Multi-Omics Integration Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 42.2% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees together hold 89 of the 211 records in scope — a tight cluster above a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants.
- Filings up 106% in three years. Annual filings rose from 17 in 2021 to 35 in 2024, the last year with a mostly complete publication record.
- Bioinformatics claims lag wet-lab claims. C12Q sequencing/testing claims cover 49.8% of records versus 19.4% for G16B bioinformatics — the integration layer itself is comparatively under-claimed.
Filing growth compares 2021 (17 records) with 2024 (35) — 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 211 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the multi-omics integration patent record actually shows
Multi-omics integration sits at the junction of sequencing chemistry, single-cell sample handling, and the computational pipelines that reconcile genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic readouts into one interpretable result. The 211 records in scope span filings from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, concentrated heavily in C12Q molecular assay claims and G01N material-analysis claims, with a smaller but persistent footprint in G16B bioinformatics and G16H healthcare informatics.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in this dataset are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown. The 2023 peak of 44 filings and the confirmed 2021-2024 growth are the more reliable signal of where the field is heading.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 211-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density right now.
A three-year growth run, not yet plateaued
Filings climbed from 9 in 2017 to a peak of 44 in 2023, with the confirmed 2021-2024 span showing 17 to 35 filings, a 106% increase. 2025 and 2026 figures are undercounted by publication lag and should not be read against that trend.
Wet-lab assay claims dominate; the integration layer is thinner
C12Q (measuring/testing involving enzymes or DNA) appears in 49.8% of the 211 records and G01N (material analysis) in 32.7%, while G16B (bioinformatics) and G16H (healthcare informatics) sit at 19.4% and 7.6% respectively — evidence that the sample-to-signal pipeline is more heavily claimed than the cross-omics computation that follows it.
Shares are the percentage of the 211 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Multi-Omics Integration Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about multi-omics integration patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited records in this corpus
Data integration and quality control system
A data management system receives datasets from multiple sources, checks data integrity, runs quality control, and integrates selected datasets against reference libraries to produce an integrated analysis output for the requesting domain.Filed by Athos Therapeutics Inc., published 2026-07-02 as US20260187286A1 — illustrative of how integration claims are increasingly framed around data governance and QC rather than raw assay chemistry.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2019213294A1 | High throughput multiomics sample analysis | 170 |
| 2 | US20190338357A1 | High throughput multiomics sample analysis | 62 |
| 3 | US20220162695A1 | Use of dextramer in single cell analysis | 35 |
| 4 | US20200185063A1 | Systems and methods for patient stratification and identification of potential biomarkers | 27 |
| 5 | WO2023034790A1 | Use of decoy polynucleotides in single cell multiomics | 23 |
| 6 | WO2022235764A1 | Multiomic analysis device and methods of use thereof | 15 |
| 7 | WO2017214068A1 | Systems and methods for patient stratification and identification of potential biomarkers | 14 |
| 8 | US11773441B2 | High throughput multiomics sample analysis | 10 |
| 9 | US20230374572A1 | Multiomic analysis device and methods of use thereof | 9 |
| 10 | US20230088043A1 | Multiomic analysis device and methods of use thereof | 9 |
Citation counts favour older records that have had more time to accumulate references; treat them as a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not of current technical importance.
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 numbers mean for filing strategy
Three findings that shape where a new application is likely to clear examination and where it will land on top of dense prior art.
The top of the field is tight, the rest is long-tail
Five assignees hold 89 of the 211 records in scope, and the tenth-ranked assignee holds only 5. That gap between the leader (33 records) and the rest suggests most of the ranked field is made up of one- or two-filing entrants rather than sustained programmes.
Momentum built steadily through 2023, then the record thins from lag
Filings rose from 17 in 2021 to 35 in 2024, with 2023 the peak year at 44. Counts for 2025 and 2026 are not yet complete because publication trails filing by about 18 months, so the apparent tail-off should not be read as declining interest.
Assay chemistry is claimed far more densely than the integration layer
C12Q and G01N together touch the majority of records, covering sequencing, testing and material-analysis claims. G16B bioinformatics and G16H healthcare informatics sit well behind, which points to the cross-omics computation step as comparatively open ground rather than saturated.
Filing is US- and PCT-heavy, with Europe a distant third
The United States receives the largest share of filings, followed by WIPO PCT applications and the EPO, with Canada, Australia and India trailing well behind. A filing strategy built only around US and PCT coverage would match where the bulk of activity already sits.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to multi-omics integration patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the claim gaps sit
The leader holds 33 records; by the tenth position that falls to 5, and the majority of the 90 ranked assignees appear only a handful of times — a pattern typical of a field still forming its dominant claim positions.
A single leader well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 33 of the 211 records, more than double the fifth-place count of 8. That gap is wide enough to suggest a deliberate, sustained filing programme rather than opportunistic coverage.
A compressed mid-tier before the long tail begins
Between fifth and tenth place the count only drops from 8 to 5, indicating a small cluster of comparably sized programmes rather than a single clear second-place challenger.
Co-filing is rare and mostly bilateral
Only eight co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest pairing recurs just four times. Most records in this field are filed by a single assignee rather than through joint ventures or shared research agreements.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Singular Genomics Systems Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Becton, Dickinson and Company | 0 | -100% |
| BioSkryb Genomics Inc. | 0 | — |
| TEMPUS LABS INC | 0 | — |
| BIOME-ASE RES LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Berg LLC | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | -100% |
| The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a field with a clear leader, a thin bioinformatics layer, and filing activity still understated for the most recent years.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader's claims
With one assignee holding 33 of 211 records, a targeted claim-scope review of that portfolio is a faster first step than a full landscape search before committing to a filing direction.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaDraft around the integration-layer gap
G16B bioinformatics claims cover only 19.4% of records against 49.8% for C12Q assay claims, leaving the cross-omics computation step comparatively open for a first-mover claim.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about the multi-omics integration patent landscape
The assignee ranking covers 90 companies drawn from 211 records, and it is concentrated at the top: the leading assignee alone holds 33 records, and the top five combined account for 89 records, or 42.2% of all records in scope. Below the fifth position the count drops quickly, to 8 at fifth place and 5 at tenth, after which the ranking becomes a long tail of assignees with only a few filings each. This pattern suggests a small number of companies have built sustained filing programmes while most other entrants have filed opportunistically.
Filing activity grew substantially in the confirmed years of the dataset, rising from 17 filings in 2021 to 35 in 2024, a 106% increase, with a peak of 44 filings in 2023. The lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 are not evidence of a slowdown; publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any patent dataset are always undercounted. The reliable trend line stops at 2024, and it points upward.
The largest single class is C12Q, covering measuring and testing methods involving enzymes or DNA, which appears in 49.8% of the 211 records. G01N (material analysis and testing) follows at 32.7%, with C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) and G16B (bioinformatics) tied at 19.4% each. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%, and they should be read against the 211-record total, not against each other as a closed pie.
US20260187286A1, filed by Athos Therapeutics Inc. and published 2026-07-02, describes a data management system that ingests datasets from multiple sources, runs data-integrity and quality-control checks, and integrates selected datasets against reference libraries into a combined analysis. As a recently published application, its claim scope has not yet been tested, but the abstract frames the invention around data governance and QC steps rather than a specific assay chemistry, which is the kind of claim that can read broadly across integration pipelines built on similar reference-library logic. Anyone building a comparable QC-and-integration workflow should review its claims directly rather than rely on the abstract alone.
The clearest gap sits in the bioinformatics and healthcare-informatics layers: G16B claims cover only 19.4% of the 211 records and G16H just 7.6%, well behind the 49.8% covered by C12Q assay-level claims. That imbalance means the wet-lab and sample-preparation side of the field is more heavily claimed than the software and data-integration side that sits downstream of it. A first claim aimed at cross-platform harmonisation logic or reference-library-driven integration workflows is more likely to find open ground than one aimed at sequencing chemistry itself.
Research Multi-Omics Integration Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole multi-omics integration patent landscape 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.