US20180247195A1 | Methods for using artificial neural network analysis on flow cytometry data for cancer diagnosis | 98 |
| 6 | US20110178716A1 | Method for determining volume and hemoglobin content of individual red blood cells | 96 |
| 7 | US20110090500A1 | Flow cytometer apparatus for three dimensional difraction imaging and related methods | 92 |
| 8 | US6687395B1 | System for microvolume laser scanning cytometry | 91 |
| 9 | US20030009470A1 | Subtractive clustering for use in analysis of data | 87 |
| 10 | US9934364B1 | Methods for using artificial neural network analysis on flow cytometry data for cancer diagnosis | 79 |
Citation counts reward older records that have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence, not of current relevance.
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 a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are read against the denominators that actually apply to them.
Filing sits with a small group, not a long tail alone
The five leading assignees account for 36.9% of all 1,021 records, and the top ten for 51.5%. That leaves roughly half the field spread across the remaining ranked assignees plus unranked filers — a genuine long tail exists, but it sits below a fairly dense top.
The post-2020 pullback is real but should not be over-read
Filings fell from 103 in 2021 to 65 in 2024, a 37% decline. That is a genuine cooling from the 2020 peak, not a rounding artefact — but 2025 and 2026 counts are still incomplete due to publication lag and cannot be used to claim the decline is continuing.
Instrumentation claims still outnumber pure-software ones
G01N material analysis and testing touches 60.5% of records, roughly three times the 19.2% carrying G06F digital data processing. Analytics and algorithm claims are a substantial secondary layer rather than the dominant one, which matters for anyone deciding whether to file a method claim standalone or bundled with instrumentation.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to cytometry data analysis and standards, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where activity has gone quiet
The leading assignee sits well ahead of the field at 209 records; fifth place holds 34 and tenth place 27 — a steep drop after the leader, then a much flatter curve.
One filer holds a clear lead
The top assignee's 209 records dwarf the fifth-place count of 34, a gap that says this filer treated the space as core IP territory rather than an adjacent interest.
The drop flattens after the top few
Between fifth place (34 records) and tenth place (27 records) the curve flattens considerably compared with the fall from first to fifth, suggesting a workable second tier of active filers rather than a single dominant incumbent facing no organised competition.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet even among top filers
Several of the most active historical assignees, including the leading filer, show zero filings in the latest tracked year, with one recording a -100% year-on-year change. Read this against the publication-lag caveat: it may reflect filings still working through the pipeline rather than an actual exit from the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| BostonGene Corp | 1 | — |
| Becton, Dickinson and Company | 0 | -100% |
| CRISPR Therapeutics AG | 0 | — |
| German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) | 0 | — |
| Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg (University of Heidelberg) | 0 | — |
| FlowJo, LLC | 0 | — |
| Novartis AG | 0 | — |
| Hematologics, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy or spotting an open filing angle.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top filers
With over half of records held by ten assignees, a freedom-to-operate review should start with the ranked leaders' claim scope before broader prior-art search.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaWatch the co-assignee clusters
The strongest co-assignee pairing in this dataset links a research foundation and a university at 40 shared records, a signal of a long-running joint research programme worth tracking for licensing or collaboration risk.
Map collaboration networks in EurekaRevisit the white-space branches
Batch-effect correction, file-format harmonisation and reproducibility metrics show thinner claim density than core gating and instrumentation — worth a focused prior-art pull before drafting.
Run a white-space search in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
It is moderately concentrated. The five leading assignees together hold 36.9% of all 1,021 records in scope, and the top ten hold 51.5%. That leaves roughly half the field distributed across a long tail of the remaining ranked assignees and unranked filers, so a newcomer is not necessarily boxed out, but the top few players have built substantial claim density that any new filing needs to be checked against.
Filings peaked at 125 in 2020 and then declined from 103 in 2021 to 65 in 2024, a 37% drop over that span. That is a genuine cooling rather than a plateau. However, 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so it would be premature to describe the field as currently shrinking based on the most recent one or two years alone.
WO2026017796A1, filed by Medical University – Plovdiv and published in early 2026, describes a system for measuring minimal residual disease in pediatric B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia using multiparameter flow cytometry, with an acquisition subsystem, a control and file-generation subsystem, and an analytical subsystem. It is a recent, narrowly targeted clinical application rather than a foundational platform claim. Anyone working on MRD quantification in this specific leukemia subtype using multiparameter flow cytometry should read its claims closely, but it does not appear to reach broader cytometry data-analysis methods generally.
Material analysis and testing (G01N) touches 60.5% of the 1,021 records, making it the dominant classification, consistent with the instrumentation and assay core of flow cytometry. Medicinal preparations (A61K, 22.8%) and digital data processing (G06F, 19.2%) are the next largest, showing that a substantial share of filings sit at the intersection of therapeutics or software with the underlying cytometry method rather than in instrumentation alone. Bioinformatics (G16B, 16.0%) and data recognition (G06K, 6.7%) round out the computational side.
Based on relative claim density in this dataset, batch-effect correction across instrument runs, cross-platform file-format harmonisation, and reproducibility metrics for clustering pipelines show thinner coverage than core automated-gating and instrumentation claims. These are areas where a well-drafted method or system claim may face less crowded prior art, though any filing decision should be paired with a targeted prior-art search rather than relying on aggregate composition figures alone.
Research Cytometry Data Analysis and Standards in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole cytometry data analysis and standards 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.