Post-Translational Modification Analysis Patents: Who Holds the Claims
33.5% of all 797 records sit with just five assignees, so most enrichment and site-localization claim space is already staked out by a small group. Filings hit their peak in 2017 at 81 records. Using only the years that are complete enough to compare, 2021 filings (45) fell to 36 by 2024 — a 20% decline over that span. That is a genuine cooling of filing activity in the mature core of the field, not an artefact of recent-year undercounting; the undercounting problem applies only to 2025 onward.
- 1BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO63
- 2MEMED DIAGNOSTICS LTD58
- 3ILLUMINA INC53
- 4F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE & CO AG49
- 5SHIRE HUMAN GENETIC THERAPIES INC44
See the full post translational modification analysis analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions on PTM analysis patents
Who holds the most patents on post-translational modification analysis?
The dataset ranks 100 assignees across 797 records, and the top-ranked company alone holds 63 of them. The top five combined account for 267 records, or 33.5% of the whole field, so ownership is meaningfully concentrated near the top rather than evenly spread. That said, a long tail of smaller filers still makes up roughly half the remaining volume, so the field is not a two-player market.
Is patent filing in this space growing or slowing down?
Filing peaked in 2017 at 81 records and has trended down since. Comparing the two most recent years that can be treated as complete, 2021 (45 filings) to 2024 (36 filings) is a 20% decline. Figures for 2025 and 2026 will still rise as publications catch up to filings made in that window, so they should not yet be read as continuing the same downward trend.
What technology areas dominate PTM analysis patents?
Core peptide and protein chemistry (IPC class C07K) appears on 52.7% of the 797 records, followed by medicinal preparations (A61K) at 41.3% and material analysis and testing methods (G01N) at 30.0%. Bioinformatics and digital-processing classes are comparatively minor, at 7.8% and 5.0% respectively, indicating most claims are still anchored in wet-lab chemistry rather than computational analysis.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Post Translational Modification Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.