Health Data Consent Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
A patent landscape review of health data consent filings across 196 records, covering the leading assignees, technology composition, filing trends and white space for R&D and IP teams working on health-data interoperabil
Filing growth = 2021 (9 records) → 2024 (39); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 196 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Health data consent sits at the intersection of healthcare informatics and data-processing patent classes, covering how systems capture, verify and enforce a patient’s permission to use their clinical or health records. This landscape reviews 196 patent records published between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, spanning consent-capture interfaces, identity verification tied to health records, and downstream data-sharing controls layered on top of electronic health record (EHR) systems. The scope draws on both title/abstract language around health data consent and claim-level language linking consent mechanisms to clinical or EHR data.
Filing activity is recent and concentrated in the growth phase rather than the mature phase: the earliest record in scope is from 2017, and the count did not move meaningfully until the early 2020s. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should be read as a floor, not a ceiling, on current activity.
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 mix
Two views of the same 196 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which technology classes carry the claim language.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
From a single record in 2017, filings rose slowly through the late 2010s before accelerating sharply from 2021 onward, climbing from 9 that year to 39 in 2024 — a +333% increase over three years — and reaching a peak of 45 in 2025. Treat 2025 and 2026 as undercounts still catching up to publication, not as a plateau or decline.
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
Healthcare informatics (G16H) touches 69.4% of the 196 records, making it the dominant class by a wide margin, with electric digital data processing (G06F) present in 43.4% and digital information transmission (H04L) in 22.4%. Business/admin data processing (G06Q) and diagnosis/surgery (A61B) each sit above 17%, while AI-based computing (G06N), image processing (G06T) and bioinformatics (G16B) remain comparatively small footprints. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read as overlap, not as a breakdown of the whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 196 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: Health Data Consent Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about health-data interoperability: health data consent patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited records
Patient assistant for chronic diseases and co-morbidities (US20190198174A1)
Health data of a user is read from one or more data sources and used to determine a cohort based on a primary diagnosis. The system identifies co-morbidities associated with that primary diagnosis within the cohort, determines predictors of the co-morbidity, and returns assistance information — including the predictor and a recommendation to mitigate the co-morbidity — back to the user.Filed by International Business Machines Corporation, published 2019-06-27.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20050246292A1 | Method and system for a virtual safe | 525 |
| 2 | US20200258605A1 | Electronic health records management using wireless communication | 62 |
| 3 | US20190236840A1 | System and method for patient engagement | 53 |
| 4 | US20210209249A1 | Telehealth solutions for early personalization of healthcare data support via methods, communications, data n… | 52 |
| 5 | US8984282B1 | Identity validation and verification system and associated methods | 39 |
| 6 | US20120165617A1 | Patient enabled methods, apparatus, and systems for early health and preventive care using wearable sensors | 37 |
| 7 | US20130132117A1 | Graphical tool for managing a longitudinal patient episode | 30 |
| 8 | US20080103829A1 | System and method for trading personal health data | 28 |
| 9 | US20240112768A1 | Method for health data and consent management | 20 |
| 10 | EP3070628A1 | Methods and devices for tracking patient data | 20 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence rather than of current technical 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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Four read-throughs from the ranking, the trend and the technology mix — useful for deciding where to file next and who to watch.
No single assignee controls the field
The leading assignee holds 9 of the 196 records in scope, and the top 5 combined account for just 16.8% of all filings. That is a fragmented landscape rather than one gated by a handful of blocking portfolios, which favours new entrants willing to file around specific consent-capture or verification mechanics rather than around a dominant platform.
The field is still in its build-out phase
Filings rose from 9 in 2021 to 39 in 2024, a +333% increase over three years, with a further peak of 45 in 2025. That trajectory reads as consent management moving from a compliance afterthought to a claimed system component inside EHR and telehealth stacks — not as a technology approaching saturation.
Claims cluster around informatics, not raw data transmission
G16H healthcare informatics appears in 69.4% of the 196 records, well ahead of G06F digital data processing (43.4%) and H04L digital transmission (22.4%). The claim density sits on how consent is structured and applied inside clinical workflows, rather than on the underlying transport or storage layer — that transport layer looks comparatively open.
India is the largest single filing venue
India accounts for 75 filings, ahead of the United States (55), WIPO's PCT route (26) and Europe (15). A geography this weighted toward India is unusual for a health-tech subfield and is worth checking against where downstream enforcement or freedom-to-operate actually matters for a given product.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to health-data interoperability: health data consent patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this next
The ranking and the trend point to specific next questions rather than a finished picture.
Check freedom-to-operate against the fragmented leaderboard
With no assignee above 9 records, a freedom-to-operate review needs to look past the named leaders and into the long tail of single-filing entrants, since a blocking claim is as likely to sit with an unranked filer as with a top-5 name.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaWatch the 2024–2025 filing surge for emerging claim strategies
The jump from 9 filings in 2021 to 39 in 2024 signals where competitors are actively staking claims; tracking newly published applications from this window is more informative than relying on the established most-cited records.
Set up a filing alert in EurekaMap the informatics-heavy claim space against transport and AI layers
With G16H present in 69.4% of records but G06N (AI-based computing) in only 9.2%, there is room to test whether consent-enforcement claims tied to AI-driven data use are genuinely under-filed or simply not yet indexed this way.
Explore technology white space in EurekaCommon questions on health data consent patents
Across the 196 records in scope, the leading assignee holds 9 records, which is the highest single count in the ranking but a small share of the field overall. The top 5 assignees combined account for 16.8% of all 196 records, and the top 10 for 25.5%, meaning the great majority of filings sit with entities outside the ranked leaders. This is a fragmented ownership picture rather than one dominated by a small number of blocking portfolios, so a competitive review needs to look well beyond the named leaders.
Filings grew from 9 records in 2021 to 39 in 2024, a +333% increase over that three-year span, with a further peak of 45 records in 2025. The earliest record in scope dates to 2017, so this is a young and still-accelerating area rather than a mature one. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts will continue to rise as more applications publish, so the true 2025 total is almost certainly higher than currently recorded.
The dominant class is G16H healthcare informatics, present in 69.4% of the 196 records, followed by G06F electric digital data processing at 43.4% and H04L digital information transmission at 22.4%. Business and admin data processing (G06Q, 18.4%) and diagnosis/surgery (A61B, 17.3%) also carry meaningful shares, while AI-based computing (G06N, 9.2%), image processing (G06T, 3.6%) and bioinformatics (G16B, 3.1%) are comparatively small. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages overlap and do not sum to 100%.
India is the largest receiving office in this dataset with 75 filings, ahead of the United States at 55, the WIPO PCT route at 26, Europe (EPO) at 15, Australia at 6 and Canada at 5. This distribution is worth checking against where a given product actually needs freedom to operate, since a filing venue does not automatically indicate where enforcement risk or commercial relevance is highest. Teams evaluating this space should treat the receiving-office count as a filing-activity signal, not a market-importance ranking on its own.
The technology composition suggests uneven claim density: G16H healthcare informatics is heavily claimed at 69.4% of records, while AI-based computing (G06N, 9.2%) and bioinformatics (G16B, 3.1%) carry far fewer filings relative to the same 196-record base. Combined with a fragmented assignee ranking — no single filer above 9 records and the top 5 holding only 16.8% of the field — there is room for a new entrant to stake out claims in AI-driven consent enforcement or bioinformatics-linked consent without immediately colliding with an entrenched portfolio. That said, absence of filings in a class is not proof of technical viability, and any white-space claim should be checked against the most-cited records for adjacent blocking language.
Research Health-Data Interoperability: Health Data Consent Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole health-data interoperability: health data consent 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.