Patient-Specific Orthopaedic Implant Patents: Who Leads 2026
- Three assignees account for all 24 records in scope there is no long tail of small filers in this dataset — the field is a closed contest between a handful of players.
- Filing peaked in 2022 at 8 records and has not been matched since, though the most recent year is always undercounted because publication lags filing by around 18 months.
- A61B surgical and diagnostic claims dominate 87.5% of the 24 records touch A61B, while implant-specific A61F claims sit at 58.3% — instrumentation is claimed more heavily than the implant hardware itself.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks patents at the intersection of patient-specific instrumentation and 3D printed orthopaedic implants — devices and surgical guides built from imaging segmentation and matched to an individual patient’s anatomy, together with the lattice structures, guide-fit mechanics and regulatory or cost-effectiveness claims that surround them. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, with 24 published records forming the corpus.
The dataset is small and concentrated: three assignees cover the entire ranking, and the top three combined account for all 24 records in scope. That makes this less a landscape of many competitors and more a map of how a few filers have divided the claim space around ankle and foot deformity correction, patient-matched guides and lattice-based implant architecture.
Filing trend and technology composition
Filing volume and IPC composition for the 24 records in scope, drawn directly from the underlying patent families.
Filing trend
Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2022, the highest single year on record, and have not returned to that level since. The 2026 figure of 1 is a partial year and should be read as understated given the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication.
IPC composition
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) appears in 87.5% of the 24 records and A61F (implants and prostheses) in 58.3%. Because a single record can carry both classes, these shares add to more than 100% — the pattern still shows that surgical instrumentation and guide claims are drafted at least as often as claims on the implant itself.
Shares are the percentage of the 24 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Patient-Specific and 3D Printed Orthopaedic Implants with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about patient-specific and 3d printed orthopaedic implants and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited records
Implants, instruments, systems, and methods of using (US20240216145A1, PARAGON 28, INC.)
Implants, devices, instruments, systems and methods for using the same for correcting bone deformities in the lower extremity are disclosed. Specifically, implants, devices, instruments and systems used for ankle fusion procedures are disclosed. The implants including an interior frame, an exterior frame surrounding the interior frame, and a lattice structure extending between at least a portion of the interior frame and the exterior frame.Filed as a continuation-style ankle fusion implant claim built around a dual-frame lattice architecture, illustrating how implant hardware claims are drafted alongside the instrumentation claims that dominate the IPC composition.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20220211387A1 | Patient-specific surgical methods and instrumentation | 29 |
| 2 | US20230404673A1 | Apparatus, system, and method for generating patient-specific implants and/or instrumentation for osteotomies | 10 |
| 3 | US12490992B2 | Patient-specific surgical methods and instrumentation | 5 |
| 4 | WO2023244867A1 | Apparatus, system, and method for generating patient-specific implants and/or instrumentation for osteotomies | 2 |
| 5 | US20250288425A1 | Talar implants and implant systems | 1 |
| 6 | WO2023015196A1 | Implants, instruments, systems, and methods of using | 1 |
Citation counts are drawn from a searched corpus and skew toward older records; treat them as a signal of influence rather than of current technical importance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (6 of 6 rows); 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 a filing decision
Four read-outs from the filing trend, assignee concentration and IPC composition that matter for anyone deciding where to file next.
No long tail to hide in
The top three combined account for all 24 records in scope. There is no fringe of single-filing entrants here — every record in this corpus belongs to one of a small number of players, so a new entrant is filing directly against established claim positions rather than into open ground.
Activity has cooled since 2022
Filings climbed from zero in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2022 and have not matched that level since. Growth cannot be reliably computed from the years available once publication lag is accounted for, but the shape of the trend suggests the initial land-grab phase has passed its peak.
Instrumentation claims outweigh implant claims
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) touches a larger share of records than A61F (implants and prostheses). That points to guide-fit, imaging-segmentation and surgical-method claims being at least as contested as claims on the implant hardware itself.
US-first filing with PCT follow-through
The United States is the largest single receiving office, followed by WIPO PCT filings and the European Patent Office, with smaller volumes reaching Australia, Canada and South Africa. That pattern is consistent with a US-anchored innovation base seeking selective international protection rather than blanket global filing.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to patient-specific and 3d printed orthopaedic implants, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
Three assignees cover the entire ranked field, and momentum in the most recent year has slowed across all of them.
A concentrated leader position
The leading assignee holds 15 of the 24 records in this landscape, the largest single share by a wide margin. Its filings anchor the ankle and foot deformity correction cluster and the lattice-structure implant architecture that recurs across the most-cited records.
Recent-year activity has flattened
The leading assignee filed 1 record in the latest year with 0% year-on-year change, and the other two ranked assignees show no filings in the latest year at all. Read the most recent year cautiously: publication lag means it will always understate true filing activity.
A closed field, not an open one
With only three assignees covering the entire ranking, this is not a fragmented emerging field with room for many small players. A new entrant needs a claim angle distinct from the instrumentation and lattice-implant positions already staked out, not simply a variation on them.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Paragon 28, Inc. | 1 | 0% |
| TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS INC | 0 | — |
| INMOTUS MEDICAL LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The trend and concentration figures point to a field that has passed its early peak but is still tightly held by a small number of assignees.
Check freedom to operate against the leader's cluster
With one assignee holding 15 of the 24 records, any new ankle or foot deformity correction filing should be checked directly against that portfolio before drafting claims around lattice architecture or dual-frame implant designs.
Run a freedom-to-operate check in EurekaTest the under-claimed guide-fit and regulatory branches
IPC composition shows instrumentation claims outpacing implant claims; the gap sits in guide-fit verification, imaging-to-design pipelines and regulatory-pathway design controls, where claim density is visibly lower.
Explore white space in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
This landscape's assignee ranking contains only three companies, and together they cover all 24 records in scope. The leading assignee alone holds 15 of those records, with the remaining two accounting for the rest. This is a tightly held field rather than one with a broad competitive set, so due diligence should focus on the leader's portfolio first.
Filing activity rose from zero records in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2022, but has not returned to that level in the years since. A reliable growth rate cannot be computed from the years available once the roughly 18-month publication lag is taken into account, so the most recent year should be read as an undercount rather than a genuine drop-off.
The two dominant IPC subclasses are A61B, covering diagnosis and surgery, which appears in 87.5% of the 24 records, and A61F, covering implants and prostheses, at 58.3%. Because a single patent can be classified under both, these figures overlap rather than sum to 100%. The pattern indicates that surgical instrumentation and guide-fit claims are drafted at least as densely as claims on the implant device itself.
US20240216145A1, assigned to Paragon 28, Inc., covers implants, instruments, systems and methods for correcting lower-extremity bone deformities, specifically for ankle fusion procedures. Its implant claims centre on a dual-frame architecture: an interior frame, an exterior frame surrounding it, and a lattice structure extending between the two. Anyone designing an ankle fusion implant with a comparable frame-and-lattice geometry should review this filing directly rather than assume it only covers surgical method steps.
The clearest openings sit adjacent to the dense instrumentation and lattice-implant cluster rather than inside it: imaging-segmentation-to-implant-design pipelines, guide-fit tolerance verification methods, regulatory-pathway-linked design controls, inventory-reduction sizing algorithms and cost-effectiveness modelling for patient-matched devices. These branches are named in the search scope but are not where the most-cited records concentrate, suggesting lower claim density there. High filing density elsewhere signals occupied claim space, not that those adjacent branches lack commercial relevance.
Research Patient-Specific and 3D Printed Orthopaedic Implants in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole patient-specific and 3d printed orthopaedic implants 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.