Internal Dosimetry Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees hold 391 of 1,156 records in scope (33.8%), and the ranked leaders extend to 100 companies with a long tail below the top ten.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. Filings ran from 130 in 2017 to 98 in 2021, then down to 53 in 2024 — a 46% decline over that three-year span, with 2025-2026 still filling in as publications lag filing.
- Medicinal preparations, not imaging hardware, dominate the claim space. A61K (medicinal preparations) covers 37.8% of records, ahead of A61B diagnosis/surgery at 28.5% and image processing under G06T at 21.9%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (98 records) with 2024 (53) — 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 1,156 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this patent set covers
Internal dosimetry and quantification sits at the intersection of radiopharmaceutical delivery and image-based measurement: patents here cover how a tracer’s activity is calibrated, how organ boundaries and partial-volume effects are corrected for, and how a time activity curve or standardized uptake value is turned into a dose report clinicians can act on. The search spans records that combine dosimetry and quantitative-imaging language with the specific correction and harmonization terms that separate a measurement method from a general imaging claim.
Because dose quantification touches both the radiotracer chemistry (A61K, A61P, C07D, C07K) and the image-processing pipeline that reads it (G06T, G01T, A61B), the filings split across drug-development assignees and imaging-hardware and software vendors. That split shows up directly in the technology composition below.
Filing trend and technology composition
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in the trend chart will fill in as more applications publish — treat 2024 as the last complete data point, not 2025 or 2026.
A 2017 peak, then a step down through the early 2020s
Filings peaked at 130 in 2017 and had fallen to 53 by 2024, a decline the evidence puts at 46% across the 2021-2024 window (98 to 53). This reads as a maturing claim landscape around the core calibration and correction methods rather than a shrinking field: incumbents who staked out the foundational quantification methods early have less need to keep filing at the same rate, while activity below the surface may still be building toward a next wave once current applications publish.
Medicinal chemistry outweighs pure imaging processing
A61K medicinal preparations lead at 37.8% of the 1,156 records in scope, with A61B diagnosis and surgery methods at 28.5% and G06T image data processing at 21.9%. G01T nuclear and X-radiation measurement, the class most specific to dosimetry instrumentation itself, covers 8.4% — a reminder that most of the claim activity sits around the tracer and the correction method, not the detector.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,156 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Internal Dosimetry and Quantification with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about internal dosimetry and quantification and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Hepatic inflammation analysis with dynamic PET (US20210022697A1)
A system and method for determining kinetic parameters associated with a kinetic model of an imaging agent in a liver is provided. An image reconstruction device receives radiotracer activities over a predetermined time period, including PET scan data across multiple time frames, and uses them to derive a liver time activity curve and a circulatory input function. Combined with a kinetic model of the liver, these produce kinetic parameters used to determine hepatic scores such as hepatic steatosis measures.Filed by The Regents of the University of California, published 2021-01-28.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20110142316A1 | Tomography-Based and MRI-Based Imaging Systems | 277 |
| 2 | US20130039848A1 | Fluorescent silica-based nanoparticles | 206 |
| 3 | US20190180153A1 | Methods and systems for utilizing quantitative imaging | 189 |
| 4 | US20140378843A1 | Method And Apparatus For Quantitative Hyperspectral Fluorescence And Reflectance Imaging For Surgical Guidance | 178 |
| 5 | US20080212102A1 | Multispectral plasmonic crystal sensors | 176 |
| 6 | US20190244348A1 | Methods and systems for utilizing quantitative imaging | 165 |
| 7 | US20190159737A1 | Methods and systems for utilizing quantitative imaging | 159 |
| 8 | US20170046839A1 | Systems and methods for analyzing pathologies utilizing quantitative imaging | 154 |
| 9 | US7705280B2 | Multispectral plasmonic crystal sensors | 144 |
| 10 | US20190244347A1 | Methods and systems for utilizing quantitative imaging | 142 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate them; read them as a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not as a ranking of current technical importance.
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 matter more than any single ranking: where the field concentrates, how it is trending, and which classes carry the density.
The top of the field is dense, the tail is long
391 of the 1,156 records in scope sit with the five leading assignees, and the top ten extend that to 53.1% (614 records). Below tenth place — which holds 28 records against a leader at 94 — the ranking spreads across a further 90 companies in the full 100-company list, each with a comparatively small share.
A cooling trend, not a collapsed one
Filings dropped from 98 in 2021 to 53 in 2024. Combined with a 2017 peak of 130, the shape suggests the foundational calibration and correction methods were staked out early and the pace of new filing has settled since. 2025-2026 figures are too recent to read as continuing decline given normal publication lag.
Radiopharmaceutical chemistry outweighs the imaging pipeline
A61K medicinal preparations (37.8%) and A61P therapeutic activity (15.8%) together outweigh the pure image-processing share under G06T (21.9%). Dosimetry claims are as often about the agent being quantified as about the software doing the quantifying.
US filing leads, PCT and EPO follow
The United States receives 423 records, ahead of the EPO at 174 and WIPO/PCT filings at 152. Australia, Israel and Germany each register in the double digits, indicating a filing strategy concentrated on the US market with selective international extension.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to internal dosimetry and quantification, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where it thins out
The leading assignees combine academic medical centres with imaging and radiopharmaceutical companies, and several of the largest filers show sharp recent-year drop-offs rather than steady output.
A single leader well ahead of fifth place
The leading assignee holds 94 records against 64 at fifth place and 28 at tenth — a steep drop-off that marks this as a field with one clear leader rather than a tight cluster at the top.
Recent-year activity has gone quiet at the top
Several of the most-cited assignees, including major cancer-research and medical-imaging institutions, show zero filings in the latest tracked year and year-on-year changes of -100%. That does not mean the underlying research has stopped — it more likely reflects publication lag on the most recent applications.
Co-assignee pairs cluster around a handful of relationships
The strongest co-assignee pair in this dataset shares 81 records, well ahead of the next strongest pairing at 30. Only ten such pairs appear at all, so most filers in this field are not building sustained joint-filing relationships.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Nihon Medi Physics Co., Ltd. | 1 | 0% |
| Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research | 0 | — |
| Cornell University | 0 | — |
| Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | 0 | -100% |
| Elucid Bioimaging Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| H. Lundbeck A/S | 0 | — |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or new filing strategy.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 10
With 53.1% of all records held by ten assignees, a freedom-to-operate review for any new dosimetry or quantification method should start with those ten portfolios before broadening.
Run an FTO screen in EurekaWatch the under-claimed branches
Partial-volume correction, cross-scanner harmonization and pediatric organ segmentation show thinner claim density than the dominant clusters — a reasonable place to file before the space fills in.
Explore white space in EurekaReassess momentum once 2025-2026 publish fully
The apparent slowdown after 2021 is real through 2024, but the last two years are still incomplete due to publication lag. Recheck the trend once those years mature before concluding the field is contracting.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 100 companies, with the leading assignee holding 94 of the 1,156 records in scope. The top five combined account for 391 records (33.8% of the field), and the top ten reach 614 records (53.1%). Beyond tenth place, holdings drop off quickly into a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, so most of the enforceable claim density sits with a small group of academic medical centres and imaging or radiopharmaceutical companies.
Filings peaked at 130 in 2017 and have declined since, falling from 98 in 2021 to 53 in 2024 — a 46% drop over that span. However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 in most trend charts are incomplete rather than evidence of a further slowdown. The safest reading is that the field cooled from its 2017 peak but the 2025-2026 numbers should not yet be trusted as a continuing trend.
Medicinal preparations under IPC class A61K lead, covering 37.8% of the 1,156 records in scope, followed by A61B diagnosis and surgery methods at 28.5% and G06T image data processing at 21.9%. Because a single patent record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to well over 100%. The pattern shows that claim activity is weighted toward the radiopharmaceutical agent and the diagnostic method as much as toward the image-processing algorithms that quantify it.
Sub-areas such as partial-volume correction for small-lesion SUV measurement, cross-scanner harmonization calibration factors, and organ segmentation tuned for pediatric dosimetry protocols show comparatively thin claim density relative to the dominant A61K, A61B and G06T clusters in this dataset. These are not unclaimed, but they sit below the concentration seen in the core calibration and quantification methods held by the leading assignees. A prospective filer should check the specific sub-branch against the leading ten portfolios before assuming it is open.
US20210022697A1, filed by The Regents of the University of California and published 2021-01-28, describes a system for deriving kinetic parameters from dynamic PET data — specifically using a liver time activity curve and circulatory input function combined with a kinetic model to produce hepatic scores such as steatosis measures. It matters because it sits squarely in the time-activity-curve quantification method space that much of this landscape's G01T and G06T activity touches. Anyone building a kinetic-modeling pipeline for organ-specific dose or disease scoring from dynamic PET should review its claims directly rather than assume the method is open.
Research Internal Dosimetry and Quantification in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole internal dosimetry and quantification 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.