Lipid Nanoparticle Targeting Patents: Leaders & White Space 2026
A data-backed look at the lipid nanoparticle targeting patent landscape: filing trends since 2017, the assignees holding the most families, the IPC classes carrying the claim density, and where design-around room still e
Filing growth = 2021 (149 records) → 2024 (221); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 1,083 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the lipid nanoparticle targeting landscape actually covers
Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) targeting sits at the intersection of formulation chemistry and nucleic-acid delivery: ionizable lipids, PEG lipids, targeting ligands and helper lipids assembled around mRNA, siRNA or DNA payloads to steer particles to a specific tissue or cell type rather than defaulting to the liver. The scope tracked here spans 1,083 published records filed or published between 2015 and the August 2026 data cut-off, drawn from claims and titles that explicitly combine lipid nanoparticle or LNP terminology with targeting language. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years of the trend understate real filing activity.
The field is dominated by medicinal-preparation claims under A61K, present in nearly every record, with a substantial secondary layer of genetic-engineering (C12N) and therapeutic-activity (A61P) claims that reflect how tightly targeting chemistry is bound to specific disease indications and payload types.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,083 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density today.
A field that grew fast into 2024
Annual filings rose from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 221 in 2024, a 48% increase across the 2021-2024 span alone. 2025 and 2026 figures (36 so far in 2026) are still incomplete because of publication lag and should not be read as a slowdown.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Where the claims concentrate
A61K medicinal-preparation claims appear in 99.6% of records, essentially a baseline for the field. C12N genetic-engineering claims sit in 41.6% and A61P therapeutic-activity claims in 36.6%, while nanotechnology-specific B82Y claims (10.2%) and nucleic-acid chemistry under C07H (1.5%) are comparatively sparse — since one record can carry several classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read against the 1,083-record total, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,083 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Lipid-Nanoparticle Delivery: Lipid Nanoparticle Targeting Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about lipid-nanoparticle delivery: lipid nanoparticle targeting patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative filing and the most-cited prior art
WO2025049765A1 — Targeting lipid nanoparticles for nucleic acid delivery
Filed by EMD Millipore, this March 2025-published application claims a family of targeting lipid nanoparticle constructions built from an ionizable lipid, a cholesterol or cholesterol derivative, a helper lipid, a PEG lipid and a nucleic acid, with variants substituting a cationic lipid, a functionalized lipid or a distinct targeting lipid component into the same five-to-six-part scaffold.The claim structure recurs across multiple embodiments in the same family, each swapping one component while holding the rest of the scaffold constant — a pattern worth checking against before drafting a similarly structured LNP claim.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20060083781A1 | Functionalized solid lipid nanoparticles and methods of making and using same | 179 |
| 2 | WO2016118697A1 | Methods, compositions, and systems for delivering therapeutic and diagnostic agents into cells | 144 |
| 3 | US20110038941A1 | Lipid Nanoparticle Compositions and Methods of Making and Using the Same | 123 |
| 4 | US20140017329A1 | Nanoformulation and methods of use of thyroid receptor beta1 agonists for liver targeting | 104 |
| 5 | WO2021026358A1 | Compositions and methods for enhanced delivery of agents | 92 |
| 6 | WO2021226597A2 | Circular RNA compositions and methods | 78 |
| 7 | WO2020051220A1 | Compositions and methods for organ specific delivery of nucleic acids | 68 |
| 8 | WO2020051223A1 | Compositions and methods for organ specific delivery of nucleic acids | 67 |
| 9 | WO2006044660A2 | Functionalized solid lipid nanoparticles and methods of making and using same | 63 |
| 10 | WO2013177419A2 | Lipid nanoparticle compositions and methods of making and methods of using the same | 61 |
Citation counts reward older, earlier-published documents inside this corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on later filers rather than a measure of current commercial relevance.
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
Four figures from this dataset that change where you would file, cite, or design around existing claims.
A clear leader, then a long tail
The leading assignee holds 86 records on its own, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 34 and tenth place at 19. That gap suggests one organisation has built a defensible core position while the rest of the ranked field files in much smaller, more contestable clusters.
Activity accelerated into 2024
Annual filings grew from 149 in 2021 to 221 in 2024, the last year that can be treated as complete given typical publication lag. Readers should not interpret the lower 2025-2026 counts as a cooling trend — they are simply still being published.
A61K is table stakes, not differentiation
Almost every record in scope carries an A61K classification, so presence there signals nothing distinctive. The more useful differentiators are the secondary classes — C12N genetic engineering at 41.6% and B82Y nanotechnology at 10.2% — which mark where formulation chemistry meets specific payload or delivery mechanics.
Nucleic-acid chemistry claims are thin
Only 16 of 1,083 records carry a C07H classification, far below the 96 under C07D heterocyclic compounds or 216 under C07C acyclic and carbocyclic compounds. That gap points to comparatively open claim space around sugar and nucleic-acid-specific chemistry within LNP targeting constructs.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to lipid-nanoparticle delivery: lipid nanoparticle targeting patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking, or spotting an entry point.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's portfolio
With one assignee holding 86 of 1,083 records, any new targeting-lipid claim should be checked against that portfolio's scaffold structure before drafting, not just against the most-cited prior art.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaMap the co-assignee clusters
Ten co-assignee pairs recur in this dataset, with the strongest joint filers appearing together on 11, 7 and 6 records respectively — a sign of active academic-industry or industry-industry collaboration worth tracking for licensing or competitive signals.
Explore collaboration patterns in EurekaTest claim language in the under-claimed branches
C07H nucleic-acid chemistry sits at just 1.5% of records against a much denser C12N and A61P backdrop, suggesting room for a narrowly drafted claim that has not yet been crowded out.
Draft and stress-test claims in EurekaCommon questions about the lipid nanoparticle targeting landscape
The ranked field covers 100 assignees, with the leader holding 86 of the 1,083 records in scope — well clear of the fifth-place holder at 34 and tenth place at 19. The top 5 assignees combined account for 25.2% of all records, meaning a quarter of the field's activity is concentrated in a handful of organisations while the remainder is spread across a long tail of smaller filers. This pattern is typical of a technology that has an established leader but is still open to new entrants in adjacent claim space.
Annual filings rose from 5 in 2017 to a peak of 221 in 2024, including a 48% increase between 2021 (149 filings) and 2024 (221 filings). Counts for 2025 and 2026 appear lower, but that reflects the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than a genuine slowdown. Anyone benchmarking momentum should treat 2024 as the most recent complete year.
Almost every record, 99.6% of the 1,083 in scope, carries an A61K medicinal-preparations classification, making it effectively a baseline rather than a differentiator. Below that, C12N genetic-engineering claims appear in 41.6% of records and A61P therapeutic-activity claims in 36.6%, reflecting how closely targeting chemistry is tied to specific payloads and indications. Nanotechnology-specific B82Y claims (10.2%) and nucleic-acid chemistry under C07H (1.5%) are comparatively rare, marking narrower or less-crowded technical corners.
The clearest gap by classification density is C07H, sugar and nucleic-acid chemistry, which appears in only 1.5% of the 1,083 records compared with 19.9% for C07C acyclic and carbocyclic compounds and 8.9% for C07D heterocyclic compounds. That does not guarantee an easy claim, since general A61K and C12N coverage is dense across the whole field, but it does indicate a chemistry-specific branch that has not attracted the same volume of filing. A freedom-to-operate search focused on that class is a reasonable starting point before drafting there.
WO2025049765A1, filed by EMD Millipore and published in March 2025, claims a family of targeting lipid nanoparticle constructions built around a five-to-six-component scaffold: an ionizable lipid, a cholesterol or cholesterol derivative, a helper lipid, a PEG lipid, a targeting lipid or functionalized lipid, and a nucleic acid. Several embodiments swap in a cationic lipid or substitute the targeting component while keeping the rest of the scaffold intact. Anyone drafting a similarly structured LNP claim should map their component list against this scaffold to see whether a genuinely distinct combination remains available.
Research Lipid-Nanoparticle Delivery: Lipid Nanoparticle Targeting Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole lipid-nanoparticle delivery: lipid nanoparticle targeting 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.