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 →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.
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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaProvided 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.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US10017760B2 | Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries | 191 |
| 2 | US20170369870A1 | Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries | 187 |
| 3 | US20180230460A1 | Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries | 98 |
| 4 | WO2014057109A1 | Methods of host cell modification | 98 |
| 5 | WO2017223538A1 | Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries | 94 |
| 6 | WO2015052344A1 | Methods of host cell modification | 68 |
| 7 | US20180230461A1 | Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries | 56 |
| 8 | US20190194650A1 | Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries | 52 |
| 9 | WO2015158403A1 | Modified host cells and uses thereof | 25 |
| 10 | US10287575B2 | Methods for generating barcoded combinatorial libraries | 23 |
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.
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 →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 →Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the classification data are read together.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals | 0 | — |
| GreenCovance | 0 | — |
| The Board of Governors of Colorado State University | 0 | — |
| Actym Therapeutics | 0 | — |
| Inscripta, Inc. | 0 | — |
| MUSE BIOTECH INC | 0 | — |
| Duke University | 0 | — |
| BIOTALYS NV | 0 | — |
The dataset points to specific questions worth running deeper before committing to a filing or freedom-to-operate position.
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 EurekaWith 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 EurekaSelection 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 EurekaOne assignee leads the ranked field with 49 records, well ahead of the fifth-place assignee at 18 and the tenth at 1, across the 10 companies the ranking covers. That leader's filings concentrate around barcoded combinatorial library methods and recursive multiplex engineering, which also happen to be the most-cited records in the dataset. A smaller cluster of university and biotech assignees fills out the rest of the ranking, several of them tied together through co-assignee filings rather than filing independently.
No — the documented trend shows filings falling from a peak of 16 in 2021 to 1 by 2024, a -94% drop over that span. That said, 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as complete; patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 counts are still filling in and should not yet be read as confirmation of a permanent decline. Anyone tracking this space should revisit the trend once another 12–18 months of publications land.
This dataset was built around multiplex editing, recombineering and genome-scale engineering methods paired with the practical problems that come with editing at scale: off-target mutation, per-cycle editing overhead, selection marker recycling, cycle automation, genotype verification and strain stability. In classification terms, 88.0% of the 125 records carry a C12N microorganism/genetic-engineering class, with medicinal preparations (A61K) and peptide/protein claims (C07K) frequently layered on top. That combination distinguishes production-oriented editing patents from general genome-editing filings that do not address tracking or verification across cycles.
US20170369870A1, assigned to Inscripta, covers methods and compositions for trackable genetic variant libraries, recursive engineering, multiplex engineering, and enrichment for editing using nucleic acid-guided nucleases. It is one of a closely related cluster of barcoded-combinatorial-library filings that together account for the highest citation counts in this dataset, which signals it has shaped how later filings in the space are drafted. Anyone building a multiplexed, trackable editing workflow with barcode-based variant tracking should read the full claim set closely rather than relying on the abstract, since related filings in the same family extend similar claims across multiple jurisdictions.
The classification data points to smaller, more specific claim areas that sit underneath the dominant C12N core: automated genotype verification across editing cycles, selection marker recycling methods that avoid counter-selection steps, and off-target mutation detection built into a multiplex workflow. These appear as secondary themes within the 125 records rather than as standalone dense clusters, which suggests fewer directly competing claims. A first filing in one of these areas would need to tie the specific operational problem (recycling, verification, or detection) to a genome-scale method claim rather than claiming the detection or recycling step in isolation.
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.
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.
This page