Clinical Terminology Mapping Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
A data-backed view of clinical terminology mapping and health-data interoperability patents: filing trends, leading assignees, technology composition and where claim space remains open, based on 451 records filed 2015-20
Filing growth = 2021 (12 records) → 2024 (13); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 451 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What clinical terminology mapping patents actually cover
Clinical terminology mapping sits at the plumbing layer of health-data interoperability: translating one coding system into another so that a SNOMED CT concept, an ICD code and a LOINC observation can be reconciled inside the same record. The dataset covers 451 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, drawn from filings that either describe mapping methods directly in their claims or reference SNOMED, ICD or LOINC crosswalks in a clinical context. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent filing year is always undercounted relative to where it will eventually settle.
The assignee base spans large health-IT vendors, hospital systems, and university research groups, with receiving-office data showing the United States as the dominant filing venue, followed by India, the WIPO PCT route, and Europe. That spread indicates the invention activity is not confined to one jurisdiction's regulatory push but tracks wherever health records infrastructure is being modernised.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 451 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Annual filings moved from 36 in 2017 to a peak of 54 in 2025, with 2026 sitting at 29 on a still-incomplete year. Using only the complete years, 2021 to 2024 filings rose from 12 to 13, an 8% increase over that three-year span — modest growth, not a surge, and the 2025-2026 figures should be read as provisional given publication lag.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G16H (healthcare informatics) appears in 61.9% of the 451 records and G06F (electronic data processing) in 55.0%, confirming that most filings are framed as data-processing or informatics inventions rather than clinical-device claims. G06Q (business/admin processing) reaches 28.2% and G06N (AI models) 13.7%, while A61B, G10L, G06V and G16B each sit at 6.2% or below — these lower-share subclasses mark the less-crowded technical corners of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 451 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Health-Data Interoperability: Clinical Terminology Mapping Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about health-data interoperability: clinical terminology mapping patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited prior art
US20160371447A1 — Medical diagnosis and procedure coder method
Filed by Data Trace Publishing Company, this record describes a billing method for diagnostic coding: a remote device connects to a host computer running a billing program with prompt-menu screens carrying data terms for a specialized medical practice, capturing treatment-event data that corresponds to patient diagnosis and procedure codes for documentation and billing.Published 2016-12-22. Full claim text should be checked directly before relying on this summary for freedom-to-operate work.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6551243B2 | System and user interface for use in providing medical information and health care delivery support | 848 |
| 2 | US5018067A | Apparatus and method for improved estimation of health resource consumption through use of diagnostic and/or … | 428 |
| 3 | US20100324927A1 | Senior care navigation systems and methods for using the same | 269 |
| 4 | US20080201280A1 | Medical ontologies for machine learning and decision support | 242 |
| 5 | US7899764B2 | Medical ontologies for machine learning and decision support | 197 |
| 6 | US20140330326A1 | Implantable medical device system having implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system and substernal l… | 191 |
| 7 | US20070005621A1 | Information system using healthcare ontology | 163 |
| 8 | US20080288292A1 | System and Method for Large Scale Code Classification for Medical Patient Records | 137 |
| 9 | US20190057774A1 | Disease specific ontology-guided rule engine and machine learning for enhanced critical care decision support | 112 |
| 10 | US5836971A | Dynamic rezoning of a tiered therapy inplantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker (ICD) device | 104 |
Citation counts reflect influence within the searched corpus and skew toward older records; they are not a measure 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 ranking and citations indicate
Three figures worth sitting with before deciding where to file or who to watch.
The top 5 hold less than a fifth of the field
The leading assignee holds 29 records and the fifth-placed holds 9, but combined the top 5 account for only 18.0% of all 451 records in scope. That leaves the bulk of the field to filers outside the ranked leaders, which is unusual for a technical area this specific.
Growth is steady, not explosive
Filings rose from 12 in 2021 to 13 in 2024, an 8% increase over the only span in this trend that is fully published. Treat 2025's peak of 54 and the partial 2026 figure of 29 as still filling in rather than as a genuine acceleration or slowdown.
Informatics framing dominates the claim language
G16H healthcare informatics appears in 61.9% of the 451 records and G06F data processing in 55.0%, meaning most inventions are claimed as software and data-handling methods rather than as clinical devices. Bioinformatics (G16B) and image recognition (G06V) each sit at only 4.2%, marking thinner claim space.
Filing activity is not confined to one jurisdiction
The United States leads receiving offices with 234 filings, but India (76), the WIPO PCT route (48) and Europe (35) all carry meaningful volume. A filer targeting only the US route would miss a substantial share of where competitors and collaborators are actually protecting this technology.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to health-data interoperability: clinical terminology mapping patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The figures above answer what has already been filed. The next questions — what to file next, and where the open claim space actually is — need a closer read of the underlying documents.
Map the white space by subclass
G16B and G06V sit at the low end of the technology composition, at 4.2% of records each. Before assuming that is opportunity, check whether it reflects genuine gaps or simply harder technical problems that have not attracted filers yet.
Explore white space in EurekaWatch the assignees just outside the top 5
With the top 5 holding only 18.0% of records, competitive movement is more likely to come from mid-ranked or newly active filers than from the nominal leader. Track filing velocity across the full ranked list, not just the top names.
Track assignee activity in EurekaRead claims before filing near US20160371447A1
The representative record's claims cover a specific billing-workflow method; a mapping invention with a different technical mechanism may sit clear of it, but that needs direct claim comparison rather than an abstract read.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaCommon questions about this field
The dataset in scope contains 451 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, covering clinical, medical and healthcare terminology, vocabulary, ontology and code-set mapping, including SNOMED, ICD and LOINC crosswalks. This figure counts patent families in the assignee ranking, which is the fairer unit than raw document counts because it neutralises duplicate continuations and multi-jurisdiction filings of the same invention. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true count for 2025 and 2026 will rise as more records publish.
The ranked leader holds 29 records, with the fifth-placed assignee at 9 and the tenth-placed at 6, out of a ranking of 100 companies. Even so, the top 5 combined account for only 18.0% of all 451 records, and the top 10 for 26.2%, so the field is not dominated by a small handful of filers the way some digital-health subsectors are. A useful competitive-intelligence exercise is watching filers just below the top 10, since the long tail carries real weight here.
IPC subclass data shows G16H healthcare informatics in 61.9% of the 451 records and G06F electronic data processing in 55.0%, meaning most inventions are framed as software and data-handling methods. G06Q business/admin processing reaches 28.2% and G06N AI-model computing 13.7%, while A61B diagnosis/surgery, G10L speech processing, G06V image recognition and G16B bioinformatics each sit at 6.2% or below. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares add to more than 100% and should not be read as a breakdown of the whole.
Using only the years with complete publication data, filings rose from 12 in 2021 to 13 in 2024, an 8% increase — steady but not explosive growth. The raw trend shows 36 filings in 2017 rising to a peak of 54 in 2025 with 29 recorded so far in 2026, but the 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication. Any claim that the field is slowing based on the 2025-2026 numbers alone would be reading noise rather than signal.
The lower-share IPC subclasses — G16B bioinformatics, G06V image/video recognition, A61B diagnosis and surgery, and G10L speech processing, each around 6.2% or below of the 451 records — mark the technically thinner corners of this landscape. That said, low filing density can reflect either genuine white space or simply a harder problem that has deterred filers, so it is worth checking recent assignee activity in those subclasses before committing. Reviewing actual claim scope in the most-cited records, rather than relying on IPC counts alone, is the more reliable next step.
This 2016 record from Data Trace Publishing Company claims a billing-workflow method: a remote device connecting to a host computer, capturing treatment-event data through prompt-menu screens tied to diagnostic and procedure codes. It is a representative record in this corpus rather than a landmark filing, and its scope is narrow to a specific billing and coding workflow rather than to terminology mapping broadly. Anyone building a general-purpose mapping engine should read its claims directly before assuming overlap, since the mechanism it protects is fairly specific.
Research Health-Data Interoperability: Clinical Terminology Mapping Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole health-data interoperability: clinical terminology mapping 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.