Insulin Pump Biosensor Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
- Filing has cooled since its 2020 peak. 108 families published that year against 85 in 2017 and a 2022 midpoint of 83 — the field grew, then flattened rather than accelerating into the AI-glucose era.
- Momentum is negative across every major assignee. Every top filer tracked for recent-year activity shows a YoY decline of at least 50%, including firms with historically dense portfolios — a sign claim space, not appetite, is the constraint.
- Informatics claims now outnumber pure sensing claims. 519 records touch G16H healthcare informatics against 31 in G01N material analysis — the fight has moved from the electrode to the algorithm layer.
Filing growth compares 2021 (108 records) with 2024 (71) — 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 943 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families at the intersection of insulin delivery hardware and glucose biosensing — the claim territory that defines closed-loop and sensor-augmented pump systems. The search spans continuous glucose monitoring, redundant sensor architectures, and the control logic that turns a glucose reading into a delivery command, filtered to art classified under body-fluid devices, diagnostic sensing, and electrochemical material analysis.
Coverage runs from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025–2026 figures in every chart understate true filing activity for those years and should be read as a floor, not a ceiling.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
How filing activity and technology mix have shifted
Two views of the same 943-family dataset: the year-by-year filing curve, and the IPC subclasses that carry the claim weight.
A peak in 2020, then a plateau
Filings rose from 85 in 2017 to a peak of 108 in 2020, then settled back to 83 by 2022 — a flat-to-declining pattern rather than sustained growth, even before accounting for publication lag on the most recent years.
Sensing hardware still dominates the classification mix, but informatics is close behind
A61M (body-fluid devices, 831 records) and A61B (diagnosis and surgery, 625) remain the largest classes, but G16H (healthcare informatics, 519) now sits ahead of A61K, G01N and G06N combined — evidence that algorithmic and data-management claims have become as contested as the physical sensor and delivery mechanism.
Shares are the percentage of the 943 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Insulin Pump Biosensor with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about insulin pump biosensor and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe prior art doing the most citation work, and a recent representative filing
US20250352092A1 — Modeling targets of continuous glucose monitoring metrics for glycemic control
Disclosed herein are techniques for blood glucose management. In one example, a processor-implemented method includes receiving an input of a target value of a first continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metric, estimating a target value of at least a second CGM metric that corresponds to the target value of the first CGM metric, and providing the estimated target value of at least the second CGM metric to a user. In some examples, the processor-implemented method also includes determining that the estimated target value of at least the second CGM metric meets a predetermined criterion, and configuring an insulin delivery system based on the target value of the first CGM metric.Filed by Medtronic MiniMed, this claim sits squarely in the informatics layer — it targets the relationship between CGM metrics rather than the sensor hardware itself, illustrating the shift in claim activity toward the algorithmic layer.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US9980140B1 | Secure communication architecture for medical devices | 564 |
| 2 | US20210236729A1 | Redundant staggered glucose sensor disease management system | 410 |
| 3 | US20110098548A1 | Methods for modeling insulin therapy requirements | 295 |
| 4 | US20110021898A1 | Real time management of data relating to physiological control of glucose levels | 234 |
| 5 | US20130060105A1 | Orthogonally Redundant Sensor Systems and Methods | 232 |
| 6 | US20150018633A1 | Unified Platform for Monitoring and Control of Blood Glucose Levels in Diabetic Patients | 226 |
| 7 | US20100100077A1 | Method and System for Providing Integrated Medication Infusion and Analyte Monitoring System | 212 |
| 8 | US20140309615A1 | Discretionary insulin delivery systems and methods | 190 |
| 9 | WO2010135646A1 | Usability features for integrated insulin delivery system | 173 |
| 10 | US20130245547A1 | Blood glucose control system | 167 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate references inside this corpus — treat them as a measure of influence on subsequent filers, not of current technical 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 numbers say about where this field is headed
Three read-throughs from the filing trend, classification mix and citation pattern, aimed at what they mean for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision today.
Growth has already plateaued
The filing curve peaked in 2020 and had already receded to 83 by 2022, well before any AI-driven wave of interest could show up in the numbers. That timing suggests the plateau reflects claim-space saturation in core sensing and delivery mechanics, not a slowdown in clinical demand for closed-loop systems.
The contested layer has moved up the stack
Healthcare informatics classifications now outnumber material-analysis and sensing-chemistry classifications by more than 16 to 1. New filers are more likely to be defending a data-modeling or control-logic claim than an electrode chemistry or membrane design.
Every major assignee is pulling back at once
No tracked top assignee grew filings in the latest year; declines range from -50% to -83% YoY, and two firms show zero latest-year filings. A synchronized pullback across otherwise competing filers is more consistent with a maturing claim landscape than with any single company's strategy shift.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairing links a diagnostics company to a university technology-transfer office rather than two device manufacturers. Most portfolios in this field are built solo rather than through joint filing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to insulin pump biosensor, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the portfolio, and where activity is slowing
Filing leadership in this field is held by a small set of device and diagnostics companies, but recent-year momentum has turned negative across nearly all of them — a signal worth weighing before assuming any single assignee's position is still expanding.
US-centric filing with a thin non-US tail
The United States receives roughly half of all filings in this dataset, with Europe and the WIPO/PCT route a distant second and third. China and Australia receiving-office counts are comparatively small, suggesting filers are prioritizing US protection first and expanding selectively.
Even the most active recent filer is pulling back
Insulet shows the highest latest-year filing count among tracked assignees at 2, but that is itself down 60% year over year. No assignee in the momentum table is filing at a stable or increasing rate.
The densest tie is diagnostics-to-academia
The strongest co-assignee pair links Abbott Diabetes Care with Cambridge Enterprise, the University of Cambridge's commercialization arm — a pattern of licensing university-originated sensing IP rather than pure corporate joint development.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Insulet Corporation | 2 | -60% |
| University of Virginia Patent Foundation | 1 | -83% |
| Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. | 1 | -50% |
| Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. | 1 | -50% |
| Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Shanghai Microport Soonhealth Technology Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
| Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Animas Corporation | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis next
The trends above point to specific follow-up work depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or new filing strategy.
Map the informatics claim boundary precisely
With G16H now the second-largest classification, a claim-by-claim review of the CGM-metric-modeling filings (including the featured Medtronic filing) will show exactly how tightly the algorithmic layer is fenced before drafting new dosing-logic claims.
Explore claim charts in Eureka →Watch for a re-acceleration once the plateau clears
Every top assignee is currently filing less, not more. A quarterly monitor on the momentum table will catch the first mover if and when filing resumes, rather than discovering it a year after the fact via publication lag.
Set up assignee monitoring in Eureka →Assess the university-licensing pathway
The Abbott–Cambridge Enterprise pairing and the Virginia foundation's academic ties suggest sensing IP is still flowing out of university labs. A licensing-landscape pass on academic assignees may surface acquisition targets missed by a company-only search.
Run an assignee deep-dive in Eureka →Common questions about insulin pump biosensor patents
Filing in this field is led by a small group of diabetes device and diagnostics companies, with the closest tracked co-filing relationship linking Abbott Diabetes Care to Cambridge Enterprise, the University of Cambridge's commercialization office. No single assignee has a runaway lead: recent-year filing counts across the top players are low and all trending downward. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work should look at the full assignee ranking rather than assume one company dominates, because the field is broader and flatter than headline device brands suggest.
Not on the filing-trend evidence here: activity peaked at 108 families in 2020 and had already fallen to 83 by the 2022 midpoint, a flat-to-declining pattern. The most recent years will look artificially low regardless, because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so 2025-2026 figures are a floor rather than a true count. Taken together, the data points to a field where core claim space is filling up rather than one still in an early growth phase.
Sensing claims (classified largely under A61B and G01N) cover the physical biosensor — electrode chemistry, membrane design, redundant sensor arrays. Informatics claims (G16H, and increasingly G06N for AI-based methods) cover what happens after a glucose value is measured: modeling target metrics, generating dosing recommendations, or managing multi-sensor data. This dataset shows G16H records (519) far outnumbering G01N sensing-chemistry records (31), which means the more actively contested claim layer right now is software and data modeling, not the sensor hardware itself.
It's a Medtronic MiniMed filing (2025-11-20) covering a method for estimating a target value of a second continuous glucose monitoring metric from a first target metric, then using that estimate to configure an insulin delivery system. In practical terms, it claims a specific way of translating one glycemic-control target into another and acting on it automatically, rather than a sensor or pump mechanism. It's a useful marker of where the field's newest claims sit: on the modeling relationship between CGM metrics, one layer removed from the physical measurement.
The classification data points to non-enzymatic glucose sensing chemistry and electrode biofouling resistance as comparatively thin relative to the dense core sensing and delivery claim space, alongside multi-sensor redundancy arbitration logic and confidence-scoring for AI-driven dosing decisions. These are inferences from low relative record counts in the corresponding IPC subclasses, not a guarantee of allowability, and a proper clearance search is still needed before drafting. They are, however, reasonable starting points precisely because filing momentum across the established leaders has slowed rather than concentrated further into these branches.
Research Insulin Pump Biosensor in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole insulin pump biosensor 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.