Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/left-atrial-appendage-occlusion-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Structural Heart Devices · Patent LandscapeLeft Atrial Appendage Occlusion Patents: Who Leads and Where Claims Are Still Open
- 40.1% concentration. The top 5 of 87 ranked assignees hold 169 of 421 records in scope — the field is led but not closed.
- +167% filing growth. Filings rose from 21 in 2021 to 56 in 2024, the last year the data can treat as complete.
- Imaging and informatics are thin. G16H, G06T and G06N together sit under 4% of records each, far behind the 83.8% carried by A61B.
421
Published Records
40%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+167%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (21 records) with 2024 (56) — 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 421 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the left atrial appendage occlusion patent record shows
Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) patenting sits at the intersection of implant mechanics, delivery catheters and increasingly the software that plans and verifies a closure. Across 421 records published between 2015 and mid-2026, the dominant claim territory is procedural and structural: A61B (diagnosis and surgery) touches 83.8% of records, with implant and prosthesis claims under A61F present in about a quarter. Filing activity has grown substantially rather than plateaued, and the assignee base is broad enough that a handful of leaders do not yet foreclose new entrants.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in the trend are undercounts, not evidence of a slowdown. The more reliable read is the 2021-to-2024 span, where filings rose sharply, and the composition data, which shows imaging guidance and computational planning still occupying a small share of the total claim space relative to the mechanical occlusion art.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 421 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings climbed from 14 in 2017 to a peak of 56 in 2024, including a +167% rise between 2021 and 2024. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because of publication lag and should not be read as a decline.
IPC subclass composition (share of 421 records)
A61B dominates at 83.8%, with A61F (24.9%) and A61M (20.0%) forming the next tier of mechanical and fluid-handling claims. Software-adjacent classes — G16H, G06T, G06N — each remain under 4%, marking the thinnest-claimed layer of the stack.
Shares are the percentage of the 421 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about left atrial appendage occlusion and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited prior art
Representative Filing
Computer-implemented in silico surgical planning for LAAO (WO2025099075A1)
UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA
The filing, from Universitat Pompeu Fabra, describes a computer-implemented method that positions a 3D model of an occluder against a patient's left atrial appendage anatomy, combines a compression value with structural simulation, and computes a device-induced thrombosis risk score from computational fluid dynamics calculations tied to patient-specific data.Filed 2025-05-15 — sits in the computational-planning layer rather than the mechanical implant art that dominates the corpus.
Most-cited records in the LAAO corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20030078465A1 | Systems for heart treatment | 902 |
| 2 | US20030057156A1 | Atrial filter implants | 677 |
| 3 | US20050197694A1 | Systems for heart treatment | 621 |
| 4 | US20130023985A1 | Device, system, and method for transcatheter treatment of valve regurgitation | 438 |
| 5 | US8888843B2 | Device, system, and method for transcatheter treatment of valve regurgitation | 386 |
| 6 | US7144363B2 | Systems for heart treatment | 298 |
| 7 | US20050197693A1 | Systems for heart treatment | 278 |
| 8 | US20050197692A1 | Systems for heart treatment | 276 |
| 9 | WO2002071977A2 | Atrial filter implants | 275 |
| 10 | US20120172927A1 | Left atrial appendage occlusive devices | 250 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-throughs from the concentration, growth and composition data above.
Concentration
40.1% of 421
held by top 5 of 87 assignees
Led, not locked
The top 5 ranked assignees account for 169 of 421 records, and the top 10 for 250 — just under 60%. That leaves a long tail across the remaining 77 ranked companies, meaning core mechanical occlusion claims are contested but not owned by a single player.
Source: assignee ranking, 421 records
Growth
+167%
2021 → 2024 filings
Activity accelerated, not cooled
Filings rose from 21 in 2021 to 56 in 2024, the last year with reliable coverage. Read 2025–2026 as incomplete rather than declining — publication lag of roughly 18 months means recent filings have not all surfaced yet.
Source: filing trend, 2017–2026
Composition
83.8% vs 3.8%
A61B share vs G16H share
Software claims are thin relative to hardware
A61B carries 83.8% of the 421 records while healthcare informatics (G16H, 3.8%), image processing (G06T, 2.9%) and AI-based computing (G06N, 1.2%) remain marginal. The mechanical and procedural layers are dense; the digital-planning layer is not.
Source: IPC composition, 421 records
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to left atrial appendage occlusion, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where momentum sits
The assignee ranking spans 87 companies counted by records in scope — not a top-50 or top-100 cut, the full set the data endpoint returns.
Leader
38 records
leading assignee
A single leader, not a duopoly
The top-ranked assignee holds 38 records against a fifth-place figure of 23 and a tenth-place figure of 15 — a real gap at the front but a gradual taper rather than a cliff.
Source: assignee ranking
Momentum
-75% to -100% YoY
recent-year change, named assignees
Latest-year counts are down across the board
Several of the most active historical filers show sharp year-over-year drops in the latest year, including one leader down 75% and others at -100%. Given the 18-month publication lag, this looks more like reporting gap than exit from the field.
Source: recent-year momentum by assignee
Collaboration
10 pairs
co-assignee pairs identified
Co-filing is limited and mostly intra-group
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, several of them pairing a parent entity with its own division or holding company rather than independent cross-company collaboration.
Source: co-assignee pairs
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Boston Scientific Medical Device Ltd | 1 | -75% |
| Javelin Medical Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| Boston Scientific International Ltd | 0 | -100% |
| St. Jude Medical Cardiology Division, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| LAMINAR INC | 0 | -100% |
| AGA Medical Corp | 0 | — |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
| National University of Ireland | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps rather than a general read of the field.
Check freedom to operate against the top 10
With 59.4% of records held by ten assignees, a targeted FTO review of that group covers most of the mechanical and delivery-catheter claim space before any broader search.
Run an FTO screenTrack the digital-planning layer separately
G16H, G06T and G06N filings are few enough in absolute terms that a single well-drafted claim can still stake meaningful ground in computational LAAO planning.
Monitor software-adjacent filingsRe-check 2025–2026 counts later
Because of the roughly 18-month publication lag, filing counts for the most recent two years will keep rising as more applications publish; revisit the trend before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Set a re-check reminderSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on LAAO patenting
The assignee ranking for this dataset lists 87 companies across 421 records in scope. The leading assignee holds 38 records, with the fifth-ranked company at 23 and the tenth at 15, showing a gradual taper rather than a small number of firms owning the whole space. That means new entrants can still find open claim territory, particularly outside the core mechanical occluder designs held by the leaders.
Filings grew substantially, rising from 21 in 2021 to 56 in 2024, a +167% increase over that span and the highest year on record. The 2025 and 2026 figures look lower only because patent publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so recent applications have not all surfaced in the data yet. Treat the 2024 peak as the most reliable recent signal, not the apparent dip after it.
A61B, covering diagnosis and surgery, appears in 83.8% of the 421 records in scope, making it by far the densest claim territory. A61F implant and prosthesis claims (24.9%) and A61M body-fluid device claims (20.0%) form a second tier. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages overlap and add to more than 100%, which is expected rather than an error.
The clearest under-claimed areas sit in computational and imaging support for the procedure: healthcare informatics (G16H) reaches only 3.8% of records, image data processing (G06T) 2.9%, and AI-based computing (G06N) 1.2%. Sub-areas like device-related thrombus risk scoring, peridevice leak quantification via imaging, and computational implant-depth planning are represented in the data but far less densely claimed than the core mechanical occluder art.
WO2025099075A1, filed by Universitat Pompeu Fabra, is a computer-implemented method for in silico surgical planning of LAAO procedures, combining anatomical positioning of a 3D occluder model, compression simulation, and a computed thrombosis risk score from fluid-dynamics calculations. It sits in the computational-planning layer rather than the mechanical implant layer that carries most of the corpus's claims. Anyone building software that scores device-induced thrombosis risk from simulated implant positioning ahead of an LAAO procedure should review its claims closely before shipping a similar workflow.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole left atrial appendage occlusion 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.