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/paravalvular-leak-and-sealing-design-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Surgical & ImplantsParavalvular Leak and Sealing Design Patents
- 75.7% concentration. The top 5 of 24 ranked assignees account for 237 of the 313 records in scope — a field where a handful of players hold the majority of the filing position.
- Filing has cooled from its 2020 peak. Filings ran 15 in 2017, peaked at 49 in 2020, and fell 30 to 8 between 2021 and 2024 (-73%), though 2025-26 counts are still filling in under publication lag.
- A61F dominates the claim space. 93.6% of the 313 records sit in A61F (implants & prostheses), leaving diagnosis, imaging and material-science classes thinly claimed by comparison.
313
Published Records
76%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-73%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (30 records) with 2024 (8) — 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 313 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Paravalvular leak occurs when blood flows around, rather than through, a replacement heart valve — a complication tied directly to how well a transcatheter valve's sealing skirt conforms to irregular, often calcified, native anatomy. This landscape tracks patent activity at the intersection of that clinical problem and its engineering answers: skirt materials, annular sizing algorithms, imaging-based procedural planning and leak-severity grading. The scope spans 313 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real activity; the reliable read on momentum stops at the last complete filing year in the dataset.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design 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
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 313 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A sharp rise, a sharper pullback
Filings climbed from 15 in 2017 to a peak of 49 in 2020, then declined steadily — 30 in 2021 down to 8 in 2024, a 73% drop over that three-year span. That is a genuine cooling in the last fully-published years, not an artefact of publication lag, though 2025-26 figures will still revise upward.
Concentrated in implants, thin elsewhere
A61F (implants & prostheses) covers 93.6% of the 313 records, consistent with a field defined by physical sealing hardware. A61B (diagnosis & surgery) at 9.3% and A61M (body-fluid devices) at 2.6% show imaging, planning and delivery-adjacent filing exists but is comparatively sparse — classes can overlap, so these shares are read against the full record count, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 313 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 Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about paravalvular leak and sealing design and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited records in this space
Representative Filing
US9700442B2 — Methods for manufacturing a stent frame
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CARDIAQ LLC
A support structure includes strut members interconnected by articulated joints to form a series of linked scissor mechanisms. The structure can be remotely actuated to compress or expand its shape by adjusting the scissor joints within a range of motion. In particular, the support structure can be repositioned within the body lumen or retrieved from the lumen. The support structure can be employed to introduce and support a prosthetic valve within a body lumen.Filed by Edwards Lifesciences CardiAQ, granted 2017 — a manufacturing method claim over a repositionable, scissor-jointed stent frame used to carry a prosthetic valve.
Highest-citation records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20150135506A1 | Systems and methods for manufacturing a stent frame | 260 |
| 2 | US20140163690A1 | Repositionable endoluminal support structure and its applications | 259 |
| 3 | US8852261B2 | Repositionable endoluminal support structure and its applications | 235 |
| 4 | US20140277563A1 | Articulated commissure valve stents and methods | 220 |
| 5 | WO2010011699A2 | Repositionable endoluminal support structure and its applications | 216 |
| 6 | WO2013106585A1 | Articulated support structure with secondary strut features | 206 |
| 7 | US8685080B2 | Repositionable endoluminal support structure and its applications | 196 |
| 8 | US20110066224A1 | Repositionable endoluminal support structure and its applications | 192 |
| 9 | US8940040B2 | Device for endovascular aortic repair and method of using the same | 142 |
| 10 | US8226707B2 | Repositionable endoluminal support structure and its applications | 141 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply by virtue of longer exposure; treat them as a signal of influence on subsequent filers, not of current commercial weight.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design 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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three findings that shape where a new filing would land relative to the existing art.
Concentration
75.7%
of 313 records held by top 5 of 24 ranked assignees
The leader board is short and steep
One assignee alone holds 103 of the 313 records, with the fifth-place holder at 24 and the field dropping to single digits by tenth place. New entrants are filing into a space where a small group already commands the majority of granted and published positions.
Freedom-to-operate work here should start with the top 5, not a broad sweep of the ranking.
Momentum
-73%
filings, 2021 (30) to 2024 (8)
Peak filing has passed for the leading names
Filing volume peaked in 2020 at 49 and has fallen every complete year since, with several of the largest historical filers showing 0 filings in the latest tracked year. That is a cooling filing environment among incumbents, not necessarily a shrinking clinical problem.
A slowdown among leaders can be room for a differentiated entrant, or a sign the core sealing mechanics are already well covered.
Composition
93.6%
of records classed A61F, implants & prostheses
Claim density sits almost entirely in the hardware
With A61B (diagnosis & surgery) at only 9.3% and A61M (body-fluid devices) at 2.6%, the imaging, sizing-algorithm and severity-grading side of the problem is filed far less densely than the physical skirt and frame designs it is meant to support.
Planning software and grading methodology claims sit on comparatively open ground relative to the mechanical art.
Geography
140
US receiving-office records, the largest single office
US filing leads, Europe and PCT follow
The United States receives 140 of the tracked filings, ahead of the EPO at 58, Canada at 27 and WIPO/PCT at 22, with Germany and Austria each in double digits. Clearance work should weight US prosecution history first, then EPO family members.
A PCT filer entering this space is joining a route already used by 22 prior applicants.
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 paravalvular leak and sealing design, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design 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
Players
Who holds the position, and where they are not filing
The ranking is dominated by device makers with an established transcatheter valve franchise, alongside a cluster of university and research-institute co-filers.
Leader
103
records
A single incumbent holds roughly a third of the field
The top-ranked assignee's 103 records dwarf the fifth-place holder's 24, meaning any competitive read of this space should treat that leader's portfolio, not the ranking average, as the baseline to design around.
Momentum data shows several leading names, including this one's peers, at 0 filings in the latest tracked year.
Long tail
7
records at 10th place
A steep drop-off past the top five
Combined, the top 10 hold 94.6% of the 313 records, meaning the remaining 14 ranked assignees share a small residual slice. This is not a fragmented field with many active competitors; it is a concentrated one with a long tail of minor filers.
Due diligence on a new entrant should ask why they are filing here at all, given how little open share remains outside the top 10.
Co-filing
6
co-assignee pairs identified
University-institute pairs co-file at even strength
The strongest co-assignee pairs in the dataset are university and research-institute pairings, each appearing together 7 times, suggesting a research-to-licensing pipeline distinct from the corporate portfolios at the top of the ranking.
These pairs are candidates for licensing-in rather than direct competitive threats.
Recent filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Aortic Innovations LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Jenesis Surgical | 0 | — |
| WHITE JENNIFER K | 0 | — |
| Edwards Lifesciences CardiAQ LLC | 0 | -100% |
| 4C Medical Technologies Inc | 0 | — |
| Edwards Lifesciences Corp | 0 | -100% |
| Dura LLC | 0 | — |
| Georgia Tech Research Corp | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design 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
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated but cooling field with specific technical corners still open to new claims.
Map freedom-to-operate against the top 5
With 75.7% of records held by five assignees, a serious FTO exercise should exhaustively chart their claim scope before looking anywhere else in the ranking.
Run an FTO scan in Eureka →Probe the under-claimed grading and imaging branches
Severity grading and imaging-based sizing sit well below the 93.6% density of the core A61F hardware claims, which is where a differentiated filing is more likely to clear.
Explore white space in Eureka →Watch for renewed filing after the 2024 trough
Filing fell to 8 in 2024 from 30 in 2021; whether that recovers once 2025-26 publications catch up will tell you if the pullback was cyclical or structural.
Track filing trends in Eureka →Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design 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 on this landscape
The ranking of 24 assignees is led by a single company holding 103 of the 313 records in scope, with the fifth-ranked holder at 24 and the tenth at 7. The top 5 assignees together account for 75.7% of all records, and the top 10 for 94.6%, so the field is best understood as a small set of incumbents plus a long tail of minor filers rather than a broad competitive landscape. Names include major transcatheter valve manufacturers alongside university and research-institute co-filers.
Filing peaked in 2020 at 49 records and has declined in every complete year since, falling from 30 in 2021 to 8 in 2024, a 73% drop over that span. That decline covers the years with reliable, largely-published data; 2025 and 2026 figures will revise upward as publication catches up with roughly an 18-month lag. Taken together, the trend shows a cooling filing environment among the field's largest historical filers rather than a still-accelerating one.
US9700442B2, assigned to Edwards Lifesciences CardiAQ and granted in 2017, claims a manufacturing method for a support structure built from strut members joined by articulated scissor mechanisms, allowing the frame to be compressed, expanded, repositioned or retrieved within a body lumen while carrying a prosthetic valve. It sits within a family of related filings from the same assignee lineage on repositionable endoluminal support structures, several of which rank among the most-cited records in this dataset. Anyone designing a repositionable, scissor-jointed valve frame should review this claim set closely before finalising a mechanism.
IPC composition shows 93.6% of the 313 records fall in A61F, the implants and prostheses class covering sealing skirts and frames, while diagnosis and surgery methods (A61B) sit at only 9.3% and body-fluid devices (A61M) at 2.6%. That gap suggests imaging-based annular sizing, leak-severity grading methodology and calcification-adaptive sealing geometry are filed far less densely than the core hardware. A first claim in one of those branches is less likely to run into the dense prior art that covers the physical skirt and frame designs.
The United States leads with 140 records at its receiving office, followed by the European Patent Office at 58, Canada at 27, the WIPO PCT route at 22, and Germany and Austria each in the low teens. This pattern reflects where transcatheter valve commercialisation has concentrated to date. A clearance search should prioritise US prosecution history first, then EPO family members, before extending to the PCT and secondary European jurisdictions.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design 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 Paravalvular Leak and Sealing Design in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole paravalvular leak and sealing design 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.