Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/engineered-protein-nanopores-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Life Science Tools · Patent LandscapeEngineered protein nanopore patents: a single filer, a 2017 peak, and narrow claim coverage
- One assignee accounts for all 21 records in scope — 100.0% concentration with no second filer of note, an unusually closed field for a life-science-tools category.
- Filing activity is a single spike, not a trend — 21 records published in 2017 against a filing history that shows no comparable year before or since, with 2026 currently at zero pending publication lag.
- Claims cluster in three IPC subclasses — C07K, G01N and C12Q each cover 90%+ of the 21 records, leaving C12N genetic-engineering claims present in only 14.3%.
21
Published Records
EP
Leading Jurisdiction
2017
Peak Filing Year
C07K
Lead IPC Subclass
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the engineered protein nanopore patent record actually shows
Engineered protein nanopores are mutant pore proteins — CsgG variants among them — designed to control current signal amplitude, dwell time and translocation speed for single-molecule sensing, most visibly in nanopore DNA sequencing. The patent record in scope is small and unusually concentrated: 21 published records span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, and every one of them traces to a single assignee. That is not typical of a life-science-tools sub-field, where competing platforms usually produce a spread of filers even when one company leads.
The filing trend is dominated by a single year: 21 records published in 2017, the peak so far, with no comparable activity before or after in the data as filed. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, recent-year counts understate current activity and should not be read as a slowdown on their own.
Filing activity by year, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Engineered Protein Nanopores covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below cover the same 21 records from different angles: when they were filed, and what technical classes they claim against.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Publications peak at 21 in 2017 and fall to zero by the 2026 cut-off; with fewer than four complete post-lag years in the window, no growth rate can be computed responsibly.
IPC subclass distribution
C07K (peptides & proteins) and G01N (material analysis & testing) each appear on 95.2% of the 21 records, C12Q (enzyme/DNA measuring & testing) on 90.5%, and C12N (microorganisms & genetic engineering) on just 14.3% — since records carry multiple classes, these shares sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 21 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Engineered Protein Nanopores covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Engineered Protein Nanopores with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about engineered protein nanopores and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records in this dataset
Featured record
WO2017149316A1 — "Mutant pore"
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
The invention relates to mutant forms of CsgG. The invention also relates to analyte detection and characterisation using CsgG.Filed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies, published 2017-09-08, cited 129 times — the single most-cited record in this dataset.
Highest-citation records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2017149316A1 | Mutant pore | 129 |
| 2 | WO2017149317A1 | Mutant pore | 121 |
| 3 | WO2017174990A1 | Mutant pore | 12 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings and should be read as a signal of influence, not of current technical relevance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (3 of 3 rows); clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Engineered Protein Nanopores covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the concentration and timing mean for anyone entering this space
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the class distribution are read together.
Concentration
100.0%
of 21 records held by one assignee
A closed field, not a competitive one
The top-1 combined share is 21 of 21 records, meaning every document returned by this search traces to a single filer. That is a different situation from a leader-plus-long-tail market: there is effectively no second voice in this specific claim space as captured by the search string used.
Top 1 = 100.0% of 21 records
Timing
21 in 2017
peak year, no prior or subsequent match
One filing wave, not a rising curve
All meaningful volume sits in a single year. Growth cannot be computed responsibly with fewer than four complete years once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for, so treat the current trend line as descriptive, not predictive.
2017 = 21; 2026 = 0 (partial year)
Class coverage
14.3%
of records touch C12N genetic engineering
Sequencing and detection claims dominate, expression claims are thin
C07K and G01N cover 95.2% of records each and C12Q covers 90.5%, showing the claims are built around pore structure, detection chemistry and analyte measurement. C12N — microorganism and genetic-engineering claims, relevant to expression host and production strain work — appears on only 3 of the 21 records.
C12N = 3 of 21 records (14.3%)
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to engineered protein nanopores, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Engineered Protein Nanopores covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who holds this claim space
The assignee ranking returned by this search contains a single company; there is no second or third filer to compare it against in this dataset.
Leader
21
records, 100.0% of the field
The sole assignee across all 21 records
Every record in scope, including the two most-cited filings and the featured CsgG mutant-pore patent, traces to Oxford Nanopore Technologies. Recent-year momentum shows 0 filings from this assignee in the latest tracked year, consistent with the broader 2026 partial-year drop-off.
Latest-year filings: 0
Receiving offices
14
records filed via the EPO
Europe is the primary filing route
Of the receiving offices identified, 14 records went through the EPO, 4 through Canada, and 3 through the WIPO PCT system. That pattern points to a European-centred prosecution strategy for this claim family rather than a US-first one.
EPO 14 · Canada 4 · WIPO/PCT 3
Citation weight
129 cites
on the top-cited record
Influence is concentrated in two early filings
WO2017149316A1 and WO2017149317A1, both titled "Mutant pore" and both published in 2017, carry 129 and 121 citations respectively — far ahead of the third-ranked record at 12. Citation weight this skewed toward the earliest filings is typical of a corpus where later work builds directly on a founding pair of patents.
Top three: 129, 121, 12 citations
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Oxford Nanopore Technologies Limited | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Engineered Protein Nanopores covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a narrow, single-filer field with a specific historic peak — the next steps depend on whether you are clearing freedom to operate or scouting for open claim space.
Check freedom to operate against the 2017 filing pair
WO2017149316A1 and WO2017149317A1 carry the bulk of citation weight in this corpus. Any CsgG-based pore work should be checked against their claim scope before further development.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaScope the C12N-adjacent white space
Genetic-engineering and expression-host claims appear on only 3 of the 21 records. That gap is worth a targeted search before assuming it is uncovered.
Run a deeper search in Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Engineered Protein Nanopores covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
In this dataset of 21 published records, Oxford Nanopore Technologies is the sole assignee, accounting for 100.0% of the field. There is no meaningful second filer captured by this search, which is unusual for a life-science-tools category and suggests the claim space around CsgG mutant pores and related detection chemistry is tightly held by one company. Anyone evaluating this space should treat freedom-to-operate review as a single-party exercise rather than a multi-competitor landscape.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 with 21 published records, and the data shows no comparable year before or after. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the drop to zero by 2026 partly reflects records not yet published rather than a genuine halt in filing. Readers should not treat the visible 2026 figure as a final count.
The claims concentrate in three IPC subclasses: C07K (peptides and proteins) and G01N (material analysis and testing) each cover 95.2% of the 21 records, and C12Q (enzyme and DNA measuring and testing) covers 90.5%. This points to a field built around pore protein structure and analyte detection chemistry rather than production biology. C12N, covering microorganisms and genetic engineering, appears on only 14.3% of records, indicating comparatively light claim coverage on expression and production-strain methods.
WO2017149316A1, titled "Mutant pore" and filed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies, covers mutant forms of the CsgG pore protein along with methods for analyte detection and characterisation using those mutants. It is the most-cited record in this dataset at 129 citations, making it a foundational reference point for anyone working with CsgG-based nanopore sensing. Because it sits within a single-assignee field, its claim scope is a practical starting point for any freedom-to-operate check in this area.
The clearest gap sits around C12N-classified work — microorganism and genetic-engineering claims relevant to expression hosts and production strains — which appears on only 3 of the 21 records, or 14.3%. Purification workflow claims and non-CsgG pore scaffold variants are similarly thin in this dataset relative to the dense detection-chemistry core. These branches are worth a targeted search before assuming they are unclaimed, since a narrow search string can undercount adjacent filings.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Engineered Protein Nanopores covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Engineered Protein Nanopores in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole engineered protein nanopores 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.