Nanomechanical Property Mapping Patents: Top Companies & Trends 2026
- One filer accounts for the majority. The leading assignee alone holds 269 of 510 records, and the top 5 combined reach 76.3% of all records in scope.
- Filing kept climbing through the early 2020s. Volume peaked at 139 records in 2022, and 2021-to-2024 filing rose 14%, from 35 to 40 records a year.
- Claim activity is split across two dominant classes. C12Q covers 61.4% of records and G01N a further 25.7%, while semiconductor and imaging classes each sit under 7%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (35 records) with 2024 (40) — 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 510 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Nanomechanical and electrical property mapping brings together scanning-probe techniques — conductive atomic force microscopy, nanoindentation-style modulus quantification, adhesion mapping — with the calibration and sample-preparation work needed to make the readings repeatable. The 510 records in scope span 2015 through mid-2026, with the search string tying core measurement modes to the practical constraints that decide whether a method is usable outside a lab: calibration standards, contact resistance, and current sensitivity.
The record set is dominated by filings that pair genomic and biological assay work with physical-property measurement, which explains why measuring-and-testing classes for enzymes and DNA outrank pure materials-analysis classes in this corpus. Semiconductor, optical and imaging classes appear as smaller, more specialised branches.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 510 records: how filing volume moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 17 in 2017 to a peak of 139 in 2022. The 2021-to-2024 span shows a 14% increase, from 35 to 40 records; 2025 and 2026 figures are undercounted because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
C12Q (measuring and testing involving enzymes or DNA) covers 61.4% of the 510 records, and G01N (material analysis and testing) covers 25.7%. Because a single record can carry several IPC classes, these shares sum to more than 100% and should not be added together.
Shares are the percentage of the 510 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Nanomechanical and Electrical Property Mapping with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about nanomechanical and electrical property mapping and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Conductive AFM for contact leakage current measurement
A method for measuring current leakage of a contact of a semiconductor device formed on or in a substrate, includes scanning the contact with a probe of a conductive atomic force microscope; applying a DC voltage between the substrate and a conductive tip of the probe; and measuring a value of a current passing through the contact to the substrate, in response to the applied DC voltage.Filed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and published 2005-06-16, this filing predates most of the corpus and anchors the semiconductor-testing branch of the field.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210262018A1 | Methods and compositions for integrated in SITU spatial assay | 189 |
| 2 | WO2010008672A1 | Semiconducting polymers | 168 |
| 3 | WO2019199579A1 | Method of in SITU gene sequencing | 160 |
| 4 | US10495554B2 | Method and system for imaging and analysis of a biological specimen | 156 |
| 5 | US20210164039A1 | Method of in situ gene sequencing | 114 |
| 6 | US10545075B2 | Methods and compositions for preparing biological specimens for microscopic analysis | 108 |
| 7 | WO2014025392A1 | Methods and compositions for preparing biological specimens for microscopic analysis | 97 |
| 8 | US20170219465A1 | Methods and Compositions for Preparing Biological Specimens for Microscopic Analysis | 83 |
| 9 | US20150144490A1 | Methods and Compositions for Preparing Biological Specimens for Microscopic Analysis | 81 |
| 10 | US20210238662A1 | Probes and methods of using same | 71 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour older filings and should be read as a signal of influence, 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 filing pattern tells you
Three signals worth acting on before deciding where to file or search for prior art.
The field is not open — it is claimed by a handful of filers
With the top 5 assignees holding 76.3% of all 510 records and the top 10 reaching 83.7%, most of the claim space in this landscape sits with a small number of filers rather than being spread across many independent entrants.
Growth held up through the last complete filing years
Filing volume rose from 35 records in 2021 to 40 in 2024, a 14% increase, after peaking at 139 in 2022. The apparent drop in 2025–2026 reflects publication lag rather than a real slowdown.
Two classes carry most of the technical weight
C12Q and G01N together dominate the technology composition, while H01L, G02B, G06T, A61K and G12B each account for under 7% of records — pointing to where claim density is lighter, not to where the underlying science is weaker.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to nanomechanical and electrical property mapping, with the prior art for and against each one.
Leading assignees and where activity is shifting
The ranked leaders in this landscape are counted by patent family, not raw document volume, which keeps the picture from being skewed by continuation filings.
One assignee holds the majority of the corpus
The top-ranked assignee alone accounts for 269 of the 510 records in scope, far ahead of the rest of the ranked leaders, though its filing pace has slowed sharply in the most recent year.
A long tail sits behind the top 5
Beyond the top 5, which together hold 76.3% of all records, filing volume drops quickly: fifth place holds 12 records and tenth place holds only 6, out of 79 ranked companies total.
Collaboration is concentrated around a small cluster
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the data, and the strongest pairs recur around the same handful of individuals and organisations tied to the leading assignee, suggesting joint filings cluster tightly rather than spreading across the field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| 10x Genomics, Inc. | 4 | -89% |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 1 | -50% |
| Bridger Technologies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| University of Chicago | 0 | — |
| Northwestern University | 0 | — |
| Colgate-Palmolive Company | 0 | — |
| Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) | 0 | — |
| Rohm and Haas Company | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures here describe the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going deeper on specific claims and specific assignees.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader
With one assignee holding more than half the corpus, any new filing in the core measurement classes should be checked against that assignee's claim scope first.
Run a freedom-to-operate searchTrack momentum, not just totals
Several leading assignees show sharp year-over-year declines in filing activity; watching who is still filing in the most recent complete year matters more than lifetime totals.
Set up assignee monitoringExplore the under-claimed branches
Classes like H01L, G02B and A61K each cover under 7% of records, which may reflect either genuine white space or simply a different vocabulary worth searching separately.
Search adjacent IPC classesCommon questions about this landscape
One assignee holds 269 of the 510 records in scope, well ahead of any other filer. The top 5 assignees combined hold 76.3% of all records, and the top 10 reach 83.7%, so the field is concentrated rather than fragmented. That said, 79 companies appear in the ranked assignee list, so a long tail of smaller filers still exists behind the leaders.
Filing volume rose from 35 records in 2021 to 40 in 2024, a 14% increase, after peaking at 139 records in 2022. The apparent decline shown in 2025 and 2026 is an artefact of publication lag, since publication typically trails filing by around 18 months, not a real drop in activity. Treat any year within roughly the last 18 months as incomplete rather than as evidence of a slowdown.
A representative filing, US20050127926A1 from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., claims a method of scanning a semiconductor contact with a conductive AFM probe, applying a DC voltage between substrate and tip, and measuring the resulting leakage current. That claim structure covers the specific measurement workflow rather than the conductive-AFM instrument itself, so alternative measurement sequences or different voltage-application methods can sit outside it. Anyone building leakage-current test methods on semiconductor contacts should check this filing's claim scope directly rather than assume the whole technique is blocked.
Relative to the two dominant classes, C12Q at 61.4% of the 510 records and G01N at 25.7%, several branches show much lighter filing density: H01L, G02B, G06T, A61K and G12B each cover under 7% of records. This does not mean the underlying science is immature, only that claim space there is less occupied. Calibration-standard methods, adhesion-mapping protocols and contact-resistance test structures for softer or biological samples look comparatively open based on current filing density.
The most-cited records in this corpus, such as US20210262018A1 and WO2010008672A1, tend to be older filings, and citation counts inside any searched corpus naturally favour age over recency. A high citation count signals historical influence on later filings, not that the underlying technology is currently the most active or commercially central. For a current view of activity, filing-year trends and recent-year assignee momentum are more informative than raw citation totals.
Research Nanomechanical and Electrical Property Mapping in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole nanomechanical and electrical property mapping 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.