Interbody Fusion Cages Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
Interbody Fusion Cage Patents: Filing Trends and Leading Assignees
Concentrated at the top. The five most active assignees hold 190 of 604 records in scope (31.5%), and the ranked ten hold 301 (49.8%) — half the field sits with a small group of filers. Annual filings peaked at 66 in 2017 and have since settled onto a lower plateau; the 2021-to-2024 comparison (22 to 23 records, +5%) is the most reliable recent read once the publication lag on 2025-2026 is discounted.
- 1DEPUY SYNTHES PROD INC65
- 2HIGHRIDGE MEDICAL LLC36
- 3PROMIMIC31
- 4NEXUS SPINE LLC29
- 5DEPUY SPINE INC29
See the full interbody fusion cages analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions on interbody fusion cage patents
Who holds the most patents on interbody fusion cages?
The dataset’s assignee ranking shows a clear leader with 65 of the 604 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 29 and the tenth at 19. The top five assignees combined hold 190 records (31.5% of the field), and the top ten hold 301 (49.8%). This is a top-heavy field: roughly half of all published records trace to just ten organisations, with a long tail of smaller filers making up the rest of the 100-company ranking.
Is interbody fusion cage patent activity growing or slowing down?
Filings peaked at 66 records in 2017 and have since settled onto a lower, steadier plateau. The most reliable recent comparison is 2021 to 2024, which shows filings rising from 22 to 23 records, a modest +5% over three years. Years after 2024 will look artificially low because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so it is too early to read 2025 or 2026 figures as a slowdown.
How much of this patent activity covers 3D-printed or porous titanium cages?
Additive manufacturing, classified under IPC subclass B33Y, appears in 29 of the 604 records, or 4.8%. That is well below the 79.5% of records classified under the general implant subclass A61F, which suggests that most patent claims describe the cage as a device rather than the specific printing process used to make it. Porous titanium and trabecular-mimicking structures, like the one in the featured 2026 filing, are a growing but still minority claim angle.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Interbody Fusion Cages covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.