Immunoassay Interference Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- One assignee holds the field. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics leads the ranked assignees with 11 of the 25 records in scope, well ahead of the rest of the ranked group.
- Filing rebounded after a lull. Filings ran 2021=1 to 2024=3, a +200% climb over that three-year span, after peaking earlier at 13 in 2020.
- Claims cluster in one class. All 25 records carry a G01N material-analysis classification; secondary activity in separation (B01D) and peptide/protein (C07K) subclasses is comparatively thin.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (3) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 25 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patent families addressing immunoassay interference and the high-dose hook effect — the false-negative or falsely low result that occurs when analyte concentration overwhelms an assay’s binding capacity. The scope pulls together filings on biotin interference, macro-analyte complexes, sample dilution protocols, interference-detection algorithms, antibody pair selection and result flagging, which together define how diagnostics developers try to catch and correct a failing immunoassay before it reaches a clinician.
The dataset spans 25 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 cut-off. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, activity in 2025 and 2026 is still arriving and should not be read as a slowdown.
Filing trend and technology composition
The two views below cover the same 25 records from different angles: one tracks when the field filed, the other shows which IPC subclasses those filings sit in.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 13 in 2020, dropped off through 2021 at 1, then climbed back to 3 by 2024 — a +200% rise over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag and should not be read as a decline.
IPC subclass composition
Every one of the 25 records carries a G01N (material analysis and testing) classification, confirming this is fundamentally an assay-methods field. Secondary activity touches separation processes (B01D, 16.0%), peptides and proteins (C07K, 12.0%) and smaller pockets in catalysis, medicinal preparations, lab apparatus and dyes — each under 10% of records.
Shares are the percentage of the 25 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Immunoassay Interference and Hook Effect with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about immunoassay interference and hook effect and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative filing and most-cited records
WO2025019482A1 — Methods, reagents, and kits for tuning an immunoassay signal
Filed by Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, this application pre-complexes streptavidin-coated particles with biotinylated antibody before the sample is introduced, closing off the binding sites biotin would otherwise occupy. The disclosed NT-proBNP assay reportedly shows no biotin interference up to 3510 ng/mL — a concentration well above typical supplement-driven biotin levels in patient serum.Dated 2025-01-23; published near the end of the dataset's coverage window.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180292394A1 | Sample depletion and enrichment to improve the quality of diagnostic test results | 78 |
| 2 | US20190137484A9 | Sample depletion and enrichment to improve the quality of diagnostic test results | 11 |
| 3 | WO2020264083A1 | Compositions and methods for detecting and depleting sample interferences | 3 |
| 4 | US20220404362A1 | Methods and Systems for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Analytes in Dried Samples | 1 |
| 5 | US20220276256A1 | Methods for detecting assay interferents and increasing dynamic range | 1 |
| 6 | US10948484B2 | Sample depletion and enrichment to improve the quality of diagnostic test results | 1 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references; treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial weight.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (6 of 6 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 numbers say
Three patterns stand out once the records are broken down by assignee, class and year.
One filer dominates a small field
The ranked assignee list contains five companies, and the leader alone accounts for 11 of the 25 total records in scope. The remaining ranked companies hold materially smaller counts, down to 2 records for the fifth-place entrant.
Renewed filing after the 2020 peak
Filings peaked at 13 in 2020, fell to 1 by 2021, then rebuilt to 3 by 2024 — the +200% figure the dataset supports. Read the 2025–2026 numbers as incomplete rather than declining, since publication lag has not yet caught up.
Assay-methods claims dominate
Every record in scope carries a G01N material-analysis classification. Only small pockets extend into separation processes, peptide chemistry or lab apparatus, which suggests most protection is written around detection and correction methods rather than novel reagent chemistry.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to immunoassay interference and hook effect, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is still open
Filing activity is concentrated in a small ranked group, with most companies holding a handful of records rather than a broad portfolio.
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
Holds the largest share of the ranked assignees, including the most recent representative filing on biotin-interference mitigation via pre-complexed solid-phase reagents.
Sample depletion and enrichment approaches
The two most-cited records in the dataset, both titled around sample depletion and enrichment, point to a filer treating pre-analytical sample conditioning as a distinct interference-mitigation route.
Smaller and individual filers
The lower end of the ranked group, including an individually named inventor-assignee, shows single or paired filings rather than sustained portfolios — typical of a field still being defined by a few dominant players.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| VERAVAS INC | 0 | — |
| Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp) | 0 | — |
| Abbott Laboratories | 0 | — |
| SOLDO JOSHUA CAINE | 0 | — |
| Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a narrow set of dominant claims and several thinner branches worth checking before committing R&D or filing budget.
Map freedom to operate against the leader's claims
With one assignee holding 11 of 25 records, any new biotin-interference or sample-dilution approach should be checked against that portfolio's specific claim language before development proceeds.
Explore the claims in Eureka →Watch the under-claimed branches
Interference-detection algorithms, antibody pair selection and result-flagging workflows show thinner filing density than the core G01N cluster — worth a closer look for open claim space.
Run a white-space search in Eureka →Common questions on this landscape
The high-dose hook effect happens when an analyte's concentration is so high it saturates both the capture and detection antibodies in a sandwich immunoassay, preventing the sandwich complex from forming properly. The result is a falsely low or even negative reading despite genuinely elevated analyte levels, which is clinically dangerous because it can mask a severe condition. Mitigation approaches in this dataset include sample dilution protocols, interference-detection algorithms that flag suspect results, and antibody pair selection designed to resist saturation at high concentrations.
Within the ranked assignees in this dataset, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics holds the largest share at 11 of the 25 total records in scope. The ranking covers five companies in total, with the fifth-place entrant holding 2 records, so filing activity is concentrated at the top of a small field rather than spread across many competitors. This is not a top-50 or top-100 industry ranking — it reflects only the assignees returned for this specific search scope.
Biotin taken as a dietary supplement can saturate streptavidin-biotin binding systems used in many immunoassays, producing falsely elevated or falsely lowered results depending on assay design. The representative filing in this dataset, WO2025019482A1, addresses this by pre-complexing streptavidin-coated particles with biotinylated antibody before the sample is introduced, which the filing reports prevents biotin interference up to 3510 ng/mL. This pre-complexation approach is one of several routes in the broader search scope, alongside sample dilution and interference-detection algorithms.
Filings peaked at 13 in 2020, fell sharply to 1 by 2021, and then rebuilt to 3 by 2024 — a +200% increase over that three-year span. Numbers for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than an actual drop in activity. Treat 2024 as the most recent year with a reasonably complete picture.
The dataset shows every record carrying a G01N material-analysis classification, meaning the core assay-methods claim space is well occupied. Secondary IPC areas — separation processes, peptide chemistry, lab apparatus and dye chemistry — each account for well under 20% of records, suggesting interference-detection algorithm design, antibody pair selection criteria, and automated result-flagging workflows are comparatively under-claimed relative to the core cluster. That said, thin filing density signals open claim space, not necessarily an easy or valuable one to occupy.
Research Immunoassay Interference and Hook Effect in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole immunoassay interference and hook effect 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.