Laboratory Automation Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 22.8% concentration at the top. The five most active filers combine for 715 of the 3,133 records in scope, but the drop from leader to fifth place (228 to 97) shows the lead is not evenly held.
- Material analysis dominates the claim space. G01N appears in 54.9% of records, more than any other IPC subclass, with enzyme/DNA testing (C12Q) and microorganism engineering (C12N) forming the next tier.
- Filing has eased from its 2021 level, not collapsed. Filings ran 150 in 2021 and 112 in 2024, a 25% decline over that span, using 2024 as the most recent complete year before publication lag distorts the count.
Filing growth compares 2021 (150 records) with 2024 (112) — 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 3,133 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 3,133 published records matching laboratory automation together with a control or measurement signal — control parameter, process variable, controller output, equipment state, biological sample or imaging signal. That pairing narrows the field to systems that actually close a loop around a lab process, rather than every document that mentions automation in passing. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-08-31 cut-off, with 2018 standing as the peak filing year so far at 151 records.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the last one to two years in any trend undercount true filing activity. The peak and the recent decline described here are read from 2024 backward, the most recent year that can be treated as complete.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 3,133-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the underlying technology splits across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose to a peak of 151 in 2018, then eased to 112 by 2024 — a 25% decline from the 2021 level of 150. The 2025 and 2026 figures shown are still filling in as publications catch up to filing dates, so they should not be read as a continued drop.
IPC subclass composition
G01N (material analysis and testing) touches 54.9% of the 3,133 records, well ahead of C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement, 33.4%) and C12N (microorganism and genetic engineering, 21.2%). Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these shares sum to more than 100% and each is read against the full record total, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 3,133 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Laboratory Automation Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about laboratory automation patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
Clinical laboratory automation system with single calibrator (US20240061001A1)
The filing addresses a real operational problem: external calibrators drift over time and multi-point calibration curves demand operator time and introduce handling errors. The claimed system integrates a fluid handling system, an analyzer component and a mass spectrometer so that calibration can rely on a single calibrator rather than a prepared multi-point set.Filed by Beckman Coulter, published 2024-02-22.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6592822B1 | Multi-analyte diagnostic system and computer implemented process for same | 595 |
| 2 | US6719449B1 | Apparatus and method for controlling sonic treatment | 563 |
| 3 | US20020009015A1 | Method and apparatus for acoustically controlling liquid solutions in microfluidic devices | 463 |
| 4 | US6948843B2 | Method and apparatus for acoustically controlling liquid solutions in microfluidic devices | 403 |
| 5 | US20050124010A1 | Whole cell engineering by mutagenizing a substantial portion of a starting genome combining mutations and opt… | 268 |
| 6 | US20050123445A1 | System and method for multi-analyte detection | 266 |
| 7 | US20140234949A1 | Systems and methods for fluid and component handling | 263 |
| 8 | US20140296089A1 | Systems and methods for multi-analysis | 257 |
| 9 | US20090117620A1 | Automated analyzer for clinical laboratory | 240 |
| 10 | US20100029498A1 | Selection of nucleic acids by solution hybridization to oligonucleotide baits | 238 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate them — treat this as a signal of influence within the corpus searched, not of which technology matters most today.
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 the field
Three read-outs from the assignee ranking, the technology split and the filing trend, framed for a decision rather than for their own sake.
The lead is real but not overwhelming
The leading assignee holds 228 records against 97 for fifth place — a steep internal drop that suggests one filer built an early, durable position while the rest of the top tier compete more closely with each other than with the leader.
Material analysis is the crowded core
More than half of all records carry a G01N classification, meaning claim space around measurement and testing methods is dense. Enzyme and DNA measurement (C12Q, 33.4%) and microorganism engineering (C12N, 21.2%) are the next-heaviest layers, both still well populated.
Volume has eased from its early-2020s level
Filings fell from 150 in 2021 to 112 in 2024. That is a real pullback from a recent high point, not a sign the field has gone quiet — 2018 still holds the all-time peak at 151, and the most recent one to two publication years are undercounted by lag.
Collaboration is narrow and named-inventor driven
Only ten co-assignee pairs surface in the dataset, and the strongest links run between individual named inventors rather than between institutions, pointing to concentrated inventor teams rather than broad cross-company partnering.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to laboratory automation patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranking behind this page covers 100 companies counted by record volume — the whole ranking the data endpoint returns, not a curated top list. Reading it alongside recent-year momentum shows which positions are still active and which were built earlier and have gone quiet.
One filer well ahead of the pack
The leading assignee's 228 records sit far above fifth place at 97, a gap wide enough that it is unlikely to close through ordinary year-to-year filing swings.
Several established names have gone quiet recently
Momentum data shows some of the most-cited historical filers, including entities behind the highest-cited records in this dataset, recording zero or sharply declining filings in the latest year — a pattern more consistent with portfolios maturing than with abandonment.
The next tier is where competitive pressure sits
Beyond the leader, positions 2 through 10 are closely spaced, meaning freedom-to-operate work should treat the second tier as a group rather than assume one dominant blocker.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Beckman Coulter, Inc. | 2 | -60% |
| Theranos IP Co., LLC | 0 | — |
| Affinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 0 | — |
| DHARAMSI AKIL | 0 | — |
| EDWARDS ALED | 0 | — |
| VEDADI MASOUD | 0 | — |
| bioMérieux, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Singular Genomics Systems, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific follow-up questions rather than a single conclusion.
Test freedom-to-operate against the second tier, not just the leader
With the top 10 filers holding 37.6% of all records and closely spaced below the leader, a clearance search should cover that full group rather than stopping at whoever ranks first.
Explore assignee data in EurekaWatch the calibration and single-analyzer sub-area
The most recent representative filing addresses single-calibrator systems — a narrower claim area than the crowded G01N core and worth tracking for follow-on filings.
Track recent filings in EurekaRe-check the 2025–2026 trend once publication catches up
The apparent recent dip partly reflects publication lag; revisit filing counts for those years after they have had time to fill in before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions about laboratory automation patents
The dataset's ranked leader holds 228 of the 3,133 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 97. That said, the ranking runs across 100 companies, and the gap between positions two through ten is much narrower than the gap to the top spot, so no single company dominates the whole field. Beckman Coulter, the assignee behind a recent representative filing on single-calibrator systems, is one of the more technically active names in the space even though the leader by volume differs.
Material analysis and testing (IPC class G01N) appears in 54.9% of the 3,133 records, making it the single most common classification by a wide margin. Enzyme and DNA measurement (C12Q, 33.4%) and microorganism and genetic engineering (C12N, 21.2%) form the next layer, followed by lab apparatus (B01L) and peptide/protein chemistry (C07K). Because records often carry more than one classification, these percentages overlap rather than sum to a whole.
Filing activity peaked in 2018 at 151 records and has since eased, with 2021's 150 filings dropping to 112 by 2024 — a 25% decline over that three-year span. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower still, but that is largely an artefact of publication lag, since patent publication trails the actual filing date by roughly 18 months. 2024 is the most recent year that can be read as a reasonably complete count.
US20240061001A1, assigned to Beckman Coulter and published in February 2024, describes a clinical laboratory automation system combining a fluid handling system, an analyzer component and a mass spectrometer, built around single-calibrator operation rather than multi-point external calibration curves. The stated problem is that external calibrators deteriorate over time and multi-point calibration preparation introduces operator time and handling errors. Anyone building a calibration workflow for a similar multi-component clinical analyzer platform should review this filing's specific claim language before designing a comparable single-calibrator approach.
The technology composition data shows lighter filing density in areas adjacent to the crowded G01N and C12Q core — for example, digital data processing tied directly to equipment state (G06F overlaps at 7.1% of records) and bioreactor process-variable control (C12M at 7.7%) are both far less claimed than material analysis itself. These lighter-filed branches are worth a closer novelty check before assuming the space is occupied, since low density can reflect an open area rather than a mature, well-covered one.
Research Laboratory Automation Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole laboratory automation patent landscape 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.