Infusion Pump Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated at the top. the five leading assignees hold 65.1% of all 1,952 records in scope, and the ranked leaders extend that to 84.1% among ten.
- Filing has cooled since its peak. activity peaked at 139 records in 2019 and has declined toward the 2022 midpoint of 100, with 2026 figures still partial.
- Informatics is now a real second axis. 31.6% of records carry a G16H healthcare-informatics class alongside the core A61M fluid-device class, reflecting how much of the recent work is about drug libraries and connectivity rather than mechanics alone.
What this landscape covers
This dataset spans 1,952 published records filed between 2017 and 2026 across infusion pumps, syringe pumps, and smart infusion systems, filtered to claims touching flow accuracy at low rate, occlusion or air-in-line detection, drug libraries, or EHR interoperability. The IPC scope centres on A61M5 (devices for introducing media into the body), A61M39 (fluid-handling devices), and G16H20 (healthcare informatics for treatment protocols), which together define the boundary between mechanical delivery hardware and the software layer now built around it.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent year's count of 6 understates actual filing activity rather than signalling a real collapse. Reading the trend against the 2019 peak and the 2022 midpoint gives a steadier picture of direction than the final year alone.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,952-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims. Because a single record can carry several classes, the composition shares are read against the full record total, not against each other.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose to a peak of 139 in 2019, sat at 100 by the 2022 midpoint, and have since drifted down to 6 in the still-partial 2026 count — a flat-to-declining pattern rather than sustained growth.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61M (devices for body fluids) anchors 94.7% of records, as expected for the search scope. G16H (healthcare informatics) reaches 31.6% and G06F (digital data processing) 14.8%, showing that a substantial share of recent claim activity sits in software and data handling rather than the pump mechanism itself. Smaller classes — A61J containers, G05D control systems, F04B positive-displacement pumps, G08B alarms, and A61B diagnosis — each cover under 6% of records and mark narrower, more specialised claim territory.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,952 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Infusion Pumps and Smart Delivery with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about infusion pumps and smart delivery and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited prior art in this space
Infusion pump with an electronically loadable drug library and a user interface for loading the library
A system for creating a customized drug library for an electronically loadable drug infusion pump, the system including a drug library containing a plurality of drug entries, there being associated with each drug entry a set of associated drug delivery parameters and/or drug delivery protocols for configuring the drug infusion pump; a tool for selecting a set of drug entries from among the plurality of drug entries in said drug library; a tool for adding the selected drug entries along with the sets of drug delivery information associated therewith to a customized library; and a loading tool for causing the system to electronically load the customized library into the drug infusion pump.Filed by Baxter International, published 2002-06-20 — one of the two most-cited records in this dataset, at 1,199 citations.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5681285A | Infusion pump with an electronically loadable drug library and a user interface for loading the library | 1,199 |
| 2 | US6485465B2 | Methods, apparatuses, and uses for infusion pump fluid pressure and force detection | 1,162 |
| 3 | US6659980B2 | Methods, apparatuses, and uses for infusion pump fluid pressure and force detection | 1,132 |
| 4 | US7976508B2 | Medication safety system featuring a multiplexed RFID interrogator panel | 895 |
| 5 | US5814015A | Infusion pump for at least one syringe | 874 |
| 6 | US6269340B1 | Infusion pump with an electronically loadable drug library and a user interface for loading the library | 846 |
| 7 | US5647853A | Rapid response occlusion detector for a medication infusion pump | 726 |
| 8 | US20020128594A1 | Infusion pump with a sealed drive mechanism and improved method of occlusion detection | 723 |
| 9 | US5782805A | Medical infusion pump | 703 |
| 10 | US5695473A | Occlusion detection system for an infusion pump | 644 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and favour older, foundational filings — treat them as a measure of influence on later claim drafting, not of current commercial relevance.
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 a filing decision
Beyond the raw counts, three patterns matter for anyone deciding where to file next or who to watch.
The field is not open at the top
Five assignees combined hold 65.1% of all 1,952 records in scope, and that share climbs to 84.1% once the ranked leaders extend to ten. New entrants are filing into claim space where the dominant mechanical and drug-library patterns are already well staked out.
Leaders have slowed, not scaled back
Recent-year momentum for several of the most active historical filers shows sharp year-on-year declines, some down to zero filings in the latest year. Given the 18-month publication lag, this reads more as a reporting gap than a retreat from the technology, but it does mean recent leadership tables understate current activity.
Software claims now sit alongside hardware
Nearly a third of records carry a G16H healthcare-informatics classification in addition to the core A61M fluid-device class, and 14.8% also touch G06F digital data processing. Drug-library and EHR-interoperability claims are no longer a niche overlay on pump mechanics; they are a parallel claim axis.
Cross-entity filing is concentrated in one relationship
Of the 10 co-assignee pairs identified, the strongest pair co-files at a scale well above the others, with individual-inventor pairings appearing at a much smaller scale elsewhere in the data. This suggests most collaborative filing in the space runs through a small number of established corporate relationships rather than broad cross-industry partnership.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to infusion pumps and smart delivery, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Baxter International Inc. | Baxter Healthcare SA | 110 |
| KAMEN DEAN | LANIGAN RICHARD J | 23 |
| KAMEN DEAN | GRAY LARRY B | 21 |
| DEKA Products LP | KAMEN DEAN | 18 |
| Baxter International Inc. | General Medical Corporation | 16 |
| DEKA Products LP | GRAY LARRY B | 15 |
| KAMEN DEAN | KERWIN JOHN M | 15 |
| KAMEN DEAN | LANIER JR GREGORY R | 14 |
Co-assignee activity is dominated by one corporate pairing, with inventor-level pairs appearing at a smaller scale elsewhere in the dataset.
The assignee landscape
The ranking covers 100 companies by record count, led by a single assignee at 382 records, with the fifth-place holder at 159 and tenth place at 50 — a steep drop-off that marks a genuine long tail beyond the leaders.
A single filer sets the pace
The leading assignee's record count is more than double the fifth-place holder's 159, indicating a filer that has built a broad portfolio across the drug-library, occlusion-detection and pump-mechanics claim space rather than a narrow specialty.
Volume drops fast past the leaders
By tenth place, record counts have fallen to 50 — roughly a seventh of the leader's total. Below the ranked leaders, filing activity spreads thinly across many smaller entrants, each holding a handful of records rather than a defensible portfolio.
Recent activity has cooled across the board
Every leading assignee tracked for recent-year momentum shows a year-on-year decline, several falling to zero filings in the latest year. Read alongside the 18-month publication lag, this points to a reporting gap rather than an actual halt in R&D.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Baxter International Inc. | 2 | -60% |
| Baxter Healthcare SA | 2 | -60% |
| ICU Medical Inc. | 1 | -92% |
| DEKA Products LP | 0 | -100% |
| Smiths Medical ASD Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| CareFusion 303 Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Medtronic MiniMed Inc. | 0 | — |
| Terumo Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with entrenched leaders but open technical corners. These are the directions worth pursuing next.
Map claim scope on the leading portfolios
With 65.1% of records held by five assignees, understanding exactly what those portfolios claim — versus what they merely file around — determines whether a new entrant has room to operate.
Explore assignee claim scopeWatch the informatics overlap
G16H and G06F classes now touch nearly a third and a seventh of records respectively. Tracking how drug-library and EHR-interoperability claims evolve alongside hardware claims will matter more than the mechanical trend alone.
Track informatics filingsReassess after the next publication cycle
The 2025-2026 figures are partial due to the roughly 18-month publication lag. A follow-up pull once those years settle will clarify whether the decline from the 2019 peak is a genuine slowdown or a reporting artefact.
Set a follow-up reviewCommon questions about infusion pump patents
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 382 of the 1,952 records in scope, more than double the fifth-place holder's 159. The top five assignees combined account for 65.1% of all records, and that concentration extends to 84.1% among the ten leading filers. This means the core mechanical and drug-library claim space is already heavily staked out by a small number of established medical device manufacturers.
No — filing peaked at 139 records in 2019, sat at 100 by the 2022 midpoint, and has declined since, with only 6 records published in the still-partial 2026 count. Because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years will always look artificially low. Even accounting for that lag, the trend from 2019 onward reads as flat to declining rather than growing.
The dominant classification is A61M, covering devices for introducing media into the body, present in 94.7% of the 1,952 records. A substantial secondary cluster sits in G16H healthcare informatics at 31.6% and G06F digital data processing at 14.8%, reflecting how much recent patenting activity concerns drug libraries, connectivity, and EHR interoperability rather than pump mechanics alone. Smaller classes like A61J containers, G05D control systems, F04B pumps, G08B alarms, and A61B diagnosis each cover under 6% of records and mark narrower specialty areas.
The smaller IPC classes point to under-claimed territory: F04B positive-displacement pump miniaturisation, G08B alarm prioritisation logic, and G05D non-electric flow control each sit under 6% of records, well below the dominant A61M and G16H activity. Low-flow-rate accuracy at sub-mL/hour rates and air-in-line detection using sensor fusion are also comparatively thin relative to the core drug-library and occlusion-detection claims. These narrower branches are worth a closer freedom-to-operate look precisely because the leading assignees' portfolios are concentrated elsewhere.
US20020077852A1, assigned to Baxter International and published in 2002, claims a system for building and electronically loading a customized drug library onto an infusion pump — including the drug entry set, the delivery parameters and protocols tied to each entry, and the tool for loading that customized library into the device. It is one of the two most-cited records in this dataset, at 1,199 citations, meaning a large share of later drug-library filings has had to draft around or build on it. Anyone designing a pump with configurable, loadable drug-safety limits should review this filing's specific claim language before assuming a library-based interoperability feature is clear to build.
Research Infusion Pumps and Smart Delivery in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole infusion pumps and smart delivery 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.