Digital Biomarker Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 65.2% of all 92 records sit with the top five assignees, so most of the claim space in scope is already occupied by a small group.
- Filings grew 78% from 9 in 2021 to 16 in 2024, the last year the data can treat as complete before publication lag understates recent activity.
- A61B and G16H together cover diagnosis/surgery and healthcare informatics, but H01L semiconductor-device claims sit close behind at 27.2% of records — a sign sensor hardware is as contested as software here.
Filing growth compares 2021 (9 records) with 2024 (16) — 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 92 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the digital biomarker patent record shows
Digital biomarkers sit at the intersection of sensor hardware, signal processing and regulatory science: a claim in this dataset might cover a wearable capture method, an analytical validation pipeline, or a data-quality check meant to satisfy a regulator that a sensor-derived measure is clinically meaningful. That breadth shows up directly in the technology mix, where diagnosis and surgery (A61B) and healthcare informatics (G16H) lead but semiconductor-device claims under H01L are not far behind.
The scope here is narrow by design: it isolates records that pair a digital-biomarker or sensor-derived-measure concept with an explicit validity, data-quality or regulatory-qualification claim, rather than every wearable or health-informatics patent in force.
Filing trend and technology composition
The filing curve and the IPC breakdown below are drawn from the same 92 records in scope, so they can be read side by side: one shows momentum over time, the other shows where the claim space is currently concentrated.
Filings climbed through 2024, then the count tails off
Annual filings rose from 2 in 2017 to a peak of 16 in 2024, including the 2021-to-2024 span of +78% cited in the hero. The drop shown for 2025 and 2026 reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than a real slowdown in filing.
Sensor hardware rivals software in claim volume
A61B (37.0% of records) and G16H (34.8%) lead as expected for a health-data field, but H01L semiconductor devices reach 27.2% — a reminder that digital biomarker claims often anchor on the physical sensor, not just the algorithm. AI-model computing (G06N, 13.0%) and image recognition (G06V, 7.6%) remain comparatively small shares of the same 92-record base.
Shares are the percentage of the 92 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Digital Biomarkers with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about digital biomarkers and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited record anchors a hardware sub-field
Method and system enabling digital biomarker data integration and analysis for clinical treatment impact (US11670421B2)
The instant system and method describe a scalable, flexible software platform built to capture wearable, implantable or external device data agnostically and turn it into a digital biomarker for a range of disease conditions, care pathways and analyses. It adds automated data aggregation, integration and machine-learning tooling to compare and couple data streams by patient and by context over time, with reporting built for both clinical teams and researchers.Filed by Medable Inc., published 2023-06-06.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120028342A1 | Slip chip device and methods | 275 |
| 2 | WO2010111265A1 | Slip chip device and methods | 113 |
| 3 | US9415392B2 | Slip chip device and methods | 58 |
| 4 | US20160256870A1 | Slip Chip Device and Methods | 44 |
| 5 | US10543485B2 | Slip chip device and methods | 34 |
| 6 | US20230395235A1 | System and Method for Delivering Personalized Cognitive Intervention | 32 |
| 7 | US20160288121A1 | Slip Chip Device and Methods | 30 |
| 8 | WO2022086454A1 | System and method for delivering personalized cognitive intervention | 29 |
| 9 | US20200395124A1 | System and method for patient monitoring of gastrointestinal function using automated stool classifications | 22 |
| 10 | US20190026425A1 | Curated genetic database for in silico testing, licensing and payment | 22 |
Citation counts favour older filings and should be read as a signal of influence within this searched corpus, 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 concentration and citation patterns mean for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the citation table are read together: a top-heavy assignee base, a hardware-anchored most-cited record, and a technology mix wider than the software framing the field is usually given.
Filing is concentrated at the top, with a long tail below
The leader alone accounts for 31 records, while the field's fifth-ranked assignee holds 6 and the tenth-ranked holds 3. With 49 companies in the full ranking, most of them sit in that tail with only a handful of filings each, which means freedom-to-operate work should focus first on the small group holding the bulk of the 92 records.
Activity roughly kept pace through 2024 before publication lag sets in
Annual filings rose from 9 in 2021 to 16 in 2024, the peak year in the trend. 2025 and 2026 counts are visibly lower in the raw data, but that reflects the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication rather than a genuine drop in activity.
Sensor hardware claims are nearly as common as informatics claims
H01L sits close behind A61B (37.0%) and G16H (34.8%), which tells filers that this field is not purely a software land grab: a meaningful share of records stake out the physical sensing layer, not just the data pipeline built on top of it.
The most-cited family is a lab hardware patent, not a software one
The top of the citation table is dominated by variants of a single slip-chip device family, spanning a US application, a WIPO filing and multiple US grants. That concentration of citations on one hardware lineage suggests foundational lab-apparatus IP, cited well beyond the digital-biomarker software claims that came later.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to digital biomarkers, with the prior art for and against each one.
A small group of pharma, med-tech and platform companies lead
The ranked leaders span large pharmaceutical companies, established med-tech manufacturers, and newer digital-health and diagnostics platforms, with the top ten together holding 83.7% of all 92 records in scope.
One assignee holds roughly a third of the entire dataset
A single company's filing count exceeds the combined total of most of the rest of the ranked leaders, indicating a sustained, multi-year filing programme rather than a handful of opportunistic applications.
Below the top ten, filings thin out fast
The tenth-ranked assignee holds only 3 records, and the ranking runs to 49 companies total, meaning most named organisations in this field have filed only once or twice — useful territory for licensing conversations rather than litigation risk.
Collaboration is limited and clustered around one inventor group
The strongest co-assignee pairs all share a single named inventor across three separate pairings, suggesting a specific R&D team's output rather than broad cross-company joint filing in this space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 2 | — |
| University of Chicago | 0 | — |
| Janssen Pharma NV | 0 | — |
| NEUROGLEE THERAPEUTICS PTE LTD | 0 | -100% |
| Jackson Laboratory | 0 | -100% |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | 0 | — |
| Verily Health Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Altoida Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field where hardware and informatics claims sit side by side, and where the tail of single-filing entrants is long enough to reward a closer look before committing to a filing strategy.
Map freedom-to-operate against the top five
Since 65.2% of the 92 records sit with five assignees, a targeted FTO review of that group's claims will cover most of the practical risk in this space before wider searching is needed.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaWatch the semiconductor-device share
H01L's 27.2% share is easy to overlook if this field is treated as pure software; tracking new filings in that class will show whether sensor-hardware claims keep pace with informatics ones.
Track IPC trends in EurekaRevisit the trend once 2025 filings publish
Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, the apparent 2025-2026 dip is not evidence of a slowdown; the 2024 peak of 16 filings is the most reliable recent signal.
Set a filing alert in EurekaCommon questions on digital biomarker patents
This dataset is scoped to records that combine a digital-biomarker, digital-endpoint or sensor-derived-measure concept with an explicit claim around measurement validity, analytical validation, clinical meaningfulness, data quality, device agnosticism or regulatory qualification. It excludes general wearable-device patents that do not address validation or regulatory qualification directly. As a result, the 92 records in scope are narrower than the full universe of digital-health or wearable-sensor patents.
Filing is concentrated: the top five assignees together hold 65.2% of all 92 records in scope, and the leading assignee alone holds 31 records. Below the top ten, which together hold 83.7% of records, filing counts drop quickly across the remaining companies in the 49-strong ranked list. That pattern means a small group of pharmaceutical, med-tech and digital-health platform companies account for most of the activity, with a long tail of single- or low-filing entrants behind them.
Filings grew from 9 in 2021 to a peak of 16 in 2024, a 78% increase over that span, and 2024 is the most recent year the trend can treat as complete. The lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 are an artefact of publication lag, since patent applications typically publish around 18 months after filing. On the evidence available, the field was still gaining filing volume through its last complete year rather than slowing.
Diagnosis-and-surgery methods (A61B) and healthcare informatics (G16H) are the two largest classes, covering 37.0% and 34.8% of the 92 records respectively. Semiconductor-device claims (H01L) are close behind at 27.2%, which shows sensor hardware is claimed almost as often as the software and informatics layer built on top of it. AI-model computing and image recognition each cover a smaller but still notable share of records, at 13.0% and 7.6%.
The technology composition shows several branches with comparatively thin coverage relative to the leading classes: enzyme- and DNA-based measurement (C12Q, 6.5% of records), image-based digital endpoint extraction (G06V, 7.6%), and lab-apparatus validation tooling (B01L, 9.8%). These lower shares, set against A61B and G16H each above a third of records, suggest room for narrowly drafted claims in device-agnostic calibration and AI-driven clinical-meaningfulness scoring specifically, rather than in the already-dense diagnosis or informatics categories.
Research Digital Biomarkers in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole digital biomarkers 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.