Liquid Biopsy & ctDNA Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentrated but not locked up. the leading assignee holds 25 records and the top 5 combined account for 31.3% of all 348 records in scope — real share, not control.
- Filing has cooled since 2019. the field peaked at 59 records that year and sat at 45 by the 2022 midpoint, a flat-to-declining trend into 2026.
- Bioinformatics is the second-largest claim surface. G16B appears in 33.3% of records, well behind core molecular assays (C12Q at 78.7%) but ahead of every other adjacent class.
What this landscape covers
This landscape maps 348 patent families published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine liquid biopsy, circulating tumor DNA or cfDNA analysis claim language with specific technical criteria: limit-of-detection or variant allele frequency thresholds, methylation signal processing, minimal residual disease monitoring, pre-analytical variable control, or error-suppression methods. The scope is deliberately narrow — it is not every ctDNA patent, but the subset where the claims engage with the hard technical problems of low-frequency variant calling and assay reliability.
Filings sit mostly under C12Q (enzymatic and DNA measurement) and G16B (bioinformatics), with smaller but non-trivial overlap into material analysis, healthcare informatics and genetic engineering classes. Publication lags filing by roughly eighteen months, so the 2026 count in the trend chart understates actual recent activity.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 348 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 9 records in 2017 to a peak of 59 in 2019, then eased to 45 by the 2022 midpoint and down to 6 in the partial 2026 year — a flat-to-declining pattern once the publication lag is accounted for, not a collapsing field.
IPC subclass composition
C12Q dominates at 78.7% of the 348 records, consistent with a field anchored in molecular assay claims. G16B bioinformatics trails at 33.3%, and G01N material analysis, G16H healthcare informatics and C12N genetic engineering each sit in the 11-15% range — meaningful secondary claim surfaces rather than the core.
Shares are the percentage of the 348 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Liquid Biopsy and ctDNA Analysis with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about liquid biopsy and ctdna analysis and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a recent representative filing
Inhibition of CSF-1 or CSF-1R for the Treatment of Minimal Residual Disease
Embodiments of the disclosure include methods and compositions for treating minimal residual disease in an individual using one or more inhibitors of CSF-1R and/or CSF-1. In specific embodiments, the individual is positive for the presence of mutated circulating tumor DNA, and/or has colorectal cancer.Filed by Board of Regents, The University of Texas System — published 2025-10-09.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2019200228A1 | Methods for cancer detection and monitoring by means of personalized detection of circulating tumor DNA | 124 |
| 2 | US20210043275A1 | Ultra-sensitive detection of circulating tumor DNA through genome-wide integration | 60 |
| 3 | WO2019169042A1 | Ultra-sensitive detection of circulating tumor DNA through genome-wide integration | 57 |
| 4 | WO2017048932A1 | Cancer detection methods | 47 |
| 5 | US20210343372A1 | Methods and systems for dynamic variant thresholding in a liquid biopsy assay | 28 |
| 6 | US20180216195A1 | Cancer detection methods | 27 |
| 7 | US20210398617A1 | Molecular response and progression detection from circulating cell free DNA | 26 |
| 8 | CN113284554A | 一种筛查结直肠癌术后微小残留病灶及预测复发风险的循环肿瘤DNA检测系统及应用 | 25 |
| 9 | WO2021046655A1 | Detection of circulating tumor DNA using double stranded hybrid capture | 24 |
| 10 | WO2018204657A1 | Detection of cancer | 22 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not current relevance.
Patent titles are shown in the language they were filed in, not translated, so that each record stays verifiable against the original filing — a translated title will not match in Eureka or in any national register. 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 data means for filing strategy
Three patterns stand out once citation counts, IPC shares and the co-filing structure are read together.
The top of the field is real but not dominant
The leading assignee holds 25 records against a fifth-place count of 19 and a tenth-place count of 14 — a steep but not runaway gradient. The top 10 combined reach 52.3% of all 348 records, meaning roughly half the field sits with a long tail of smaller filers.
Recent-year filing has gone quiet among the biggest names
Several of the most active historical assignees show zero filings in the latest year, including two with a -100% year-on-year change. Only one tracked assignee shows any latest-year activity, at 2 records — a sign that either consolidation or a filing pause is underway among established players.
Academic-industry pairs anchor the strongest collaborations
The strongest co-assignee pair links Cornell University and New York Genome Center at 21 shared records, followed by Roche and Roche Diagnostics at 14, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute with Precede Biosciences at 11. These pairings suggest sequencing platform IP is frequently co-owned across academic and commercial partners rather than filed solely by one side.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to liquid biopsy and ctdna analysis, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claims, and where the field is still open
The ranked leaders combine large sequencing and diagnostics companies with academic research centers that co-file alongside commercial partners.
A single assignee sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 25 of the 348 records in scope, ahead of a fifth-place count of 19 and tenth-place count of 14 — enough separation to matter for freedom-to-operate work, but not enough to foreclose the field.
Research centers co-file rather than compete alone
Cornell University and New York Genome Center jointly hold 21 records, the strongest co-assignee pair identified in the dataset — a pattern worth checking before assuming a single-entity block on any given claim.
Established filers have gone quiet recently
Cornell University, New York Genome Center and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute each show 0 filings in the latest tracked year, a -100% year-on-year change from prior activity — worth watching for whether this reflects strategy shift or simple publication lag.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| The Broad Institute, Inc. | 2 | — |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | 0 | — |
| Cornell University | 0 | -100% |
| New York Genome Center | 0 | -100% |
| ROCHE SEQUENCING SOLUTIONS INC | 0 | — |
| Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| TEMPUS AI INC | 0 | -100% |
| Adela Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying open claim space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 10
With 52.3% of all 348 records held by the top 10 assignees, any new filing in core C12Q assay claims should be checked against this concentrated set before drafting.
Run an FTO screen in EurekaTrack the co-filing network
The Cornell-NYGC and Roche-Roche Diagnostics pairings suggest licensing conversations may need to address two parties, not one, for the same underlying technology.
Map assignee relationships in EurekaExplore the under-claimed branches
Fragmentomics-based classifiers and MRD threshold calibration show lower claim density than core variant-calling methods and may offer more room for a distinctive first claim.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about liquid biopsy and ctDNA patents
The dataset ranks 100 assignees by record count, with the leading assignee holding 25 of the 348 records in scope. The top 5 assignees combined account for 31.3% of all records, and the top 10 combined reach 52.3% — a concentrated but not exclusive field. The ranked leaders include a mix of large diagnostics and sequencing companies alongside academic research centers such as Cornell University and the New York Genome Center, which frequently co-file together.
Filing peaked in 2019 at 59 records and had eased to 45 by the 2022 midpoint, with a partial count of 6 in 2026 — a flat-to-declining trend over the period tracked. Because publication typically lags filing by around eighteen months, the most recent one to two years are understated in any raw count and will likely rise as more records are published. Several previously active assignees show zero filings in the latest tracked year, which is consistent with either a genuine slowdown or simply a reporting lag.
Core molecular assay claims under IPC class C12Q dominate, appearing in 78.7% of the 348 records in scope. Bioinformatics claims under G16B are the next largest category at 33.3%, reflecting the role of variant-calling and signal-processing software alongside the wet-lab assay. Material analysis (G01N), healthcare informatics (G16H) and genetic engineering (C12N) each appear in roughly 11-15% of records, marking them as secondary but non-trivial claim surfaces.
Based on IPC composition, claim density concentrates heavily in core enzymatic and DNA measurement methods, leaving comparatively less-claimed room in areas like pre-analytical sample stabilization, error-suppression algorithms tuned for ultra-low variant allele frequencies, methylation signal deconvolution, and cfDNA fragmentomics-based classification. These are not guaranteed to be open, but their lower representation in the dataset relative to core assay claims suggests less crowded prior art. A freedom-to-operate search specific to the target claim language is still necessary before filing.
US20250313640A1, filed by the Board of Regents of The University of Texas System and published 2025-10-09, claims methods of treating minimal residual disease using CSF-1 or CSF-1R inhibitors in individuals positive for mutated circulating tumor DNA, including colorectal cancer patients. It is a therapeutic-method claim tied to a ctDNA-positive patient population rather than a detection or assay method. Anyone working on ctDNA-guided treatment selection involving CSF-1/CSF-1R pathways should review its specific claim scope, but it does not appear to reach general ctDNA detection or sequencing methods.
Research Liquid Biopsy and ctDNA Analysis in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole liquid biopsy and ctdna analysis 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.