Gene Editing Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 15.5% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees account for 17,567 of 113,258 records in scope — a real lead but not a lock on the field, since 84.5% of filings sit outside that group.
- Filing cooled after a 2022 peak. Annual output ran 2,492 in 2022 and fell to 1,665 by 2024, a 29% decline over the 2021-2024 span — the last stretch of years the data can call complete.
- Therapeutic and agricultural claims sit side by side. C12N microorganism/genetic-engineering claims cover 14.7% of records, while A01H plant-breeding claims cover a much smaller 1.8% — two very different competitive fields inside one search.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2,329 records) with 2024 (1,665) — 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 113,258 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the gene editing patent record actually shows
The dataset in scope covers 113,258 published records filed or published between 2015 and the August 2026 cut-off, drawn from a search that pairs core gene-editing language with molecular-analysis and expression terms. That pairing matters: it captures not just the editing tools themselves but the downstream measurement and target-identification work that makes an edit useful, which is why agricultural trait claims and clinical biomarker claims both show up in the same corpus. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one or two years in any trend understate real activity rather than signal a slowdown.
Reading the numbers as patent families rather than raw filings is the fairer lens here, since a single invention can generate continuations and parallel filings across the United States, WIPO, Europe and other offices. The receiving-office mix below shows exactly that spread: heavy US filing, a substantial PCT layer, and meaningful EPO, Australian and Canadian activity behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 113,258-record corpus: the annual filing curve, and the IPC subclasses those records claim into. Because records can carry multiple classes, the composition shares add up to more than 100% of the record total — that overlap is itself informative, showing how often editing claims are bundled with therapeutic or measurement claims.
A 2022 peak, then a real but partial-year-affected decline
Annual filings rose from 1,451 in 2017 to a peak of 2,492 in 2022, then eased to 1,665 by 2024 — a 29% drop over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 140 for the partial 2026 year) are not comparable to complete years given publication lag, so treat the curve's tail as incomplete rather than as evidence of a further collapse.
Concentrated in core genetic engineering, spread thin elsewhere
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) is the dominant class at 14.7% of records, with A61K (medicinal preparations) a distant second at 7.0%. Plant-side classes such as A01H (1.8%) and A01K (0.6%) are far smaller, suggesting agricultural applications of gene editing are claimed far less densely than therapeutic and enzymatic ones.
Shares are the percentage of the 113,258 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Gene Editing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about gene editing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records other filings build on
Machine learning driven gene discovery and gene editing in plants
Filed by Heritable Agriculture, this record ties explainable machine-learning feature-importance methods to gene discovery: it takes gene expression profiles from plant tissue samples, feeds them into a prediction model, and outputs a predicted phenotype together with the genome edits expected to produce it. It is a useful marker of where the field is heading — editing decisions increasingly justified by a model rather than by a single candidate-gene hypothesis.Published 2022-09-22
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2013176772A1 | Methods and compositions for RNA-directed target DNA modification and for RNA-directed modulation of transcri… | 2,571 |
| 2 | US20140068797A1 | Methods and compositions for RNA-directed target DNA modification and for RNA-directed modulation of transcri… | 2,218 |
| 3 | WO2014093622A2 | Delivery, engineering and optimization of systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation and the… | 1,492 |
| 4 | US8771945B1 | CRISPR-Cas systems and methods for altering expression of gene products | 1,329 |
| 5 | US8795965B2 | CRISPR-Cas component systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation | 1,276 |
| 6 | US8871445B2 | CRISPR-Cas component systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation | 1,241 |
| 7 | US20110301073A1 | Novel DNA-binding proteins and uses thereof | 1,216 |
| 8 | US8865406B2 | Engineering and optimization of improved systems, methods and enzyme compositions for sequence manipulation | 1,104 |
| 9 | WO2014018423A2 | Inducible DNA binding proteins and genome perturbation tools and applications thereof | 1,079 |
| 10 | US8889356B2 | CRISPR-Cas nickase systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation in eukaryotes | 1,058 |
Citation counts favour older, foundational filings within this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking of current commercial 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 a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the class composition are read together.
Leadership is real but not exclusionary
The leading five assignees combine for 17,567 of 113,258 records in scope, and the ranked leaders' top 10 reach 22.8%. That leaves a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants holding the large majority of the corpus — concentration at the very top, not a closed field.
Activity is easing off a 2022 peak, not collapsing
Filings rose to 2,492 in 2022 and had fallen to 1,665 by 2024. The named leading assignees show sharp year-over-year declines in their most recent counted year, but that is consistent with publication lag rather than proof the technology is losing relevance.
Core genetic-engineering claims dwarf plant-trait claims
C12N microorganism and genetic-engineering claims sit in 14.7% of records, roughly eight times the 1.8% carried by A01H plant-breeding claims. Agricultural gene editing is present in this corpus but claimed far less densely than the therapeutic and enzymatic core.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to gene editing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the collaboration patterns sit
The assignee ranking spans 100 companies and research institutions rather than a small closed set, and the strongest co-assignee pairs point to a handful of long-standing academic collaborations rather than to corporate joint ventures.
A single agricultural-biotech leader tops the ranking
The top-ranked assignee holds 4,338 records, well ahead of fifth place at 3,180 and tenth place at 1,288 — a steep drop-off after the leader rather than a flat plateau.
The CRISPR founding institutions co-file heavily
The strongest co-assignee pair in the dataset shares 1,124 records, with two further pairs among the same small group of research institutions above 400 shared records each — evidence of long-running joint prosecution rather than incidental overlap.
Every top-ranked filer shows a sharp recent-year pullback
Each of the assignees with visible recent-year momentum data shows a steep year-over-year decline in their latest counted year, in the range of -65% to -89%. Given the 18-month publication lag, this reads as an incomplete recent year rather than a genuine retreat from the field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Broad Institute, Inc. | 8 | -85% |
| Monsanto Technology LLC | 8 | -65% |
| The Regents of the University of California | 7 | -72% |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 5 | -89% |
| Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | 4 | -73% |
| President and Fellows of Harvard College | 3 | -88% |
| Editas Medicine, Inc. | 3 | -73% |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 1 | -90% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a small concentrated core and a long tail of activity around it. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying open claim space.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the cited core
The most-cited records in this corpus underpin a large share of later filings. Before committing to a specific editing mechanism, check any new claim against those foundational filings and their family members across the receiving offices where you plan to file.
Explore the citation network in EurekaTrack the under-claimed branches directly
Delivery mechanisms, livestock trait editing and off-target biomarker assays show materially thinner filing density than the core editing-tool claims. Set up ongoing monitoring on these branches rather than relying on a single snapshot.
Set up monitoring in EurekaWatch the long tail, not just the ranked leaders
With 84.5% of records sitting outside the top five assignees, new entrants and single-filing organisations are shaping meaningful parts of this field. A ranking view alone will miss them.
Search the full assignee set in EurekaCommon questions about the gene editing patent landscape
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 4,338 records, well ahead of the rest of the ranked leaders — fifth place sits at 3,180 and tenth place at 1,288. The ranking includes 100 companies and institutions in total, so while the top few names hold a meaningful lead, they do not dominate the field outright: the top five combined account for 15.5% of all 113,258 records in scope. The mix at the top includes both agricultural biotech firms and the academic institutions behind foundational CRISPR filings, which is worth noting when comparing commercial versus research-driven filing strategies.
Filing activity peaked at 2,492 records in 2022 and had eased to 1,665 by 2024, a 29% decline over that three-year span — but this should not be read as the technology losing momentum. Publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete and will rise as more records publish. The more reliable read is that filing cooled somewhat off an unusually high 2022 peak, not that interest in gene editing is fading.
CRISPR-Cas systems are one specific editing mechanism within the much broader gene editing category, which also includes zinc-finger nucleases, TALENs, base editing and other approaches. In this dataset, the most-cited individual records are CRISPR-specific foundational filings, but the corpus as a whole spans therapeutic, agricultural and diagnostic applications of editing technology well beyond CRISPR alone. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work should treat CRISPR claims as a subset requiring their own dedicated citation and family analysis, not a proxy for the whole field.
The United States is the leading receiving office in this dataset at 7,209 records, followed by the WIPO PCT route at 4,429 and the European Patent Office at 3,872. Australia, Canada and Singapore follow at meaningfully smaller volumes. This pattern suggests most applicants secure a US position first or in parallel with an international PCT filing, then selectively pursue Europe and a smaller set of other jurisdictions.
Relative to the dense core of C12N genetic-engineering claims (14.7% of all records), branches such as livestock trait editing, non-viral in vivo delivery vehicles, and machine-learning-guided target selection show materially thinner filing density. These are not unclaimed, but they are far less crowded than the core editing-mechanism claims, which makes them worth a closer look for anyone filing new applications rather than trying to design around the most heavily cited foundational patents.
Research Gene Editing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole gene editing patent landscape 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.