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 →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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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%.
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 EurekaThe 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.


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20170232300A1 | Smart device | 1,052 |
| 2 | US20210090694A1 | Data based cancer research and treatment systems and methods | 715 |
| 3 | US20170091320A1 | Natural language processing for entity resolution | 637 |
| 4 | US20180117446A1 | Smart device | 587 |
| 5 | US20180001184A1 | Smart device | 489 |
| 6 | US20180117447A1 | Smart device | 482 |
| 7 | US20180078843A1 | Smart device | 480 |
| 8 | US20180264347A1 | Smart device | 379 |
| 9 | US20180144243A1 | Hardware system design improvement using deep learning algorithms | 364 |
| 10 | US20080162352A1 | Health maintenance system | 360 |
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.
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 →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 →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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Strong Force VCN Portfolio 2019 LLC | 0 | -100% |
| General Electric Co | 0 | — |
| Cerner Innovation Inc | 0 | -100% |
| TRAN BAO | 0 | -100% |
| Koninklijke Philips NV | 0 | -100% |
| Parkland Center for Clinical Innovation | 0 | — |
| Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research | 0 | — |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers | 0 | — |
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.
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 EurekaThe 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 EurekaIt is moderately concentrated but not dominated by a single owner. The five leading assignees combined hold 18.1% of all 2,365 records in scope, and the ten leading assignees hold 25.2%. That leaves the large majority of filings spread across a long tail of smaller and single-filing entrants, which means a new entrant has real room to build a defensible position rather than facing a field already locked up by a handful of incumbents.
Healthcare informatics, classified under IPC subclass G16H, appears on 60.0% of the 2,365 records in scope and is by far the largest single category. General digital data processing (G06F) and business/administrative data processing (G06Q) follow at 32.5% and 27.0% respectively, reflecting how much of this field is built on data-handling and workflow logic rather than device hardware. Diagnosis-and-surgery claims (A61B) and AI-model computing (G06N) each sit near or under 20%, marking narrower but active secondary territory.
Filings grew from 164 records in 2021 to 197 in 2024, a 20% rise over that three-year window, which is the most reliable recent trend because it predates the publication lag that affects 2025 and 2026 data. Later years in the dataset show lower counts, but that reflects the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication rather than an actual slowdown. Any read of the most recent one to two years should be treated as provisional until later publications catch up.
The United States receives the largest share of filings in this dataset, with India and the WIPO PCT route as the next largest receiving offices, followed by Europe, Canada and Australia at smaller volumes. That pattern suggests most applicants build a US-centred filing strategy first and pursue international protection selectively rather than filing broadly across all major jurisdictions from the outset.
The clearest openings sit adjacent to the dense G16H and G06Q claim territory rather than inside it: areas like fleet-level analytics across physical care stations, command-center handling of emergency records, and remote intake-to-consultation orchestration carry comparatively few filings relative to core informatics and workflow claims. Image and video recognition applied to care workflow (G06V) is also thin relative to the rest of the field. These are reasonable starting points for a design-around or first-filing strategy, but each should be checked against the specific claim language of nearby records before drafting.
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.
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.