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/pedicle-screw-systems-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Spine DevicesPedicle Screw System Patents: Who Leads and Where Filing Is Headed
- 25.1% concentration at the top. The top 5 assignees combined account for 650 of the 2,588 records in scope, but a long tail of 90 further ranked companies still holds meaningful share.
- Filing has cooled from its 2020 peak. Filings peaked at 219 in 2020; from 2021 (138) to 2024 (95) — the most recent complete year — activity fell 31%, though 2025-2026 figures will still fill in.
- Claim density sits overwhelmingly in one subclass. A61B (diagnosis & surgery) touches 85.8% of records, while adjacent branches like additive manufacturing (1.3%) and healthcare informatics (2.6%) remain comparatively open.
2,588
Published Records
25%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-31%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (138 records) with 2024 (95) — 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 2,588 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What the pedicle screw system patent record shows
Pedicle screw systems sit at the intersection of mechanical fixation hardware and surgical technique, and the patent record reflects that split: most filings cluster around surgical and diagnostic method claims under A61B, with a smaller but persistent share directed at the implant hardware itself under A61F. The search string used here pulls records referencing pullout strength, cortical trajectory, screw loosening, tulip-head design, rod contouring and revision options — the vocabulary that separates incremental hardware tweaks from genuine mechanical advances.
Across 2,588 records in scope, filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2020, and has since pulled back through 2024, the last year with a complete publication picture. Reading the trend past 2024 requires care: publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent one or two years understate real filing volume rather than signalling a genuine slowdown.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2017-2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Pedicle Screw Systems 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 Numbers
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 2,588-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, the technology shares add up to more than 100%.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Filings ran at 139 in 2017, climbed to a peak of 219 in 2020, then eased to 138 by 2021 and 95 by 2024 — a 31% decline over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 18 for the partial latest year) will rise as publication catches up.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) covers 85.8% of the 2,588 records, far ahead of A61F implants & prostheses at 17.8%. Smaller subclasses — electrotherapy (4.6%), healthcare informatics (2.6%), sterilising (2.4%), fasteners (2.3%), image processing (1.8%) and additive manufacturing (1.3%) — mark branches with comparatively light claim coverage relative to the core.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,588 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 Pedicle Screw Systems covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Pedicle Screw Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pedicle screw systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited prior art
Representative Record
Poly-Axial Pedicle Screw Assembly and Packaging Therefor
GUARDIAN MEDICAL USA, INC.
A pedicle screw assembly including a pedicle screw, a tulip head, a set screw, and a washer; a packaging assembly for a pedicle screw; a pedicle screw screwdriver assembly; and a set packaging assembly are disclosed.Filed by Guardian Medical USA in 2016, this filing bundles the mechanical assembly with its packaging and delivery tooling — a pattern worth checking against before designing a new tulip-head or screwdriver interface.
Most-cited records in the pedicle screw system corpus
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20140081659A1 | Systems and methods for surgical and interventional planning, support, post-operative follow-up, and function… | 1,096 |
| 2 | US20060036324A1 | Adjustable spinal implant device and method | 701 |
| 3 | US5603713A | Anterior lumbar/cervical bicortical compression plate | 672 |
| 4 | US5180381A | Anterior lumbar/cervical bicortical compression plate | 614 |
| 5 | US20060058790A1 | Spinous process reinforcement device and method | 520 |
| 6 | US20060036246A1 | Device and method for correcting a spinal deformity | 484 |
| 7 | US9129054B2 | Systems and methods for surgical and interventional planning, support, post-operative follow-up, and, functio… | 466 |
| 8 | US20040236330A1 | Variable angle spinal screw assembly | 428 |
| 9 | US5643260A | Orthopedic fixation system | 428 |
| 10 | US7303577B1 | Apparatus and method for use in repairs of injured soft tissue | 399 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not a ranking of current relevance.
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 Pedicle Screw Systems 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 data means for R&D and IP strategy
Three read-throughs from the filing pattern, concentration figures and technology composition above.
Concentration
25.1% top 5
share of 2,588 records
Leadership is real but not locking out the field
The top 5 assignees combined hold 650 of 2,588 records (25.1%), and the top 10 reach 36.1%. That leaves nearly two-thirds of filings spread across a long tail of ranked companies, which means the core mechanical claim space is contested rather than owned outright by one or two players.
Ranking covers 100 companies
Filing momentum
-31% (2021-2024)
filings, 2021 vs 2024
Volume has pulled back from its 2020 peak
Filings peaked at 219 in 2020 and dropped from 138 in 2021 to 95 in 2024, a 31% decline over that span. This tracks a maturing hardware category more than a shrinking field — the underlying vocabulary (pullout strength, cortical trajectory, tulip head) has been claimed against for close to a decade.
2025-2026 figures still incomplete
Technology mix
85.8% in A61B
share of 2,588 records
Surgical method claims dominate over pure hardware
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears in 85.8% of records versus 17.8% for A61F (implants & prostheses proper), meaning most protection is written around technique and surgical use rather than the screw or rod hardware alone. Fasteners as a discrete mechanical class (F16B) sit at just 2.3%.
Classes overlap; shares sum above 100%
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 pedicle screw systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Pedicle Screw Systems 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 is filing, and where momentum is fading
The ranked leaders show a familiar spine-device roster, but recent-year momentum figures suggest even the top names have slowed filing in the most current (partial) year — consistent with the broader 2021-2024 pullback rather than any single company's retreat.
Leader
221 records
records in scope
The top filer holds a clear but not overwhelming lead
The leading assignee's 221 records sit well ahead of fifth place (85) and tenth place (36), showing a steep initial drop-off before the field flattens into a long tail of single- and double-digit filers.
Leader vs. 5th vs. 10th: 221 / 85 / 36
Momentum
-69% to -100% YoY
latest-year change, named assignees
Several established filers show zero activity in the latest year
Multiple companies in the ranked leadership recorded 0 filings in the latest year, with year-over-year drops as steep as -100% for some and -69% for others. Given publication lag, this likely reflects incomplete recent-year data more than an actual exit from the field.
Publication lag affects most recent year most
Collaboration
10 co-assignee pairs
identified in the dataset
Co-filing is limited and concentrated in a few relationships
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, with the strongest pairing filing jointly 12 times. This is a field of largely independent filers rather than one built on joint development agreements.
Strongest pair: 12 joint filings
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Globus Medical, Inc. | 5 | -69% |
| ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP | 0 | -100% |
| Mainstay Medical | 0 | -100% |
| Alphatec Spine, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. | 0 | — |
| OsteoHelix Surgical Design | 0 | — |
| Stryker European Holdings LLC | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Pedicle Screw Systems 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 specific next steps depending on whether you are clearing a design, scouting acquisition targets, or deciding where to file next.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top filers
With 25.1% of records held by the top 5 assignees, any new tulip-head, set-screw or rod-contouring mechanism should be checked against their specific claim sets before committing to a design.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaTrack the under-claimed branches for early filing
Additive manufacturing, sensor-based loosening detection and informatics-linked revision tracking all sit under 3% of records — filing early here costs less and faces thinner prior art.
Explore white space with EurekaWatch for re-acceleration once 2025-2026 data fills in
The apparent drop in the latest years is partly a publication-lag artefact; re-check filing volume in this category again once 18 months of lag have cleared.
Set a monitoring alert in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Pedicle Screw Systems 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 pedicle screw system patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 221 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 85 and tenth place at 36. The top 5 assignees combined account for 650 of the 2,588 records in scope, or 25.1%, meaning leadership is real but far from exclusive. Beyond the top 10 (36.1% combined), coverage spreads across a long tail of ranked companies with much smaller individual counts, so the field remains open to new entrants at the technique level.
Filing peaked at 219 records in 2020 and declined from 138 in 2021 to 95 in 2024, a 31% drop over that span — the most recent period that can be treated as reliably complete. Figures for 2025 and 2026 look lower still, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than an actual collapse in filing. A fair read is that the category has cooled from its 2020 peak, not that innovation has stopped.
The dominant IPC subclass is A61B (diagnosis & surgery), present in 85.8% of the 2,588 records, reflecting how much protection is written around surgical technique and use rather than hardware alone. A61F (implants & prostheses) follows at 17.8%. Smaller subclasses — electrotherapy, healthcare informatics, sterilising, fasteners, image processing and additive manufacturing — each sit under 5% of records, marking areas with comparatively light claim density.
US20160287293A1, filed by Guardian Medical USA in 2016, describes a pedicle screw assembly comprising a pedicle screw, a tulip head, a set screw and a washer, alongside packaging and screwdriver assemblies specific to that hardware. It is notable for bundling the mechanical assembly with its delivery and packaging tooling in a single filing. Anyone designing a new tulip-head or screwdriver interface for pedicle screws should review its claims directly, since packaging and delivery tooling claims are easy to overlook in a component-level clearance search.
The lightest claim density relative to the core sits in additive manufacturing (1.3% of records), healthcare informatics (2.6%), image data processing (1.8%) and fasteners as a standalone mechanical class (2.3%). These branches intersect with pedicle screw hardware — 3D-printed lattice structures, sensor-based loosening detection, and imaging-linked rod contouring — but have not been heavily claimed within this dataset's scope. That makes them reasonable candidates for early filing relative to the densely claimed surgical-method space.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Pedicle Screw Systems 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 Pedicle Screw Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pedicle screw systems 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.