https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/genome-scale-engineering-methods-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Synthetic Biology · Patent Landscape
Genome scale engineering patents: who holds the multiplex editing claims
  • One assignee dominates the ranking. the leader holds 49 records against a fifth-place count of 18 and a tenth-place count of 1 across the 10 ranked assignees.
  • Filing has pulled back sharply from its peak. the 2021 high of 16 filings fell to 1 by 2024, a documented -94% over that three-year span.
  • Claims cluster hard in one IPC subclass. C12N covers 110 of the 125 records in scope (88.0%), with medicinal-preparation and peptide claims layered on top rather than standing alone.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
125
Published Records
-94%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
10
Active Filers Ranked

Filing growth compares 2021 (16 records) with 2024 (1) — 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.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview

What genome scale engineering patents actually cover

Genome scale engineering methods patents describe how researchers edit many genomic loci at once and keep track of what happened at each one: multiplex editing, recombineering, selection marker recycling, and the verification steps that confirm a strain still does what it is supposed to after dozens or hundreds of edits. The search set behind this page pulls together records that combine a genome-scale editing method with at least one of the operational problems that make repeated editing hard in practice — off-target mutation, per-cycle editing overhead, cycle automation, genotype verification, or strain stability.

That combination matters because a genome-editing patent that says nothing about tracking, verifying or recycling across cycles is a different claim than one that does — the latter is closer to what a production strain actually needs. The 125 records in scope span both academic assignees and a small number of commercially focused biotech companies, with claims concentrated in microorganism and genetic-engineering method classes rather than spread evenly across the taxonomy.

Filing activity and IPC composition, 2017–2026
  1. 1GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals49
  2. 2GreenCovance36
  3. 3The Board of Governors of Colorado State University21
  4. 4Actym Therapeutics18
  5. 5Inscripta, Inc.18
  6. 6MUSE BIOTECH INC4
  7. 7Duke University3
  8. 8BIOTALYS NV3
  9. 9Massachusetts Institute of Technology1
  10. 10Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation1
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Genome Scale Engineering Methods 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

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Filing Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The trend line and the classification breakdown below are drawn from the same 125-record scope; read the most recent years with the 18-month publication lag in mind before drawing conclusions about the field slowing down.

A 2021 peak followed by a documented pullback

Filings ran at 15 in 2017, climbed to a peak of 16 in 2021, then fell to 1 by 2024 — a -94% move over that span. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in as publications catch up with filing dates, so they should not be read as evidence of continued decline on their own.

A 2021 peak followed by a documented pullback05101520152017201820192020162021202220232024202502026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Claims concentrate in microorganism engineering, with medicinal use layered on top

C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) appears in 110 of 125 records (88.0%), far ahead of A61K medicinal preparations (59, 47.2%) and C07K peptides and proteins (41, 32.8%). Smaller shares in A61P therapeutic activity (17, 13.6%), C12P fermentation (15, 12.0%), A01N biocides (12, 9.6%), G01N testing (5, 4.0%) and C12Q enzyme/DNA measurement (3, 2.4%) show where editing methods get applied rather than where the core method claims sit.

Claims concentrate in microorganism engineering, with medicinal use layered on topC12N · Microorganisms & genetic engin…11088.0%A61K · Medicinal preparations5947.2%C07K · Peptides & proteins4132.8%A61P · Therapeutic activity of compou…1713.6%C12P · Fermentation & enzymatic synth…1512.0%A01N · Biocides / agrochemicals129.6%G01N · Material analysis & testing54.0%C12Q · Measuring & testing involving …32.4%Other10.8%

Shares are the percentage of the 125 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 Genome Scale Engineering Methods covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Genome Scale Engineering Methods with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about genome scale engineering methods and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key Patents

The records that anchor this landscape

Representative Filing
US20170369870A12017-12-28

US20170369870A1 — Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries

INSCRIPTA, INC.

Provided herein are methods and composition for trackable genetic variant libraries. Further provided herein are methods and compositions for recursive engineering. Further provided herein are methods and compositions for multiplex engineering. Further provided herein are methods and compositions for enriching for editing and trackable engineered sequences and cells using nucleic acid-guided nucleases.Filed by Inscripta; part of a cluster of related barcoded-library filings that dominate the most-cited records in this dataset.

US20170369870A1 — patent drawing 1US20170369870A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Most-cited records in scope
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US10017760B2Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries191
2US20170369870A1Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries187
3US20180230460A1Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries98
4WO2014057109A1Methods of host cell modification98
5WO2017223538A1Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries94
6WO2015052344A1Methods of host cell modification68
7US20180230461A1Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries56
8US20190194650A1Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries52
9WO2015158403A1Modified host cells and uses thereof25
10US10287575B2Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries23

Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations inside this corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial importance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Genome Scale Engineering Methods 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
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 →
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 →
Analysis

What the numbers mean for filing strategy

Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the classification data are read together.

Concentration
49 vs 18
leader vs fifth place

One assignee, then a steep drop-off

The leader's 49 records dwarf the fifth-ranked assignee's 18, and the count falls to 1 by tenth place among the 10 ranked assignees. That shape points to a field where one organisation built a broad claim base early and the remaining activity is comparatively thin.

Based on the 10-company assignee ranking
Momentum
-94%
2021 to 2024

Filing cooled hard after the 2021 peak

The move from 16 filings in 2021 to 1 in 2024 is a real, documented pullback, not a publication-lag artefact, since 2024 is the most recent year treatable as complete. Whether that reflects claim-space saturation or a shift toward trade-secret practice is not something the filing count alone can answer.

2025–2026 figures still filling in
Co-filing
17 shared families
strongest assignee pair

Collaboration is narrow and academic-industry paired

Only three co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest links a university engineering board with a biotech developer at 17 shared records — a pattern of tight, bilateral technology transfer rather than a broad collaborative ecosystem.

3 co-assignee pairs identified
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 genome scale engineering methods, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Genome Scale Engineering Methods 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
Competitive Landscape

Who is filing, and where the field is thin

The ranking covers 10 assignees with records ranging from 49 down to 1 — read it as the full set the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.

Leader
49 records
top of the ranking

A dominant single-assignee position

The leading assignee's family count is more than double the fifth-place figure of 18, concentrated around barcoded combinatorial library methods and recursive multiplex engineering claims that recur among the most-cited records.

Assignee ranking, 125 families
Momentum
0 in latest year
across ranked leaders

Recent-year filing has gone quiet across the board

Every one of the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum shows zero filings in the latest year on record. Given the 18-month publication lag, this is consistent with filings still working through to publication rather than a confirmed stop in activity.

Recent-year momentum by assignee
Collaboration
8 shared records
second-strongest pair

Pharma-biotech pairing shows targeted technology transfer

A vaccine-focused pharmaceutical assignee and a genome-editing biotech share 8 records, the second-strongest co-assignee link in the dataset, pointing to a licensing or joint-development relationship rather than open-field competition.

Co-assignee pair analysis
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth checking before filing
These sit at the edges of the C12N-heavy core and carry noticeably fewer records in this scope.
Automated cycle-to-cycle genotype verificationSelection marker recycling without counter-selectionOff-target mutation detection at genome scaleStrain-stability assays post multiplex editingAgrochemical-directed recombineering (A01N overlap)
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals0—
GreenCovance0—
The Board of Governors of Colorado State University0—
Actym Therapeutics0—
Inscripta, Inc.0—
MUSE BIOTECH INC0—
Duke University0—
BIOTALYS NV0—
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Genome Scale Engineering Methods 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
Next Steps

Where to take this analysis

The dataset points to specific questions worth running deeper before committing to a filing or freedom-to-operate position.

Map the barcoded-library claim family in full

The most-cited records cluster around a single family of barcoded combinatorial library methods; a full claim chart against that family would clarify how much room remains for adjacent multiplex-editing filings.

Explore claim mapping in Eureka

Track whether 2025–2026 filings revive the trend

With 2024 the last complete year and a confirmed -94% drop from the 2021 peak, the next 18 months of publications will show whether the pullback is a genuine plateau or a temporary lull.

Set up filing alerts in Eureka

Check the under-claimed sub-areas against your own pipeline

Selection marker recycling and automated genotype verification carry fewer records than the core editing-method claims — worth a targeted search before assuming the space is open.

Run a white space search in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Genome Scale Engineering Methods 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

Common questions about genome scale engineering patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Genome Scale Engineering Methods 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 Genome Scale Engineering Methods in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole genome scale engineering methods corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.