Magnetic Nanoparticles Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 47.8% of records sit with just five assignees, so the leader tier is compact even though 58 companies appear in the ranking.
- Filing peaked in 2022 at 10 records and has not returned to that level since, with the leading assignees all showing zero filings in the most recent year.
- A61K dominates at 91.3% of records while adjacent classes like electrotherapy (A61N, 3.3%) and water treatment (C02F, 3.3%) barely register.
What the magnetic nanoparticle patent record shows
Magnetic nanoparticle patenting sits at the intersection of materials chemistry and medical imaging. The search scope here combines core synthesis terms — superparamagnetic iron oxide, size control, surface functionalization — with application classes spanning nanotechnology (B82Y30), inorganic compounds (C01G49) and diagnostic preparations (A61K49). That combination pulls in a corpus that is heavily medical: 91.3% of the 92 records in scope carry an A61K classification, meaning most patenting activity here is framed as a medicinal preparation rather than a standalone materials claim.
The filing trend across 2015-2026 is not a steady climb. It rises to a peak in 2022 and has not matched that level since, and because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent year's count is understated and should not be read as a real drop-off yet. Concentration at the top is moderate rather than extreme: the top 5 assignees hold 47.8% of the 92 records, and the top 10 hold 67.4%, leaving a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants.
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
The trend line and the IPC breakdown come from the same 92-record scope, so they can be read side by side: when the filing curve softens, it is softening across a set dominated by medicinal-preparation claims rather than pure materials-science ones.
A 2022 peak that has not been re-tested
Annual filings rose from a single record in 2017 to a peak of 10 in 2022, roughly the midpoint of the window, and counts since then sit below that level. Combined with the assignee momentum data — where every one of the leading assignees shows zero filings in the latest year — this reads as a cooling rather than an accelerating field, though the most recent year is still partial.
A61K carries the field; adjacent classes are thin
A61K (medicinal preparations) appears on 91.3% of records, with B82Y (nanotechnology applications, 37.0%) and A61P (therapeutic activity, 35.9%) as the next-heaviest classes. Material analysis (G01N, 9.8%), magnets and inductors (H01F, 4.3%), misc. materials (C09K, 4.3%), electrotherapy (A61N, 3.3%) and water treatment (C02F, 3.3%) all sit in single digits, marking them as thinly claimed relative to the medical-imaging core.
Shares are the percentage of the 92 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Magnetic Nanoparticles with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about magnetic nanoparticles and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this scope
US9983327B2 — Polymer coated nanoparticles
A magnetic nanoparticle suitable for imaging a geological structure having one or more magnetic metal or metal oxide nanoparticles with a polymer grafted to the surface to form a magnetic nanoparticle, wherein the magnetic nanoparticle displays a colloidal stability under harsh salinity conditions or in a standard API brine.Filed by Board of Regents, The University of Texas System; granted 2018-05-29.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6207134B1 | Ultrafine lightly coated superparamagnetic particles for MRI | 133 |
| 2 | WO2014066793A1 | Polymer coated nanoparticles | 54 |
| 3 | WO1996009840A1 | Contrast agent | 54 |
| 4 | US20110250146A1 | Magnetic nanoparticle and method for imaging t cells | 35 |
| 5 | US20100003197A1 | Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles and uses thereof | 35 |
| 6 | US20200038525A1 | Curcumin-based magnetic nanostructured system for dual response of imaging and therapeutics | 33 |
| 7 | US20090148387A1 | Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles and uses thereof | 25 |
| 8 | CN103933584A | 一种叶酸修饰的超顺磁氧化铁纳米颗粒的制备方法 | 19 |
| 9 | CN104548142A | 一种透明质酸修饰的超顺磁性氧化铁/金复合纳米探针的制备方法 | 14 |
| 10 | US20130245357A1 | Magnetic Nanoparticle Formulations, Methods for Making Such Formulations, and Methods for their Use | 14 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial importance.
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 →Reading the concentration and citation data together
Two patterns stand out once family-level concentration and citation weight are set side by side: the claim space is held by a compact leader group, and the most influential documents predate the 2022 filing peak.
A compact leader tier, not a single dominant player
The leading assignee holds 13 records and the fifth-ranked holds 6, so the gap from first to fifth place is real but not extreme. With 58 companies in the ranked list, most participants hold only one or two records, which is typical of a field still drawing academic and hospital-system filers alongside a few repeat corporates.
The most-cited work predates the recent filing window
The highest-citation documents in this scope, including the MRI contrast-agent and polymer-coated nanoparticle families, were filed well before the 2022 peak. That is expected in a citation-weighted view of any searched corpus: older records have simply had longer to accumulate citations, so this ranking measures foundational influence rather than current activity.
Filing is US- and Europe-weighted, with India a distinct third
Receiving-office counts show the United States ahead at 38, Europe (EPO) at 16 and India at 13, with WIPO/PCT filings at 10 and China at 7. That distribution points to where examination and freedom-to-operate risk concentrates first, and where a competitor is more likely to have already staked a claim.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to magnetic nanoparticles, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is thinning
The assignee ranking spans 58 companies built from academic institutions, hospital systems and a handful of corporates. None of the leading assignees show filings in the most recent year, which is consistent with the broader plateau after the 2022 peak rather than a signal that any one of them has exited.
A university- and hospital-heavy leader group
The names at the top of this ranking are dominated by research universities and hospital-affiliated research centres rather than a single industrial incumbent, reflecting the corpus's medical-imaging and hyperthermia focus. That mix suggests licensing and collaboration routes may matter as much as direct freedom-to-operate clearance.
Leading assignees have gone quiet in the latest data
Momentum figures for the top-ranked assignees all show zero filings in the most recent year, with some registering a full year-on-year drop. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this understates true recent activity, but it still marks a clear cooling from the 2022 peak among the field's historically most active filers.
Collaboration is real but concentrated in a few pairings
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairing linking a healthcare corporate to an individual inventor, and other pairings linking a university to an affiliated hospital. This points to a field where joint university-hospital or corporate-inventor filing is a recognised path rather than an anomaly.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| University of Houston System | 0 | — |
| IMAM ABDULRAHMAN BIN FAISAL UNIV | 0 | -100% |
| GE Healthcare | 0 | — |
| The General Hospital Corporation | 0 | -100% |
| Donghua University | 0 | — |
| Institute of Life Sciences | 0 | — |
| Council of Scientific & Industrial Research | 0 | — |
| COCKBAIN JULIAN RODERICK MICHAELSON | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a settled leader tier, a citation base built on pre-2022 art, and several IPC branches that remain thinly claimed. The next steps depend on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying open filing territory.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader tier
With 47.8% of records held by five assignees, a targeted clearance search against that group is more efficient than screening all 58 ranked companies equally.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaTest claim language against the most-cited records
US6207134B1 and the two 1996/2014-era coated-nanoparticle families anchor the citation graph; drafting around their claim scope is a natural starting point for new filings.
Compare claims in EurekaExplore the under-claimed IPC branches
Water treatment, electrotherapy and magnet-hardware overlaps each sit under 5% of records, suggesting room for a first-mover claim rather than crowded prior art.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions on magnetic nanoparticle patents
The ranked list covers 58 assignees built from the 92 records in scope, and it is led by a mix of universities and hospital-affiliated research centres rather than a single dominant corporate filer. The top-ranked assignee holds 13 records, with the fifth-place holder at 6 and the tenth at 3, so the gap narrows quickly after the leader. Because the corpus is weighted toward medical-imaging applications, licensing relationships with the leading academic and hospital filers are often as relevant as clearing patents from industrial competitors.
Filings rose from 1 in 2017 to a peak of 10 in 2022, and annual counts since then have not returned to that level, with every leading assignee showing zero filings in the most recent year. That said, publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the last one to two years in any trend chart are always undercounted and should not be read as a hard decline yet. The honest read is a plateau after a mid-window peak rather than sustained growth or a confirmed drop.
The dataset uses B82Y30 (nanotechnology), C01G49 (inorganic compounds of iron) and A61K49 (diagnostic preparations) as search anchors, and the resulting records classify heavily under A61K (91.3% of the 92 records) alongside B82Y (37.0%) and A61P therapeutic activity (35.9%). Smaller classes include material analysis (G01N, 9.8%), magnets and inductors (H01F, 4.3%) and water treatment (C02F, 3.3%). Because records can carry multiple classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should be read individually, not summed.
The classes sitting in single digits of the 92-record scope, such as water and wastewater treatment applications, electrotherapy pairings and magnet/inductor hardware integration, are comparatively under-claimed relative to the dominant medicinal-preparation core. That does not guarantee an easy grant, since a low count can also reflect a smaller addressable market, but it does mean less prior art density to draft around. A freedom-to-operate search focused on the top assignees' medicinal-preparation claims, paired with drafting toward one of these thinner branches, is a reasonable starting strategy.
The United States leads with 38 filings in this scope, followed by Europe via the EPO at 16 and India at 13. WIPO/PCT filings account for 10, China for 7, and Australia for 3. This distribution suggests that US and European examination is where most prior art will be encountered first, while India's relatively high count reflects meaningful regional filing activity worth checking separately from PCT routes.
Research Magnetic Nanoparticles in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole magnetic nanoparticles 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.