Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Concentrated at the top. the top 5 assignees hold 58.9% of all 180 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 95.6% — a steep drop-off after the leaders.
- Filing has cooled. activity peaked at 25 records in 2018 and had fallen to 2 by 2026, with the 2022 midpoint at 20 signalling a flat-to-declining trend rather than a rebound.
- Claims cluster on therapeutics, not diagnostics. 93.3% of records sit in A61K medicinal preparations while only 20.0% touch G01N testing and 17.2% touch C12Q enzyme/DNA measurement — the biomarker-selection side is comparatively open.
What this patent set covers
This landscape draws on 180 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine immune checkpoint inhibitor or PD-1/PD-L1 blockade claims with a defined clinical angle — response biomarker selection, immune-related adverse events, combination strategy, resistance mechanisms or subcutaneous formulation — under IPC classes C07K16, A61K39 and A61P35. The scope is deliberately narrow: it captures checkpoint blockade art that is tied to a clinical decision point, not the full universe of antibody or oncology filings.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in the trend below understate real filing activity; treat the most recent one to two years as a floor, not a ceiling. Family-level counting is used throughout so that multi-jurisdiction filings from the same invention are not double-counted.
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 180 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A peak in 2018, then a slow decline
Filings ran at 13 in 2017, rose to a peak of 25 in 2018, and had fallen back to 20 by the 2022 midpoint before dropping further toward 2 in 2026 (a partial, publication-lagged year). The shape reads as an early land-grab followed by consolidation rather than sustained growth.
Therapeutics dominate; testing and genetic engineering are thin
A61K (medicinal preparations) appears in 93.3% of records and A61P (therapeutic activity) in 72.8%, confirming this is fundamentally a treatment-claims corpus. G01N (material analysis and testing) at 20.0%, C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement) at 17.2%, and B82Y (nanotechnology) and C12N (genetic engineering) at 3.9% each show the diagnostic and delivery-mechanism sides carry far fewer claims relative to the same 180-record base.
Shares are the percentage of the 180 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Technology with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about immune checkpoint inhibitor technology and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this set
Method for treating cancer by using combination of asparagine inhibitor and immune checkpoint inhibitor
The present disclosure provides a method for treating cancer by using a combination of an asparagine inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a pharmaceutical composition including that combination. The present disclosure achieves the effects of treating cancer through various efficacy experiments.Filed by Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, published 2026-04-30 — illustrates how combination-therapy claims continue to be filed even as overall volume in the set slows.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2017059280A1 | Novel pan-TAM inhibitors and mer/AXL dual inhibitors | 76 |
| 2 | US20170037132A1 | Method of treating cancer using immune checkpoint inhibitor | 40 |
| 3 | WO2016179576A1 | Novel immunomodulatory therapeutic strategies targeting tumors in cancer | 37 |
| 4 | US20180126012A1 | Using Targeted Radiotherapy (TRT) to Drive Anti-Tumor Immune Response to Immunotherapies | 33 |
| 5 | WO2017013419A1 | Use of oncolytic herpes simplex virus, alone or in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitor, in the treat… | 23 |
| 6 | WO2016168809A1 | Compositions and methods for preventing tumor growth and treating cancer by targeting lectin galactoside-bind… | 20 |
| 7 | WO2017011666A1 | Method of treating cancer using immune checkpoint inhibitor | 19 |
| 8 | WO2019094657A1 | Using targeted radiotherapy (TRT) to drive Anti-tumor immune response to immunotherapies | 12 |
| 9 | US20180207212A1 | Use of oncolytic herpes simplex virus, alone or in combination with immune check-point inhibitor, in the trea… | 12 |
| 10 | US11224573B2 | Therapeutic constructs for co-delivery of mitotic kinase inhibitor and immune checkpoint inhibitor | 10 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they signal influence on later applicants, not present-day commercial weight.
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 data means for filing decisions
Three findings that change where a new application should — or should not — be aimed.
The field has a narrow top and a long tail
Five assignees hold 106 of the 180 records in scope, and the leader alone accounts for 30. Below the top 10, the ranking of 52 companies thins quickly to single-digit and single-filing entrants, meaning most organisations in this space hold a handful of records rather than a defensible position.
Filing has slowed from its 2018 peak
Volume peaked at 25 records in 2018, held near 20 at the 2022 midpoint, and has fallen toward 2 in the still-publishing 2026 window. Recent-year momentum among leading assignees is flat or negative — several show 0 filings in the latest year and year-on-year declines of 100%.
Biomarker and testing claims are thinner than therapeutic claims
A61K and A61P dominate at 93.3% and 72.8% of records respectively, while G01N (material analysis and testing) and C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement) sit at 20.0% and 17.2%. The gap suggests response-biomarker and companion-diagnostic claims are comparatively less crowded than the combination-therapy space they support.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to immune checkpoint inhibitor technology, with the prior art for and against each one.
The assignee landscape
A ranking of 52 companies drives this section — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, but the entire set the data endpoint returns for this search.
One organisation sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 30 of the 180 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 16 and tenth place at 12. That gap defines the shape of the field: one dominant filer, a cluster of mid-tier holders, and a long tail below.
Academic-industry pairs recur
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest linking a university medical school to a specialty pharmaceutical filer, and two more linking a national health-research institute to a university and to a national science research centre. These recurring pairs point to specific translational-research pipelines rather than one-off collaborations.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet across the leaders
Multiple assignees in the top ranks, including academic and mid-tier commercial filers, show zero filings in the latest year and year-on-year drops of 100% from prior activity. Only the leading assignee shows any filing at all in the most recent year, and even that is flat versus the year before.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Bristol Myers Squibb | 1 | 0% |
| Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) | 0 | — |
| Compugen Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation | 0 | -100% |
| Oregon Health & Science University | 0 | -100% |
| PDX Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Netris Pharma | 0 | — |
| Sorbonne Université | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up work depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, whitespace filing, or portfolio monitoring.
Map the leader's claim scope in detail
With 30 of 180 records, the top assignee's portfolio is the single highest-value clearance target before filing anything adjacent to core PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapy.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest a biomarker-selection claim against prior art
G01N and C12Q together cover a smaller share of the 180 records than A61K alone, suggesting selection and testing claims face a thinner prior-art base than combination-therapy claims.
Run a prior-art search in EurekaWatch for filings catching up on the 2025-2026 gap
Because publication lags filing by about 18 months, the apparent 2026 drop to 2 records is partly a reporting artifact; monitoring should continue rather than reading the decline as final.
Set up filing alerts in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
In this 180-record dataset, one assignee leads with 30 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 16 and the tenth at 12. The top 5 assignees together hold 58.9% of all records in scope, and the top 10 hold 95.6%, meaning the vast majority of filing activity sits with a small group while the remaining ranked companies, out of 52 total, hold only a handful of records each. Anyone assessing competitive position should focus clearance and monitoring effort on that leading handful rather than spreading it evenly across the ranking.
No — filing peaked at 25 records in 2018, held near 20 at the 2022 midpoint, and had fallen to 2 by 2026. That said, 2026 is a partial year and publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the true 2025-2026 count is understated in any dataset pulled now. The honest reading is a field that surged early, plateaued, and is now cooling among its established filers rather than one still in a growth phase.
The IPC composition shows a heavy skew toward therapeutic claims: A61K covers 93.3% of the 180 records and A61P covers 72.8%. By contrast, G01N (material analysis and testing) appears in only 20.0% of records and C12Q (enzyme/DNA-based measurement) in 17.2%, with nanotechnology-related B82Y and genetic-engineering C12N each at just 3.9%. That gap points to response-biomarker selection, resistance-mechanism testing and delivery-technology claims as comparatively open relative to combination-therapy claims.
Quite concentrated at the top and thin below it. The top 5 assignees account for 58.9% of the 180 records in scope, and the top 10 account for 95.6%, out of a ranked list of 52 companies total. That structure — a dominant leader, a mid-tier cluster, and a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants — is typical of a field where a small number of institutions established core claims early and later entrants have filed narrower, follow-on applications.
A 2026 filing from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital covers a method of treating cancer using a combination of an asparagine inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor, along with the corresponding pharmaceutical composition. It illustrates a continuing pattern in this dataset: even as aggregate filing volume has slowed since the 2018 peak, new combination-therapy claims pairing checkpoint inhibitors with a second mechanism of action are still being filed by clinical research institutions, not only by the largest commercial assignees.
Research Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Technology in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole immune checkpoint inhibitor technology 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.