Interbody Fusion Cages Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 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.
- Growth has not stalled. Filings moved from 22 in 2021 to 23 in 2024, a modest +5% over that span, even as the raw peak year (2017, 66 records) sits well behind current annual counts once publication lag is accounted for.
- Additive manufacturing is still a minority claim. B33Y (3D printing) appears in just 4.8% of records against A61F implant claims at 79.5% — porous, printed cage geometry is claimed far less than the base implant structure itself.
Filing growth compares 2021 (22 records) with 2024 (23) — 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 604 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the interbody fusion cage patent record shows
Interbody fusion cages sit at the intersection of implant mechanics, surface science and additive manufacturing. The 604 records in scope span claims on subsidence rate reduction, porous titanium structures, endplate contact geometry, graft windows, expandable designs and radiolucent markers — a set of technical hooks that together describe how a cage is built, how it sits against bone, and how a surgeon can see it on imaging after placement. Filing activity runs from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with the bulk of documents classified under implant and prosthesis claims rather than manufacturing process claims.
Reading the trend line requires care: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one or two years in any chart will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be. The comparison that holds up is 2021 against 2024, both far enough back to be treated as settled.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset covers 604 published records with a data cut-off of 2026-07-31. The two charts below read together: one shows when the field filed, the other shows what it filed on.
A 2017 peak, then a lower plateau
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.
Implant claims dominate; manufacturing and chemistry are minority classes
A61F (implants & prostheses) appears in 79.5% of the 604 records, far ahead of A61B (surgery/diagnosis, 30.6%) and A61L (sterilising, 17.1%). Additive manufacturing (B33Y, 4.8%), medicinal preparations (A61K, 3.5%) and plastics-related classes (B29L, B29C, each under 2%) are present but thin — records can carry multiple classes, so these shares sum to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 604 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Interbody Fusion Cages with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about interbody fusion cages and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a recent filing
Intervertebral fusion cage with biomimetic trabecular bone and fully porous structure manufactured by additive manufacturing
Filed by Shenzhen Dazhou Medical Technology, this application describes a fully porous, selectively laser-melted or electron-beam-melted cage with anti-slip teeth on both fusion surfaces and a central bone graft window. The construction targets direct endplate contact and trabecular-bone mimicry rather than a solid-core-plus-coating approach.Filed 2026-08-13 — published near the data cut-off, so its citation record has not yet had time to build.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6083225A | Method and instrumentation for implant insertion | 743 |
| 2 | US7799081B2 | System and method for spinal fusion | 603 |
| 3 | US20140236296A1 | Expandable fusion device for positioning between adjacent vertebral bodies | 295 |
| 4 | US20100280622A1 | System and method for spinal fusion | 261 |
| 5 | US20070233244A1 | Artificial Disc Replacement Using Posterior Approach | 249 |
| 6 | US20120078373A1 | Stand alone intervertebral fusion device | 238 |
| 7 | US20060058876A1 | System and method for spinal fusion | 227 |
| 8 | US9060876B1 | Stabilized intervertebral scaffolding systems | 208 |
| 9 | US20130158667A1 | Expandable interbody device system and method | 200 |
| 10 | US6840941B2 | Vertebral endplate chisel | 180 |
Citation counts accumulate over time, so older records such as the 743-cite and 603-cite entries lead the table by virtue of age as much as continued relevance — treat them as markers of foundational influence, not current activity.
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 mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the raw counts are put in context: where claim density already sits, how the field has grown, and where the additive-manufacturing angle remains open.
Half the field sits with ten filers
301 of 604 records (49.8%) belong to the ten most active assignees, with 190 (31.5%) concentrated in just five. A new entrant filing on core cage geometry or endplate-contact claims is filing into occupied space; differentiation is more likely to come from a narrower technical angle than from a broad structural claim.
Growth is real but modest
Filings rose from 22 in 2021 to 23 in 2024 — a +5% move over three years, not a surge. The 2017 peak of 66 records reflects an earlier filing wave rather than current pace; recent-year totals from 2025 onward will rise as publication catches up, but should not yet be read as a decline.
Additive manufacturing is claimed thinly
Only 29 of 604 records (4.8%) sit in the B33Y additive-manufacturing subclass, against 480 records (79.5%) under the general A61F implant class. Porous, 3D-printed cage structures — the subject of the featured recent filing — are described far less often at the manufacturing-process level than at the device level.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to interbody fusion cages, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is active, and where momentum has cooled
The assignee ranking returns 100 companies counted by record — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, just the full ranking the dataset produces. Recent-year momentum figures show several of the leading names at zero filings in the latest year, consistent with the publication-lag effect rather than necessarily a pullback.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 65 records, well above the fifth-place figure of 29 and tenth-place figure of 19 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one, typical of a field where one or two large device manufacturers hold a first-mover claim position.
A long tail beyond the leaders
Beyond the top ten (301 records, 49.8% of the field), the ranking extends across 100 companies, indicating a broad base of smaller filers alongside the concentrated leadership group.
Leading filers show zero latest-year activity
Several of the most active historical assignees show zero filings in the latest year, with year-over-year drops of -100% for some. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this is best read as pipeline still filling in rather than confirmed withdrawal from the space.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Integrity Implants Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Promimic AB | 0 | — |
| NEXUS SPINE LLC | 0 | -100% |
| DEPUY SPINE INC | 0 | — |
| CARLSMED INC | 0 | -100% |
| Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. | 0 | — |
| ROBINSON JAMES C | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps for teams deciding where to file or where to watch for freedom-to-operate risk.
Map claims against the additive-manufacturing gap
With B33Y at only 4.8% of records against 79.5% for general implant claims, a freedom-to-operate check focused specifically on printed porous-lattice process claims — rather than device-level claims — is likely to surface less prior art.
Explore additive manufacturing claims in EurekaTrack the leading assignees' pipeline, not just their latest-year count
Zero recent-year filings from several top assignees is consistent with publication lag; a pipeline-stage search (rather than published-grant search) will show whether that momentum has actually cooled.
Run a pipeline search in EurekaBenchmark endplate-contact and subsidence-rate claim language
These two technical hooks recur across the dataset's most-cited records; comparing claim scope on subsidence-rate reduction across the leading assignees clarifies where a narrower claim could still clear.
Compare claim scope in EurekaCommon questions on interbody fusion cage patents
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.
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.
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.
The search terms behind this dataset centre on subsidence rate, porous titanium, endplate contact, graft windows, expandable designs and radiolucent markers, and the IPC composition confirms implant and prosthesis claims (A61F, 79.5% of records) as the dominant category, followed by surgical and diagnostic claims (A61B, 30.6%) and sterilising or disinfecting methods (A61L, 17.1%). Claims tied specifically to manufacturing process, plastics shaping or medicinal coatings are present but each account for under 5% of records.
The IPC composition points to several thinly claimed branches relative to the core device classes: additive-manufacturing process parameters (B33Y at 4.8%), plastics shaping (B29C at 1.7%) and non-metallic inorganic compound formulations (C01B at 1.8%) all sit far below the 79.5% share held by general implant claims. Radiolucent marker geometry and graft window aperture design are recurring technical hooks in the search terms but do not dominate any single IPC class, suggesting narrower claims in these areas face less crowded prior art than broad structural cage claims.
Research Interbody Fusion Cages in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole interbody fusion cages 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.