https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/population-health-technology-patent-landscape-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-08-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Digital Health & Health Informatics
Population-Health Technology Patents: Who's Filing, and Where the Field Is Still Open
  • 18.1% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees hold 427 of 2,365 records in scope, with a long tail of single- and low-filing entrants behind them.
  • Healthcare informatics dominates the claim map. G16H appears on 60.0% of records, well ahead of general data processing (G06F, 32.5%) and business-process claims (G06Q, 27.0%).
  • Filings grew 20% from 2021 to 2024. The three-year rise from 164 to 197 records is the last window unaffected by publication lag, and it points to steady rather than slowing demand.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
2,365
Published Records
18%
Top-5 Share of All Records
+20%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (164 records) with 2024 (197) — 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 2,365 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview

What population-health technology patents actually cover

Population-health technology sits at the intersection of clinical workflow and data infrastructure: systems that pull patient records, care-coordination logic and health data into tools meant to manage risk across a group rather than a single encounter. The search set behind this page combines population-health and public-health-informatics language with patient-record, clinical-decision and care-workflow terms, which is why healthcare informatics (G16H) and general data processing (G06F, G06Q) classes carry the bulk of the filings. Diagnosis and surgery claims (A61B) and AI-model computing (G06N) show up on a meaningful minority of records, marking where population-scale analytics meets device-level and model-level claims.

Filing activity has been on a rising track since 2017, with the most reliable recent read being the 2021-to-2024 window before publication lag starts understating later years. The receiving-office spread is led heavily by the United States, with India, WIPO/PCT and Europe each contributing a meaningful secondary share — a sign that protection strategies for this technology are still centred on US filing with selective international follow-through.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2015-2026
  1. 1STRONG FORCE VCN PORTFOLIO 2019 LLC145
  2. 2CERNER INNOVATION INC106
  3. 3GE PRECISION HEALTHCARE LLC79
  4. 4GENERAL ELECTRIC CO51
  5. 5ARBOR SYSTEMS LLC46
  6. 6KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV44
  7. 7MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH37
  8. 8PARKLAND CENT FOR CLINICAL INNOVATION33
  9. 9VERACYTE SD INC28
  10. 10TEMPUS AI INC26
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers

Filing trends and technology classification

The dataset covers 2,365 published records filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year is always undercounted at the point of any given data pull.

Filing trend, 2017-2026

Annual filings rose from 160 records in 2017 to a peak of 337 in 2025, with 113 recorded so far in the still-filling 2026 year. The steadiest read is 2021 to 2024, where filings grew from 164 to 197 records — a 20% rise over three years — which should be treated as the field's real recent trajectory rather than the partial years either side of it.

Filing trend, 2017-202601002003004001602017201820192020202120222023202433720251132026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

Healthcare informatics (G16H) appears on 60.0% of the 2,365 records in scope, making it the dominant classification by a wide margin. General digital data processing (G06F, 32.5%) and business/admin data processing (G06Q, 27.0%) follow, then diagnosis and surgery (A61B, 19.7%) and AI-model computing (G06N, 18.1%). Digital transmission (H04L), image processing (G06T) and image/video recognition (G06V) each sit under 10%, marking narrower but still active claim territory. Records commonly carry more than one class, so these shares sum to well over 100%.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG16H · Healthcare informatics1,41960.0%G06F · Electric digital data processi…76932.5%G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…63927.0%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery46619.7%G06N · Computing based on AI models42718.1%H04L · Digital information transmissi…1787.5%G06T · Image data processing & genera…1265.3%G06V · Image/video recognition843.6%Other1,35457.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 2,365 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 Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about population-health technology patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Filing

A recent filing that shows where the field is heading

Filed 2026-08-06
WO2026165041A12026-08-06

Systems, methods and platforms for providing hybrid stations for care (WO2026165041A1)

ONMED LLC

The filing, assigned to ONMED LLC, describes an integrated healthcare ecosystem built around physical 'stations for care' linked to a data factory, virtual medical center and command center. It combines remote intake and consultation management, fleet-level analytics across stations, AI orchestration of care delivery, and command-center emergency medical record handling into a single claimed architecture.Abstract condensed from the original filing; full claims should be reviewed before relying on this summary.

WO2026165041A1 — patent drawing 1WO2026165041A1 — patent drawing 2
View full filing
Most-cited records in the dataset
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US20170232300A1Smart device1,052
2US20210090694A1Data based cancer research and treatment systems and methods715
3US20170091320A1Natural language processing for entity resolution637
4US20180117446A1Smart device587
5US20180001184A1Smart device489
6US20180117447A1Smart device482
7US20180078843A1Smart device480
8US20180264347A1Smart device379
9US20180144243A1Hardware system design improvement using deep learning algorithms364
10US20080162352A1Health maintenance system360

Citation counts favour older records that have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence, not of current importance.

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 Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. 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
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 →
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 →
Signals

What the filing data signals for strategy

Three patterns in the dataset matter more for planning than the raw counts: where citation weight sits, how concentrated ownership is, and where recent-year momentum has actually gone quiet.

Citation Weight
1,052 citations
on the leading cited record

Older smart-device filings still anchor citation graphs

The most-cited records in this set are earlier smart-device and entity-resolution filings, not recent population-health-specific architectures. That is typical of a searched corpus — older filings have had more years to accumulate citations — so treat these as markers of foundational influence rather than current competitive weight.

Citation counts favour age, not present relevance.
Ownership Concentration
18.1% / 25.2%
top 5 / top 10 share of 2,365 records

A moderate concentration with a long tail behind it

The five leading assignees combined hold 18.1% of all records in scope, rising to 25.2% across the ten leading assignees. That leaves roughly three-quarters of the field spread across the remaining ranked companies and a long tail of single-filing entrants — enough headroom for a new entrant to build a defensible position without displacing an entrenched leader.

Concentration figures are shares of all 2,365 records, not of the ranked list.
Recent Momentum
0 filings, -100% YoY
for several previously active assignees

Some established filers have gone quiet in the latest year

Several assignees that built meaningful positions earlier in the dataset show zero filings and a -100% year-on-year change in the most recent year recorded. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, some of this is simply pipeline timing rather than a real pullback, but it is worth checking directly before assuming continued activity from any single incumbent.

Confirm recent silence against filing dates, not just publication dates.
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 population-health technology patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Competitive Set

Who holds the ground, and where it opens up

The ranking behind this page covers 100 companies, counted by patent family. It is the complete list the data endpoint returns, not a curated top-50 or top-100 — read the concentration figures against that scope.

Leader
145 records
held by the top-ranked assignee

A clear single leader, not a duopoly

The top-ranked assignee holds noticeably more records than the assignee in fifth place (46), which itself sits well above tenth place (26). That gap structure — one leader, a mid-tier cluster, then a long tail — is more common in fast-growing informatics fields than a tight multi-way contest for the top spot.

Leader count is more than three times the fifth-place figure.
Mid-Tier Cluster
46 to 26 records
fifth through tenth place

A workable band for fast followers

The gap between fifth place (46 records) and tenth place (26 records) is narrow enough that several companies are filing at a comparable pace just outside the very top. That band is where competitive displacement is most plausible, since none of these positions is yet dominant enough to be considered settled.

Movement in this band is the one worth tracking quarter to quarter.
Collaboration Signal
10 pairs
co-assignee pairs recorded

Co-filing is limited and concentrated in a few relationships

Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest of them repeat across related filings rather than spreading across many partners. That points to a field still built mostly on single-assignee filing strategies, with joint development the exception rather than the norm.

Co-filing depth is shallow relative to the size of the ranked field.
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas worth a design-around check
Branches adjacent to the dense G16H and G06Q claim territory that carry comparatively few filings
Fleet-level analytics across care stationsCommand-center emergency record handoffRemote intake-to-consultation orchestrationImage/video recognition in care workflow (G06V)AI-model orchestration of care delivery
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Strong Force VCN Portfolio 2019 LLC0-100%
General Electric Co0
Cerner Innovation Inc0-100%
TRAN BAO0-100%
Koninklijke Philips NV0-100%
Parkland Center for Clinical Innovation0
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research0
PricewaterhouseCoopers0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this analysis

The figures on this page describe the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means going claim-by-claim against the specific architecture in question.

Map claims against your own architecture

Run the specific system components you are building — intake, coordination logic, data pipelines, AI orchestration — against the dense G16H and G06Q claim territory identified here before drafting.

Explore the claim map in Eureka

Watch the mid-tier cluster, not just the leader

The fifth-to-tenth place band is narrow enough that competitive position can shift; tracking filing pace there is more informative than watching the single leader alone.

Set up assignee tracking in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on population-health technology patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-08-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Population-Health Technology Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole population-health technology patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.