Genomics & Bioinformatics Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- 8.4% of all records sit with five assignees. the remaining 91.6% of the 237,291 records in scope are split across a long tail, so the field is not a closed shop even where gene-editing fundamentals are concentrated.
- Filing fell 39% from the 2021 peak to 2024. 2,242 records in 2021 dropped to 1,358 in 2024 — the last year publication lag lets us read cleanly, so treat 2025-26 counts as still filling in, not as a real slowdown.
- Bioinformatics itself is the smallest tagged class. G16B carries just 0.7% of records against 6.0% for core genetic-engineering claims in C12N, suggesting computational-layer claims are still thin relative to the underlying biology.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2,242 records) with 2024 (1,358) — 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 237,291 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset spans 237,291 published records matching genomics, bioinformatics and omics-analysis terms crossed against gene editing, proteomics, metabolomics, spatial omics, computational biology, synthetic DNA and pharmacogenomics — a deliberately broad net over a field where the underlying biology, the analytical tooling and the therapeutic application are frequently claimed in the same family. Patent families, not raw document counts, are the fairer unit here, because CRISPR-era continuation practice and multi-jurisdiction filing inflate document totals without adding new invention.
The most-cited records in this corpus are dominated by early CRISPR-Cas foundational filings, which sets the citation baseline high for anything filed since — a reminder that citation counts favour older records and should be read as a signal of influence, not of what matters today.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 237,291 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Volume rose from 1,370 records in 2017 to a peak of 2,242 in 2021, then eased to 1,358 by 2024 — a 39% decline over that span. 2025 and 2026 figures are shown for completeness but understate true filing activity, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
IPC subclass composition
C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) leads at 6.0% of all records, ahead of A61K medicinal preparations at 2.5% and C07K peptides/proteins at 1.7%. G16B, the dedicated bioinformatics subclass, sits at just 0.7%, and A01H plant breeding at 0.8% — each record can carry multiple classes, so these figures sum past 100% by design.
Shares are the percentage of the 237,291 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Genomics, Omics & Bioinformatics Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about genomics, omics & bioinformatics patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaFoundational filings and a representative record
US20100285082A1 — Integrated Biosensor and Simulation System for Diagnosis and Therapy
A BioMEMS/NEMS appliance biologically monitors an individual using biosensors that detect cellular components, with data simulated or analysed via systems-biology software to provide diagnostic or therapeutic guidance.Filed by an individual inventor rather than an institutional assignee, this record illustrates how early bio-sensing-plus-computation claims predate the current omics and bioinformatics filing wave.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US8697359B1 | CRISPR-Cas systems and methods for altering expression of gene products | 3,185 |
| 2 | WO2013176772A1 | Methods and compositions for RNA-directed target DNA modification and for RNA-directed modulation of transcri… | 2,571 |
| 3 | US20140068797A1 | Methods and compositions for RNA-directed target DNA modification and for RNA-directed modulation of transcri… | 2,218 |
| 4 | WO2014093622A2 | Delivery, engineering and optimization of systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation and the… | 1,492 |
| 5 | US8771945B1 | CRISPR-Cas systems and methods for altering expression of gene products | 1,329 |
| 6 | US8795965B2 | CRISPR-Cas component systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation | 1,276 |
| 7 | US8871445B2 | CRISPR-Cas component systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation | 1,241 |
| 8 | US20110301073A1 | Novel DNA-binding proteins and uses thereof | 1,216 |
| 9 | US8865406B2 | Engineering and optimization of improved systems, methods and enzyme compositions for sequence manipulation | 1,104 |
| 10 | US8889356B2 | CRISPR-Cas nickase systems, methods and compositions for sequence manipulation in eukaryotes | 1,058 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older CRISPR-Cas foundational filings dominate because citation counts accumulate over time, not because they represent current filing activity.
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 filing strategy
Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend and classification data above.
The core is claimed, the edges are not
The leader holds 4,829 records and the fifth-ranked assignee 3,402, yet together the top five account for only 8.4% of all records in scope. Foundational CRISPR-Cas mechanics are locked up by a handful of research institutions and licensees, but application-layer and downstream-tooling claims remain fragmented across the other 91.6%.
Peak filing has passed, for now
Filing volume rose steadily to a 2021 peak of 2,242 records before falling to 1,358 by 2024. Recent-year figures for individual leaders show sharp year-over-year drops, but because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025-26 totals should not yet be read as a continued decline.
Biology is claimed far more densely than the software layer
C12N (genetic engineering) carries 6.0% of all 237,291 records; G16B, the dedicated bioinformatics subclass, carries only 0.7%. That gap suggests the computational and data-analysis layer around omics work is comparatively under-claimed relative to the wet-lab biology it supports.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to genomics, omics & bioinformatics patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and how they cluster
The ranked leaders sit alongside a long tail, with co-assignee filing patterns showing where institutions consistently file together.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 4,829 records against 3,402 for the fifth-placed entrant, a gap wide enough to suggest an early, sustained filing programme rather than a recent surge.
Research-institute pairs file together heavily
The strongest co-assignee pair shares 1,336 records, with two further institutional pairs each sharing several hundred more. This pattern is typical of academic and non-profit research institutes that co-file with a closely affiliated university or hospital rather than filing solely under one name.
Institutional filing has cooled sharply in the latest year
Several of the most active research-institute assignees show year-over-year drops of 65% to 92% in the latest tracked year, while at least one commercial gene-editing filer held flat. Given publication lag, this looks more like a reporting gap than a genuine pullback from the field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Regents of the University of California | 9 | -65% |
| Monsanto Technology LLC | 8 | -47% |
| The Broad Institute, Inc. | 7 | -89% |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 5 | -90% |
| Beam Therapeutics Inc. | 5 | 0% |
| President and Fellows of Harvard College | 3 | -92% |
| Editas Medicine, Inc. | 3 | -82% |
| Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | 2 | -90% |
Where to take this
The dataset points to specific next questions for anyone deciding where to file or where to watch.
Map the white space claim by claim
The gap between C12N's 6.0% share and G16B's 0.7% share is a starting point, not a conclusion — the next step is reading actual claim language in the computational-layer filings to see what is genuinely open.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the leading institutes' next moves
Sharp year-over-year drops among the most active research-institute assignees are worth monitoring as 2025-26 publications continue to land, since the current figures are provisional.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaStudy the foundational CRISPR filings directly
The most-cited records in this corpus define the freedom-to-operate baseline for anything built on RNA-directed target DNA modification; reading their claims closely is a prerequisite before filing nearby.
Review key patents in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
In this dataset the leading assignee holds 4,829 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 3,402. Together the top five account for 8.4% of the 237,291 records in scope, which means foundational filing is concentrated but the field overall is not dominated by a handful of players. The most-cited individual records are early CRISPR-Cas foundational filings, which set the freedom-to-operate baseline that later entrants have to navigate around.
Filing volume grew from 1,370 records in 2017 to a peak of 2,242 in 2021, then declined to 1,358 by 2024 — a 39% drop over that three-year window. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower still, but publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so those most recent years understate real activity and should not be read as continued decline. 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as a reliable data point.
C12N, covering microorganisms and genetic engineering, is the densest IPC subclass at 6.0% of all 237,291 records, followed by A61K medicinal preparations at 2.5% and C07K peptides and proteins at 1.7%. G16B, the dedicated bioinformatics subclass, carries only 0.7% of records, notably lower than the wet-lab biology classes it supports. Since a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages overlap rather than sum to 100%.
The clearest signal is the gap between core genetic-engineering claims (C12N at 6.0% of records) and the dedicated bioinformatics subclass G16B at just 0.7%. That gap points to under-claimed territory in the computational and data-analysis layer around omics work — areas like multi-omics data integration, spatial omics data normalisation, and pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms are plausible candidates worth checking against current claim language before filing. Confirming true white space requires reading the actual claims in those adjacent filings rather than relying on classification counts alone.
US20100285082A1, filed by inventor Dennis S. Fernandez, describes an integrated BioMEMS/NEMS biosensor and simulation system: biosensors detect cellular components in an individual, and systems-biology software simulates or analyses that data to produce diagnostic or therapeutic guidance. It is a representative early record combining biosensing hardware with computational analysis, predating the current wave of dedicated omics and bioinformatics filings. Anyone building an integrated sensing-plus-analysis pipeline for diagnosis or therapy should review its claims directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.
Research Genomics, Omics & Bioinformatics Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole genomics, omics & bioinformatics 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.