Health Data Privacy Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Filing is recent and thin. the trend runs from zero in 2017 to a peak of 16 in 2025, so this is an early-stage claim space, not a mature one.
- No single owner dominates. the leader holds just 3 of 31 records, and the top 5 combined account for only 35.5% of all filings in scope.
- Healthcare informatics carries the weight. G16H appears on 58.1% of records, well ahead of general data processing and AI-model classes.
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 31 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of health data privacy and medical device cybersecurity — filings that combine claims on protecting patient data with mechanisms like consent management, de-identification, penetration testing, breach notification, cross-border transfer or audit logging. It spans publications from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with 31 total published records forming the basis of the ranking, trend and classification figures below.
Because publication typically lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year in the trend chart understates real filing activity; 2025's peak of 16 is the most complete recent signal, and 2026 figures will keep rising as later filings publish.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 31 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A recent, still-thin filing curve
Filings moved from zero in 2017 to a peak of 16 in 2025, with 10 already recorded in 2026 despite the partial year. Growth cannot be reliably rated as a rate yet — there are fewer than four complete years once publication lag is factored in — but the direction from a standing start is clear.
Healthcare informatics leads, AI and transmission classes follow
G16H (healthcare informatics) touches 58.1% of the 31 records, ahead of G06F electric data processing at 45.2%. G06N (AI models), G06Q (business data processing) and H04L (digital transmission) each sit at 35.5%, showing that most filings pair a privacy or security claim with either an AI component or a transmission/business-process layer. Because records carry multiple classes, these figures sum to more than 100% of the record total — that is expected and not a data error.
Shares are the percentage of the 31 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Health Data Privacy and Device Security with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about health data privacy and device security and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
WO2026165041A1 — Systems, methods and platforms for providing hybrid stations for care
Filed by ONMED LLC, this application describes an integrated healthcare ecosystem of hybrid care stations tied to a data factory, virtual medical center and command center, with user behaviour tracking, remote intake and consultation management, AI orchestration, and command-center-level electronic health record management spanning fleet analytics and emergency record handling.The scope reaches well beyond a single privacy mechanism — it bundles data architecture, AI orchestration and EHR management under one care-delivery platform, which is why it is worth reading claim-by-claim rather than by abstract alone.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2024201447A2 | Gahnic asclepius: integrated remote diagnostic and surgical system using cross-technology solutions | 18 |
| 2 | WO2026024864A1 | Know your model and know your data systems and methods for transactions | 12 |
| 3 | WO2026024917A1 | Systems, methods, kits, and apparatuses for know your model systems in value chain networks | 11 |
| 4 | WO2026024918A1 | Ai-based energy edge platforms, systems, and methods | 9 |
| 5 | WO2026024858A1 | Configured artificial intelligence systems and methods for software-defined vehicles | 8 |
Citation counts favour older publications inside any searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not of current technical relevance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (5 of 5 rows); 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 filing pattern actually tells you
Three readings of the same 31-record dataset, each useful for a different kind of decision.
No single assignee controls the space
The leading assignee holds 3 of 31 records, and the top 5 combined reach only 35.5% of all filings in scope — the top 10 extend that to 58.1%. That leaves a long tail of single- and double-filing entrants rather than a blocking incumbent.
Activity is recent and still accelerating
Filing was at zero as recently as 2017 and reached its recorded peak of 16 in 2025, with 10 more already published in 2026 despite the year being incomplete at the data cut-off.
Healthcare informatics is the dominant frame
Filers most often route privacy and security claims through G16H healthcare informatics, then layer in G06F data processing or G06N AI-model claims. Pure telecom framing (H04W) appears on only 6.5% of records.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to health data privacy and device security, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | DR AARTI | 2 |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | RAJEASHWARI SRINIVASA RAGAVAN | 1 |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | MR R SADAIYAPPAN | 1 |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | LT DR A JOSEPH AROCKIAM | 1 |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | KIRUBA WESLEY | 1 |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | DR VIJAYALAKSHMI P | 1 |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | DR S SUGANTHI | 1 |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | DR S ELANGO | 1 |
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairing recorded twice — most filers here are working alone rather than in joint-assignee structures.
Who is filing, and where the door is still open
The assignee base is wide and shallow: 56 companies and individuals are ranked, with the leader holding only 3 records and momentum spread thinly across recent filers.
Recent activity is split three ways
No assignee pulled ahead in the latest year; ONMED LLC, DR R G PADMANABHAN and DR AARTI each recorded 2 filings, while others logged single filings or none.
India and PCT dominate the receiving-office mix
India and WIPO (PCT) each account for 14 filings, together covering the large majority of the dataset; Canada and the United States appear in single digits.
Joint filing is the exception, not the rule
Ten co-assignee pairs were found, with the strongest — Dr R G Padmanabhan and Dr Aarti — appearing on two shared records. Most other filers, including the corporate entities, appear to file solo.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| ONMED LLC | 2 | — |
| DR R G PADMANABHAN | 2 | — |
| DR AARTI | 2 | — |
| STRONG FORCE EE PORTFOLIO 2022 LLC | 1 | 0% |
| VIGNANS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY A | 1 | — |
| STRONG FORCE TX PORTFOLIO 2018 LLC | 0 | -100% |
| VARELA DANIELLE | 0 | — |
| DANIELLE VARELA | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above answer what has been filed; the questions below are about what to do with that.
Check freedom-to-operate against the most-cited records
The five most-cited filings, including WO2024201447A2 and the WO2026024xxx family, are the ones most likely to have spawned continuations or been cited defensively — worth a claim-by-claim read before committing engineering resources to overlapping mechanisms.
Explore citing records in EurekaWatch the under-claimed branches before they fill in
Cross-border transfer consent, breach-notification automation and de-identification for AI training all show thin coverage relative to the core informatics classes — that gap narrows as filing activity keeps climbing off its 2025 peak.
Track white space in EurekaModel the long tail, not just the leader
With the top 5 assignees holding only 35.5% of records, competitive risk is distributed across many small filers rather than concentrated in one blocking portfolio — a different monitoring strategy than a consolidated field would need.
Build an assignee watchlist in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
No single company dominates this dataset. The leading assignee holds just 3 of the 31 records in scope, and the top 5 assignees combined account for only 35.5% of all filings. Filing is spread across 56 ranked assignees, including corporate portfolio entities, universities and individual inventors, so this is best treated as a fragmented field rather than one with a clear incumbent to watch or license around.
Filing activity started from zero as recently as 2017 and reached a recorded peak of 16 in 2025, with 10 more filings already published in 2026 despite that year being incomplete at the data cut-off. A precise growth rate is not reliable here because publication lag of roughly 18 months means fewer than four complete years of data are available, but the trajectory from a standing start is unmistakably upward.
Most filings sit under G16H, healthcare informatics, which appears on 58.1% of the 31 records, followed by G06F electric digital data processing at 45.2%. Roughly a third of records also carry G06N AI-model classes, G06Q business-process classes, or H04L digital transmission classes, meaning many filings combine a privacy or security mechanism with an AI or data-transmission layer rather than claiming privacy controls in isolation.
Relative to the dominant healthcare informatics and data-processing classes, sub-areas like cross-border transfer consent workflows, automated breach-notification triggers, de-identification pipelines built for AI training data, and audit logging for implantable device firmware show thin coverage. These are technically specific gaps rather than broad categories, and they are the areas most likely to still be open for a first strong claim given how recent and fragmented overall filing is.
India and WIPO under the PCT route are the two largest receiving offices in this dataset, each accounting for 14 of the filings, with Canada and the United States appearing in single digits. The heavy PCT share suggests many applicants have not yet committed to specific national phases, which is worth tracking since national-phase entries over the next 18-30 months will show where real commercial intent lies.
Research Health Data Privacy and Device Security in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole health data privacy and device security 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.