Mass Spectrometry Microbial ID Patents: Who Leads, Gaps 2026
- 37.5% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 325 of 867 records in scope — over a third of the entire field sits with a handful of filers.
- Filing has cooled from its peak. 2017 was the high point at 70 records; by the last complete year the trend had fallen -57% from 2021's 14 to 2024's 6.
- Material analysis dominates the claims. G01N appears in 60.0% of all 867 records, more than double the next largest class, C12Q at 26.1%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (14 records) with 2024 (6) — 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 867 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 867 patent records filed against a search combining microbial mass spectrometry identification and matrix-assisted laser desorption methods with terms tied to spectra databases, protein fingerprinting, score thresholds and species discrimination. The scope spans 2015 through mid-2026, capturing both the instrumentation side of MALDI-TOF workflows and the downstream informatics that turn a spectrum into a species call.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 and has declined since, though the most recent one to two years are always undercounted because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months. Receiving-office data shows the United States as the largest single office, with Europe and the WIPO PCT route also carrying substantial volume — consistent with a technology that gets filed internationally rather than kept to one jurisdiction.
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 867 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Volume peaked at 70 records in 2017. By the last complete year, 2021's 14 records had fallen to 2024's 6 — a -57% move over that span. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as still filling in rather than as evidence of continued decline.
IPC subclass composition
G01N (material analysis and testing) touches 60.0% of all 867 records, the single largest class by a wide margin. C12Q (enzyme/DNA-based measuring and testing) sits at 26.1% and H01J (electron and discharge tubes, the mass spec hardware class) at 22.7%. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares add to well over 100% and should be read as claim density, not as a pie that sums to whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 867 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Mass Spectrometry Microbial Identification with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about mass spectrometry microbial identification and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the corpus
Methods for the isolation and analysis of cellular protein content
Describes devices and methods for protein analysis on laser capture microdissected cells, enabling proteomic comparison between cell populations such as normal versus malignant tissue. Disclosed techniques include immunoassays, gel electrophoresis, Western blotting, LCQ-MS and MALDI/TOF characterization, tying sample preparation directly to the mass spectrometry identification step.Filed by the US Department of Health and Human Services, granted 2005-11-29 as US6969614B1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20040197325A1 | Antibodies against GPR64 and uses thereof | 295 |
| 2 | US6395306B1 | Bee venom protein and gene encoding same | 259 |
| 3 | US20080133141A1 | Weighted Scoring Methods and Use Thereof in Screening | 209 |
| 4 | US20040077090A1 | Whole cell engineering by mutagenizing a substantial portion of a starting genome, combining mutations, and o… | 191 |
| 5 | WO2000049410A2 | Methods and devices for the isolation and analysis of cellular protein content | 147 |
| 6 | US10916415B2 | Liquid trap or separator for electrosurgical applications | 133 |
| 7 | US7033781B1 | Whole cell engineering by mutagenizing a substantial portion of a starting genome, combining mutations, and o… | 120 |
| 8 | WO2009062190A2 | Hyperphotosynthetic organisms | 112 |
| 9 | US20100129857A1 | Methods for the isolation and identification of microorganisms | 90 |
| 10 | US20090203070A1 | Hyperphotosynthetic organisms | 90 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records that have had more time to accumulate citations — read this 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.
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 tells a research or IP team
Four patterns worth acting on before scoping new work in this space.
Filing is concentrated but not locked up
The top 5 assignees combine for 325 of 867 records, 37.5% of the field. That leaves nearly two-thirds distributed across a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants, meaning the core claim space has anchors but plenty of room outside them.
Volume has thinned since the 2017 peak
From a high of 70 records in 2017, filing fell to 14 in 2021 and 6 in 2024, a -57% move over that three-year span. This does not mean the technology is exhausted; it more often signals that the core instrumentation claims are settled and activity has shifted to narrower informatics and workflow refinements.
Material analysis claims dominate the corpus
G01N appears in 60.0% of all records, well ahead of C12Q (26.1%) and H01J (22.7%). A record claiming novel sample preparation or scoring logic will almost always sit alongside G01N prior art, so differentiation has to be argued at the method-step level, not the class level.
US and Europe carry most of the volume
The United States leads with 265 records, followed by the EPO at 157 and the WIPO PCT route at 122. Australia, Canada and the UK each sit in the 49-59 range, suggesting filers protect the core markets first and use PCT to keep options open elsewhere.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to mass spectrometry microbial identification, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The assignee ranking covers 100 companies returned by the data endpoint, counted in records — not an exhaustive registry of every filer, but the full ranked set the dataset provides.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 181 records, more than five times the fifth-place holder's 32. That gap suggests one filer built an early, broad portfolio around core MALDI identification methods rather than the field converging gradually toward a leader.
A steep drop-off after the top ranks
By the tenth-ranked assignee, volume has fallen to 20 records — a fraction of the leader's count. This shape, a dominant leader followed by a fast-thinning mid-field, is typical of technologies where instrumentation IP was filed early and downstream players compete on narrower informatics claims.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing recurs at a meaningfully higher count than the others. This points to a small number of stable institutional partnerships — likely instrument makers paired with diagnostics arms — rather than a broad web of joint filing across the field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Micromass UK Ltd | 0 | — |
| bioMérieux Inc | 0 | — |
| Children's Medical Center Corp | 0 | — |
| The Chinese University of Hong Kong | 0 | — |
| Taiga Biotechnologies Inc | 0 | — |
| Marrone Bio Innovations Inc | 0 | — |
| The Government of the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services | 0 | — |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether you are scoping freedom to operate, evaluating an acquisition target, or planning where to file.
Map the leader's full claim set
With one assignee holding 181 records against a fifth-place count of 32, understanding exactly which method steps that portfolio locks up is the first freedom-to-operate question to answer before drafting new claims.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest the under-claimed branches
Bioinformatics-driven matching and closely-related species discrimination sit well behind G01N and C12Q in filing density. A first claim drafted around scoring logic or colony preparation speed has more open space to work with.
Run a white space search in EurekaWatch for the 2025-2026 catch-up
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the apparent decline after 2021 will partly reverse as 2025 and 2026 records publish. Re-run the trend query in six to twelve months before concluding the field has gone quiet.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
This dataset tracks 867 patent records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that match search terms around microbial mass spectrometry identification, MALDI-based methods, spectra databases and species-discrimination scoring. Filing peaked in 2017 at 70 records and has since declined, though the most recent one to two years are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months. The true count for recent filing years will rise as those applications publish.
The dataset ranks 100 assignees by record count, with the leader holding 181 records compared with 32 for the fifth-ranked assignee and 20 for the tenth. That gap indicates one company built an early and broad portfolio, while the rest of the field is spread across a long tail of smaller filers. The top 5 combined account for 37.5% of all 867 records, and the top 10 for 49.9%, so roughly half the field sits outside the leading ten filers.
Filing fell from a 2017 peak of 70 records to 6 records in 2024, a -57% move measured from 2021's 14 records. This pattern usually reflects that core instrumentation and database-matching claims were filed early and are now well established, pushing new activity toward narrower refinements rather than foundational methods. It should not be read as the technology losing commercial relevance — MALDI-based identification remains a standard clinical microbiology workflow.
G01N, material analysis and testing, is the dominant class, appearing in 60.0% of all 867 records. C12Q, enzyme and DNA-based measuring, follows at 26.1%, and H01J, the electron and discharge tube class covering mass spec hardware, sits at 22.7%. Because a single patent can carry several IPC codes, these percentages overlap rather than summing to 100%, and they reflect where claim language sits rather than a strict technology taxonomy.
Bioinformatics-driven spectra matching under G16B appears in only 7.8% of the 867 records, and diagnosis-and-surgery applications under A61B sit at 11.4%, both well behind the core G01N and C12Q classes. Sub-areas like closely-related species discrimination scoring, rapid colony preparation and score-threshold calibration show thinner filing density relative to core instrumentation claims. These are reasonable areas to probe for a first-filing position, though a proper freedom-to-operate search should confirm claim scope before committing to a specific method.
Research Mass Spectrometry Microbial Identification in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole mass spectrometry microbial identification 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.