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/molecular-glue-degraders-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Molecular Glue DegradersMolecular Glue Degrader Patents: Filing Trends and Who Holds the Ground
- Concentrated ownership. the ranked leaders account for 18 of 18 records in scope — a field still small enough that a handful of filers define the claim map.
- Filing accelerated hard after 2022. activity sat at zero at the 2022 midpoint before peaking at 12 records in 2023, then tapering into the partial 2026 count.
- Claims sit almost entirely on two IPC subclasses. C07D and A61K cover 100.0% and 94.4% of the 18 records respectively, leaving computational-chemistry framing (G16C) at just 5.6%.
18
Published Records
WO
Leading Jurisdiction
2023
Peak Filing Year
C07D
Lead IPC Subclass
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview
What the molecular glue degrader patent record actually shows
Molecular glue degraders recruit a neosubstrate to an E3 ligase surface rather than building a bifunctional linker, and the patent record in scope reflects a field still forming its claim architecture. With 18 published records spanning 2015 to the 2026 data cut-off, this is not yet a crowded space — it is a small, fast-moving one where the identity of the filer matters more than the density of prior art. Cereblon-based neosubstrate design dominates the abstracts, and claim language clusters tightly around heterocyclic scaffold chemistry.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2026 figure understates true filing activity for that year — the 2023 peak of 12 records is the most reliable recent signal, not the tail end of the trend line.
Filing activity, 2017–2026 (partial)
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Molecular Glue Degraders 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
Data Behind the Landscape
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 18-record dataset: how filing activity moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim weight.
From zero to a 2023 peak
Filings were flat through 2017–2021, still at zero at the 2022 midpoint, then jumped to a peak of 12 records in 2023 before easing off — a pattern consistent with a field that moved from early exploratory filing to a concentrated push in a single year.
Two subclasses carry almost every record
C07D (heterocyclic compounds) appears in 100.0% of the 18 records and A61K (medicinal preparations) in 94.4%, confirming that claims are being drafted primarily as small-molecule composition-of-matter and formulation matter. A61P therapeutic-activity framing sits at 77.8%, while G16C computational-chemistry claims appear in only 5.6% of records — a thin, largely untested layer.
Shares are the percentage of the 18 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 Molecular Glue Degraders covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Molecular Glue Degraders with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about molecular glue degraders and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative Filing
A representative claim on rational MGD design
Featured Record — WO2024086347A1
Methods of designing molecular glue degraders
MONTE ROSA THERAPEUTICS, INC.
This disclosure features methods for the rational design of Cereblon-based molecular glue degraders, including rational and modular design of MGDs. The methods select organic "modules" and synthesize candidate MGDs incorporating them; contacting candidate MGDs with Cereblon forms an extended neosubstrate recognition interface on the CRBN surface that extends beyond the immediate thalidomide binding pocket.Filed by Monte Rosa Therapeutics, published 2024-04-25.
Most-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2024015565A1 | Methods of preparing an isoindolinone derivative and crystal forms thereof | 5 |
| 2 | WO2024140638A1 | 基于硫/氧取代戊二酰亚胺基异吲哚啉酮骨架的化合物及其应用 | 1 |
| 3 | WO2024051766A1 | 基于cereblon蛋白设计的分子胶化合物及其应用 | 1 |
Citation counts favour older records in any searched corpus; read them as a signal of influence within this dataset, not as a ranking of current technical 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. Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (3 of 3 rows); clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Molecular Glue Degraders 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 →Signal Check
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-throughs from the dataset that matter more than the raw record count.
Concentration
18 of 18 records
top 4 assignees combined
A field with almost no unattributed filing
The top 4 assignees combined account for 100.0% of the 18 records in scope. There is effectively no long tail here yet — anyone entering this space is filing against a small, identifiable set of active players rather than a diffuse crowd.
Ranking covers 4 companies total, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
Momentum
12 records in 2023
peak filing year
Growth accelerated sharply, then cooled
Filing sat at zero at the 2022 midpoint and jumped to 12 records the following year — the single largest concentration of activity in the dataset. Recent-year momentum by assignee shows year-on-year declines across the ranked leaders, consistent with a post-peak pause rather than sustained annual growth.
2026 figure is partial; publication lag understates the true current rate.
Claim scope
5.6% in G16C
computational chemistry share
Structure-based design claims are thin
Only 1 of the 18 records carries a G16C computational-chemistry classification, despite the field's stated reliance on structure-based design and selectivity profiling in search scope. Most claim value still sits in composition-of-matter (C07D) and formulation (A61K) territory, not in the modelling or prediction layer.
Class shares sum above 100% because records can carry multiple IPC codes.
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 molecular glue degraders, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Molecular Glue Degraders 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
Competitive Set
Who is actually filing, and where the door is still open
With only 4 ranked assignees behind the full 18-record set, competitive mapping here is closer to reading four dossiers than screening a market.
Leader
12 records
leading assignee
One filer holds the largest single block
The leading assignee accounts for 12 of the 18 records in scope, the same count as the field's 2023 peak year — suggesting a single company's filing push largely drove that year's spike.
Recent-year momentum for this assignee shows a year-on-year decline.
Momentum shift
-100% YoY
two assignees dropped to zero
Two of four ranked filers went quiet
Two of the four ranked assignees moved from active filing to zero records in the latest year, a -100% year-on-year change for both. Whether that reflects portfolio consolidation, licensing-out, or a pause in R&D disclosure is not visible from filing counts alone.
Latest-year counts are partial due to publication lag.
Receiving offices
WIPO 6, EPO 4, US 3
top filing routes
PCT filings lead, with EPO and US close behind
WIPO (PCT) receives the largest share of filings at 6, ahead of Europe (4) and the United States (3), with India, Australia and Canada each holding smaller counts. That PCT-first pattern points to applicants keeping jurisdictional options open before committing to national phase.
Counts are receiving-office totals, not family-adjusted territory coverage.
Filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Biomap Pharmaceutical Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. | 1 | -50% |
| Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. | 0 | — |
| St. Jude Children's Research Hospital | 0 | -100% |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Molecular Glue Degraders 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
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis next
The record set here is small enough to read in full — the next steps are about verifying freedom to operate against specific claims, not further aggregate analysis.
Pull full claim text for the leading assignee's 12 records
With one assignee holding two-thirds of all records in scope, a claim-by-claim read of that portfolio will tell you more than any aggregate statistic about where the real fence lines sit.
Open in EurekaCheck the G16C computational-chemistry gap directly
Only one record carries this classification against a search scope that explicitly includes structure-based design and selectivity profiling — worth confirming whether that reflects a real gap or a classification quirk.
Run a focused search in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Molecular Glue Degraders 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 about molecular glue degrader patents
The dataset in scope returns a ranking of 4 assignees, together accounting for all 18 records in scope. This is not a top-50 or top-100 cut — it is the entire ranked list the data endpoint returns for this search. That makes the field unusually easy to map in full compared to more mature small-molecule categories, but it also means the competitive picture could shift quickly if even one new filer enters at volume.
Filing was effectively flat from 2017 through the 2022 midpoint, which sits at zero in this dataset. Activity then jumped to a peak of 12 records in 2023, the single busiest year in the 2015–2026 window. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2026 count is partial and should not be read as a decline in real filing activity.
C07D (heterocyclic compounds) appears in 100.0% of the 18 records in scope, and A61K (medicinal preparations) in 94.4%, making these the two dominant claim classes. A61P (therapeutic activity) appears in 77.8% of records, reflecting indication-specific claiming layered on top of the core chemistry. G16C, covering computational chemistry, appears in only 5.6% of records, indicating structure-based design methods are rarely claimed as a distinct category.
WO2024086347A1, filed by Monte Rosa Therapeutics and published 2024-04-25, claims methods for rationally designing Cereblon-based molecular glue degraders through modular selection of organic moieties. Its scope centers on the process of forming an extended neosubstrate recognition interface on the CRBN surface that extends past the thalidomide binding pocket, rather than claiming a single fixed molecule. Anyone building a modular MGD design pipeline around cereblon should read this claim set closely before finalizing a design methodology.
Based on the IPC composition in this dataset, non-cereblon E3 ligase neosubstrate design and computational selectivity-profiling claims (G16C, at just 5.6% of records) are both thin relative to the core C07D/A61K chemistry claims. Crystal form and polymorph protection beyond the isoindolinone scaffolds already claimed also appears underrepresented. These are reasonable areas to investigate for freedom to operate, though a thin patent signal can also mean the approach is scientifically harder, not just legally open.
The trend shows strong acceleration into 2023 followed by a cooling: recent-year momentum figures show year-on-year declines across the ranked assignees, including a -50% change for one filer and -100% for two others. Combined with the partial 2026 count, the honest read is that filing activity peaked in 2023 and has not yet re-accelerated, though the true current-year rate will not be visible until the publication lag clears.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Molecular Glue Degraders 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 Molecular Glue Degraders in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole molecular glue degraders 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.