Molecular Marker-Assisted Breeding Patents: Top Filers & Trends 2026
- One filer holds 61 of 220 records and the top five combined account for 60.5% of all records in scope — this field is concentrated, not fragmented.
- Filing peaked in 2023 at 20 records then eased toward 2026 (5, partial year), suggesting the current claim map is largely set rather than still forming.
- C12Q and A01H dominate the IPC mix at 85.0% and 72.7% of records respectively, while G16H healthcare informatics sits at just 4.5% — a visible gap next to bioinformatics-heavy claims.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 220 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine marker-assisted selection, molecular breeding or genomic selection language with QTL mapping, SNP genotyping, prediction accuracy, breeding cycle time or population design claims, classified under C12Q1, A01H1 or G16B20. The scope favours records where molecular marker methods are claimed against a breeding outcome, not general genetic engineering or unrelated diagnostics.
Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in the trend chart understate actual filing activity for those years. Family-level counting is used throughout so that continuations and multi-jurisdiction refiling do not inflate any single applicant's footprint.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset spans 220 records across the coverage window. Two views matter most for positioning work: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A flat-to-declining trend after a 2023 peak
Filings rose from 9 in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2023, then eased back — 2022 sat at 6 and 2026 (partial) shows 5. Read the tail years cautiously given publication lag; the underlying signal is a maturing field rather than one still accelerating.
C12Q and A01H anchor the field; healthcare informatics barely appears
C12Q (measuring/testing involving enzymes or DNA) covers 85.0% of the 220 records and A01H (plant breeding) covers 72.7% — most records sit at the intersection of both. G16B bioinformatics reaches 28.2%, while G16H healthcare informatics sits at only 4.5%, marking a subclass with comparatively little claim activity relative to the core breeding methods.
Shares are the percentage of the 220 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Molecular Marker-Assisted Breeding with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about molecular marker-assisted breeding and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records other filings cite most
QTL "mapping as-you-go" (US8039686B2)
This invention provides methods for monitoring QTL effects and marker assisted selection (MAS) involving providing a recursively determined correlation between one or more markers and a phenotype of interest.Filed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, granted 2011-10-18. It sits in the same family lineage as the most-cited record in this dataset, US20050015827A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2001049104A2 | MQM mapping using haplotyped putative QTL-alleles: a simple approach for mapping QTL's in plant breeding popu… | 99 |
| 2 | WO2004072259A2 | Altered fad2 and fad3 genes in brassica and the molecular marker-assisted detection thereof | 73 |
| 3 | US20050015827A1 | QTL "mapping as-you-go" | 63 |
| 4 | US20060248611A1 | Altered fad2 and fad3 genes in brassica and the molecular marker-assisted detection thereof | 42 |
| 5 | CN109706263A | 与小麦抗条锈病基因QYr.sicau-1B-1连锁的SNP分子标记与应用 | 38 |
| 6 | CN109825621A | 小麦小穗数QTL连锁的SNP分子标记及其应用 | 28 |
| 7 | US20110126309A1 | Methods and compositions for identifying downy mildew resistant cucumber plants | 23 |
| 8 | CN107619873A | 基于关联分析和KASP开发waxy1基因内分子标记 | 22 |
| 9 | WO2005014858A2 | QTL "mapping as-you-go" | 21 |
| 10 | US20170245446A1 | Improved molecular breeding methods | 19 |
Citation counts reward older filings simply for having more time to accumulate references — treat them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial 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 strategy
Three patterns stand out once concentration, timing and classification are read together.
Filing is concentrated at the top, not spread thin
The leading assignee alone accounts for 61 records, and the top five combined reach 60.5% of the 220 records in scope. The top ten reach 83.2%. A newcomer entering core QTL-mapping or SNP-genotyping claim territory is filing into ground already occupied by a small number of holders, not a fragmented field.
Activity has already peaked and is easing
Filings climbed from 9 in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2023 before declining toward the partial 2026 count of 5. Combined with publication lag, this points to a field where the dominant claim positions were largely staked in the early-to-mid 2020s rather than one still in an active land-grab phase.
Healthcare informatics claims are thin next to core molecular methods
G16H (healthcare informatics) appears in only 4.5% of the 220 records, compared with 85.0% for C12Q and 72.7% for A01H. Given that G16B bioinformatics claims reach 28.2%, the gap suggests breeding-adjacent informatics applications are being claimed far less aggressively than the underlying molecular methods themselves.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to molecular marker-assisted breeding, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
The assignee ranking returned by this dataset covers 100 companies, counted by records — not a fixed top-50 or top-100 cut, but the full set the data endpoint returns for this search.
A single filer holds more than a quarter of the dataset
The top-ranked assignee accounts for 61 of the 220 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 14 and tenth place at 10. That gap between first and fifth is the clearest single indicator of where freedom-to-operate diligence should start.
Beyond the leaders, volume drops off quickly
The top ten assignees combined reach 83.2% of the 220 records, meaning the remaining 90 ranked entities share the rest thinly. Individual inventor names appear alongside corporate assignees in the co-filing data, suggesting academic and public-breeding-program collaborations remain active even where corporate volume is concentrated.
A small, tightly linked collaboration cluster
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairs each recording 10 shared filings around a common set of individual inventors. This points to a specific research group or public-breeding consortium rather than broad cross-industry co-filing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Dow AgroSciences LLC | 0 | — |
| Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Corteva Agriscience LLC | 0 | — |
| Monsanto Technology LLC | 0 | — |
| VILKKI JOHANNA | 0 | — |
| SPELMAN RICHARD | 0 | — |
| SNELL RUSSELL | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, white-space filing, or tracking a named competitor.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top holders
With 60.5% of records held by five assignees, a targeted FTO review of the leader's claim scope in QTL mapping and SNP genotyping should come before any new filing in that core area.
Run an FTO check in EurekaExplore the under-claimed branches
G16H healthcare informatics and breeding-cycle-time software sit well below the core C12Q/A01H density, and may offer more room for a defensible first claim.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack momentum on named assignees
Recent-year filing counts for several leading assignees have dropped to zero, which is worth confirming against pending applications rather than treating as confirmed disengagement.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
This dataset of 220 records shows a concentrated field: the top-ranked assignee alone holds 61 records, and the top five combined account for 60.5% of all 220 records in scope. The top ten reach 83.2%. This level of concentration means due diligence should focus first on the leading handful of holders rather than treating the field as evenly distributed across many small filers.
No — filings rose from 9 in 2017 to a peak of 20 in 2023, then declined toward a partial count of 5 in 2026. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years will always look thinner than they eventually turn out to be, but even accounting for that, the 2022-2023 period looks like the high point rather than an ongoing ramp. Anyone benchmarking momentum should compare against the 2023 peak rather than the raw year-over-year slope alone.
C12Q (measuring and testing involving enzymes or DNA) covers 85.0% of the 220 records, and A01H (new plants and plant breeding) covers 72.7%, so most filings sit at the overlap of the two. C12N genetic engineering reaches 34.5% and G16B bioinformatics reaches 28.2%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should not be summed or treated as mutually exclusive segments.
The clearest gap sits between core molecular breeding claims and informatics: G16H healthcare informatics appears in only 4.5% of the 220 records compared with 85.0% for C12Q, despite G16B bioinformatics already reaching 28.2%. Breeding-cycle-time optimisation and population-design software claims also appear thin relative to the core marker-detection methods. These are areas where a well-drafted first claim has more room to stand without colliding with dense prior art.
US8039686B2, assigned to Pioneer Hi-Bred International and granted 2011-10-18, claims methods for monitoring QTL effects and marker-assisted selection using a recursively determined correlation between one or more markers and a phenotype of interest — commonly described as QTL "mapping as-you-go." It shares its title and general approach with US20050015827A1, one of the most-cited records in this dataset at 63 citations. Anyone building recursive or iterative QTL-marker correlation methods into a breeding pipeline should review this family's claim scope closely rather than assume a materially different implementation avoids it.
Research Molecular Marker-Assisted Breeding in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole molecular marker-assisted breeding 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.