GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Patent Landscape 2026
GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Patent Landscape in 2026
Novo Nordisk dominates a highly concentrated field, holding the largest position among the top-ranked filers, while Eli Lilly is the only top-tier player showing recent filing momentum. The field has reached maturity, with annual volume easing from its 2021 peak, though the multi-year corpus remains substantial.
Novo Nordisk leads a concentrated but contested field
Novo Nordisk holds the top position in the top five filers collectively account for 28% of the combined total across the hundred largest filers — a meaningful but not extreme concentration.
A clear tier gap separates the top three from the mid-tier: Hanmi Pharm (988 records), Sanofi Aventis Deutschland (872), and Sanofi SA (843) trail the leaders by a substantial margin. Below rank six, the field becomes progressively more fragmented, with Zealand Pharma, Pfizer, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, and Janssen each holding notable but smaller positions.
| # | Applicant | Patent records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Novo Nordisk A/S | 2,044 | |
| 2 | ELI LILLY & CO | 1,634 | |
| 3 | Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | 1,385 | |
| 4 | Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. | 988 | |
| 5 | Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH | 872 | |
| 6 | Sanofi S.A. | 843 | |
| 7 | Zealand Pharma A/S | 834 | |
| 8 | Pfizer Inc. | 824 | |
| 9 | Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 739 | |
| 10 | Janssen Pharmaceutica NV | 620 |
| # | Applicant | Patent records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited | 596 | |
| 12 | Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH | 556 | |
| 13 | AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP | 538 | |
| 14 | Novartis AG | 470 | |
| 15 | INDIANA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY CORP | 457 | |
| 16 | Pfizer Products Inc. | 444 | |
| 17 | MannKind Corporation | 380 | |
| 18 | Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 345 | |
| 19 | Amgen Inc. | 300 | |
| 20 | Hanmi Science Co., Ltd. | 272 |
The leaders’ scale implies deep prior-art coverage across peptide chemistry, formulation, and therapeutic indications — new entrants must navigate dense claim space particularly in the core A61K and C07K branches, where activity is heaviest.
Filing counts for 2024 and 2025 are subject to publication lag and should be treated as undercounts of actual activity; trend observations are most reliable through 2022. Longer-window growth, applicant concentration, and technology-route coverage are therefore more reliable signals than the latest-year bar alone.
Filing volume eased from its 2021 peak; peptide and medicinal chemistry dominate the branch mix
Annual filing data reveal a field that built steadily to a 2021 peak before moderating, while the technology composition shows heavy concentration in therapeutic formulation and peptide classes with a long tail of adjacent branches.
Annual filing trend
Filings rose from 751 in 2018 to a peak of 1,256 in 2021, then stepped down through 2022 (1,126) and 2023 (997). The 2024 figure of 910 and the 2025 figure of 21 reflect publication lag and should not be read as a continued structural decline. The meaningful trend is the easing from the 2021 peak rather than a sharp exit from the field.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaTechnology composition
A61K (Medicinal preparations) and A61P (Therapeutic activity) together account for the largest share of IPC branch records, flanked by C07K (Peptides & proteins) as the core chemistry class. C07D (Heterocyclic compounds) and C12N (Microorganisms & genetic engineering) represent meaningful but lower-share adjacent branches. A long tail of branches — including G01N, C12P, and C07H — each account for roughly 1% or less of records, signalling under-served technical territory.
↗ Hover for values · click a bar to ask EurekaHighly cited patent families surfaced by the query
Citation-heavy patent families returned by the query. Use this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents.
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (glp-1) agonist analog, pr…
The present disclosure relates to an analog of glucagon-like peptide-1 (glp-1)receptor agonist. The present disclosure provides analogs of glucagon-like peptide-1 (glp-1) receptor agonist wherein, the amino acid at position 2 of the 5 glucagon-like peptide-1 (glp-1)receptor agonist is replaced with D-Alanine. The analogs of glucagon-like peptide-1 (glp-1)… (excerpt from the patent abstract)
Open this patent in Eureka →| # | Patent | Citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | GLP-1 derivatives | 1,987 |
| 2 | Exendin-3 and exendin-4 polypeptides, and pharmace… | 1,289 |
| 3 | C-ARYL glucoside SGLT2 inhibitors | 929 |
| 4 | Insulinotropic hormone GLP-1 (7-36) and uses thereof | 925 |
| 5 | Peptides that lower blood glucose levels | 816 |
| 6 | Insulinotropic hormone | 758 |
| 7 | Cyclopropyl-fused pyrrolidine-based inhibitors of … | 746 |
| 8 | C-ARYL glucoside SGLT2 inhibitors and method | 709 |
Ranked by total forward citations. Citation counts favour older and broadly cited patent families, and broad or adjacent patents may appear when they match the search scope. Treat this section as citation context, not as a curated list of the most topic-specific patents.
What the competitive structure means for R&D investment decisions
The combination of a mature filing curve, a concentrated leader board, and active co-filing partnerships shapes where incremental R&D investment is most and least likely to find clear space.
Field has plateaued near its 2021 peak
The life-cycle stage is Maturity: annual filings plateaued near the 2021 peak of 1,256 and have eased since. The multi-year corpus of 8,742 patent families remains large, indicating sustained commercial interest rather than a declining field. New entrants face a high prior-art burden in the dominant formulation and peptide classes.
Mature / plateauingTop five control 28% of the leading-filer pool
The top five filers hold 28% of the combined records among the hundred largest filers, with Novo Nordisk’s 2,044-record position more than 400 records ahead of Eli Lilly. This tier gap means the top two players have substantially deeper prior-art moats than the rest of the field, making freedom-to-operate analysis critical before investing in core peptide or formulation claims.
High concentration at topAmylin–AstraZeneca is the dominant co-filing pair
The most active co-filing relationship in the corpus is Amylin Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca, with 161 jointly filed records. Zealand Pharma and Boehringer Ingelheim represent the second-largest pairing at 82 records, and Eli Lilly–Amylin adds a further 21. These partnerships signal that incretin biology has attracted alliance activity across both large pharma and specialist biotech — a pattern relevant to partnership strategy.
Alliance-heavy ecosystemUS and EPO cover the bulk of protection; Asia-Pacific secondary
The United States is the lead filing jurisdiction, followed by EPO (Europe) and WIPO (PCT). Australia and Canada form a secondary tier. Japan, China, South Korea, and India each have comparatively sparse representation in this corpus, which may reflect filing strategy choices or scope of the data view rather than absence of commercial interest in those markets.
US/EP dominantGo beyond the landscape: Eureka’s TRIZ Solution agent breaks down an R&D problem and returns patented concept solutions, each with a technical approach and cited patent & literature evidence.
| Applicant | Collaborator | Co-filings |
|---|---|---|
| Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | AstraZeneca LLC | 161 |
| Zealand Pharma A/S | Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH | 82 |
| Eli Lilly and Company | Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 21 |
| Pfizer Inc. | Amgen Vermont, Inc. | 13 |
| Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH | University of Ulster | 10 |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | AstraZeneca UK Limited | 9 |
| Eli Lilly and Company | KEYBIOSCIENCE SA | 8 |
| Pfizer Inc. | Neuromed Pharmaceuticals | 8 |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | Caro Biosciences | 6 |
| Pfizer Inc. | Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. | 6 |
Co-filing pairs, ranked by the number of jointly-filed patent families.
Novo Nordisk leads by volume; Eli Lilly is the sole top-tier filer with positive recent momentum
The two largest filers diverge sharply in recent trajectory: Novo Nordisk’s filings are contracting while Eli Lilly’s are growing, a split that reflects differing pipeline strategies at the mature stage of the field.
Novo Nordisk
Novo Nordisk holds the top position with 2,044 patent records — the largest single-applicant count in the corpus. Recent filing momentum is negative at –32% versus the prior three-year window, consistent with a mature portfolio that is consolidating rather than expanding. The breadth of their position across peptide chemistry (C07K) and medicinal formulation (A61K) gives them extensive claim coverage in the core technology branches.
patent records: 2,044Eli Lilly
Eli Lilly ranks second with 1,634 patent records and is the only top-eight filer showing positive recent momentum, at +13% versus the prior three-year period. This counter-trend growth — while the majority of major filers are contracting — signals active pipeline investment, consistent with Lilly’s commercial expansion in the GLP-1 class. Their filing trajectory makes them the most active large-scale challenger to Novo Nordisk’s positional lead.
patent records: 1,634| Applicant | Recent (3 yrs) | Trend |
|---|---|---|
| Novo Nordisk A/S | 106 | ▼ -32% |
| Eli Lilly and Company | 198 | ▲ +13% |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | 2 | ▼ -80% |
| Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. | 47 | ▼ -71% |
| Zealand Pharma A/S | 40 | ▬ -2% |
| Sanofi S.A. | 17 | ▼ -77% |
| Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH | 10 | ▼ -66% |
| Pfizer Inc. | 12 | ▼ -65% |
Under-served branches adjacent to the dominant GLP-1 classes
Several IPC branches appear at low share relative to the dominant A61K/C07K core, representing areas where filing density is thin. Whether each represents a genuine opportunity depends on technical fit and freedom-to-operate conditions.
G01N · Material analysis & testing
G01N accounts for roughly 1% of branch records in the corpus — sparse relative to the dominant therapeutic classes. Biomarker assays, receptor-binding assays, and GLP-1 quantification methods could be protected here. For a company building diagnostic or companion-diagnostic tools around GLP-1 therapies, this branch is comparatively uncrowded, though the field’s primary value remains therapeutic rather than diagnostic.
Search this in Eureka →C12N · Microorganisms & genetic engineering
C12N holds about 5% of branch records — meaningful in absolute terms but well below the dominant formulation and peptide classes. As gene therapy and mRNA-based delivery approaches to incretin biology emerge, this branch could attract incremental filings. Current thin coverage relative to the therapeutic core suggests that biologics engineering and vector-based GLP-1 expression remain under-patented compared to peptide analog chemistry.
Search this in Eureka →How leading applicants differ across technology routes
Strength of each leader across the main technology routes.
| Player | A61K 38 · Medicinal preparations | A61P 3 · Therapeutic activity of compounds | C07K 14 · Peptides & proteins | A61K 31 · Medicinal preparations | A61K 47 · Medicinal preparations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Novo Nordisk A/S | Strong · 878 | Strong · 499 | Strong · 577 | Emerging · 134 | Moderate · 290 |
| Eli Lilly and Company | Strong · 681 | Strong · 530 | Strong · 469 | Absent | Emerging · 121 |
| Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. | Strong · 480 | Moderate · 211 | Strong · 299 | Absent | Strong · 293 |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Company | Moderate · 203 | Strong · 424 | Moderate · 115 | Strong · 421 | Absent |
| Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | Strong · 441 | Moderate · 186 | Strong · 246 | Absent | Moderate · 109 |
| Sanofi S.A. | Strong · 357 | Strong · 221 | Strong · 254 | Absent | Moderate · 128 |
| Zealand Pharma A/S | Strong · 397 | Absent | Strong · 388 | Absent | Emerging · 67 |
Frequently asked questions
Novo Nordisk holds the largest position among ranked filers with 2,044 patent records, followed by Eli Lilly with 1,634 and Bristol-Myers Squibb with 1,385. These three form a distinct top tier separated from mid-tier filers by a substantial record-count gap.
The field is assessed at Maturity: annual filings peaked at 1,256 in 2021 and have eased since. The multi-year corpus of 8,742 patent families reflects sustained accumulated activity, but the annual filing rate is no longer accelerating. The 2024 and 2025 figures are affected by publication lag and should not be read as the full picture of recent activity.
Among the top-ranked filers, Eli Lilly is the only one showing positive recent momentum, with a +13% increase in filings versus the prior three-year period. Most other major filers — including Novo Nordisk (-32%), Bristol-Myers Squibb (-80%), and Sanofi (-77%) — show declining recent activity.
The most-cited work in the corpus covers GLP-1 derivatives (1,987 citations), exendin-3 and exendin-4 polypeptides (1,289 citations), the insulinotropic hormone GLP-1 (7-36) and its uses (925 citations), and peptides that lower blood glucose levels (816 citations). These foundational documents define the core prior-art landscape that any new entrant must navigate.
The most active co-filing pair is Amylin Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca with 161 jointly filed records. Zealand Pharma and Boehringer Ingelheim follow with 82 co-filed records. Eli Lilly and Amylin Pharmaceuticals represent a third significant pairing at 21 records.
The United States is the lead jurisdiction, followed by EPO (Europe) and WIPO (PCT). Australia and Canada form a secondary tier. Japan, China, South Korea, and India each have comparatively sparse representation within this corpus, though filing strategy and data-scope factors may influence those figures.
Ready to map the patent landscape for your own target?
Join 18,000+ innovators using PatSnap Eureka to map any technology landscape: search 2B+ patents and papers, surface key assignees, and generate a report like this in minutes.
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.