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/post-translational-modification-analysis-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · ProteomicsPost-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 peaked in 2017 at 81 and 2021-to-2024 volume fell 20% (45 to 36) — a real slowdown, not just a publication-lag artifact for those complete years.
- Bioinformatics classes trail wet-lab classes sharply G16B appears on only 7.8% of records versus 52.7% for core peptide chemistry, leaving computational site-confidence scoring comparatively open.
797
Published Records
34%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-20%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Filing growth compares 2021 (45 records) with 2024 (36) — 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 797 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This landscape maps 797 patent records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine post-translational modification analysis — phosphopeptide enrichment, glycopeptide analysis — with a second layer of practical method claims: enrichment selectivity, site localization confidence, labile modification handling, fragmentation method choice, stoichiometry estimation, or reference standards. That second layer is what separates a general PTM patent from one that actually claims a defendable analytical workflow.
Coverage runs through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, but publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so counts for 2025 and 2026 will keep rising as later filings publish. The most recent year that can be read as a complete signal is 2024.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. 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.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Numbers
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 797-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a real pullback
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.
Technology composition: wet-lab chemistry dominates
C07K (peptides & proteins) appears on 52.7% of the 797 records and A61K (medicinal preparations) on 41.3%, confirming this field is anchored in molecule and reagent chemistry rather than pure informatics. G01N (material analysis & testing) sits at 30.0%, the method-and-instrumentation layer beneath the chemistry. Computational classes are comparatively thin: G16B (bioinformatics) reaches only 7.8% and G06F (digital data processing) 5.0% — each record can carry multiple classes, so these figures are shares of the same 797-record base, not a 100%-sum breakdown.
Shares are the percentage of the 797 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 Post Translational Modification Analysis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Post Translational Modification Analysis with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about post translational modification analysis and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The most-cited and most representative filings
Representative filing
US20100331200A1 — Post translational modification pattern analysis
MILLIPORE CORPORATION
This invention relates to methods and apparatus for detecting the pattern of post translational modification in a protein or in a plurality of proteins in a sample. One or more target proteins are subjected to predetermined proteolysis to yield plural peptide fragments comprising potential post translational modification sites. The fragments and the state of such sites are analyzed to yield a post translational pattern for the protein or proteins.Filed by Millipore Corporation, published 2010-12-30 — a foundational framework claim that predates most of the enrichment-selectivity and site-confidence refinements now crowding the space.
Highest-cited records in scope
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20120201746A1 | Half immunoglobulin binding proteins and uses thereof | 222 |
| 2 | US20090093024A1 | Methods of generating libraries and uses thereof | 156 |
| 3 | US20170270245A1 | Bioinformatics systems, apparatuses, and methods for performing secondary and/or tertiary processing | 120 |
| 4 | WO2013117746A1 | Signatures and determinants for diagnosing infections and methods of use thereof | 116 |
| 5 | US20180121601A1 | Bioinformatics systems, apparatuses, and methods for performing secondary and/or tertiary processing | 107 |
| 6 | WO2016037154A1 | Recombinant HIV-1 envelope proteins and their use | 107 |
| 7 | US20090252749A1 | Compositions and Methods for Producing a Composition | 93 |
| 8 | WO2012088302A2 | Half immunoglobulin binding proteins and uses thereof | 89 |
| 9 | US20090075378A1 | Somatic hypermutation systems | 89 |
| 10 | US20110287485A1 | Methods of generating libraries and uses thereof | 86 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate them; treat this table as a map of established influence, not of current filing activity.
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 Post Translational Modification Analysis 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 filing strategy
Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend, and classification figures above.
Concentration
33.5% of 797
held by top 5 assignees
The top of the field is genuinely concentrated
Five assignees between them hold 267 of the 797 records in scope, and the top ten reach 391 records — 49.1% of everything filed. A new entrant filing a broad enrichment-selectivity claim is very likely filing into occupied space near the top of the ranking.
Based on the 797-record assignee ranking
Momentum
45 → 36
2021 to 2024 filings, -20%
Core filing activity is cooling, not just lagging
The 2021-to-2024 decline is measured on years complete enough to trust. Recent-year momentum by individual assignee is thin across the board — most named leaders show 0 or 1 filing in the latest year — consistent with a field past its initial land-grab.
Years 2025-2026 excluded as publication-lag incomplete
Composition
7.8% vs 52.7%
G16B vs C07K record share
Informatics claims are thin relative to chemistry claims
Bioinformatics (G16B) touches only 62 of 797 records while core peptide chemistry (C07K) touches 420. Site-localization-confidence scoring and stoichiometry-estimation algorithms sit closer to the informatics side, and that side is comparatively under-filed.
IPC shares sum above 100% because records carry multiple classes
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 post translational modification analysis, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. 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.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders account for a large share of total volume, but recent-year momentum has slowed even among them, which is where the openings are.
Leader
63 records
single largest assignee
One filer sits well ahead of the pack
The top-ranked assignee holds 63 records against 44 for fifth place and 20 for tenth — a steep drop-off that marks a genuine leader rather than a crowded plateau.
From the 797-record, 100-assignee ranking
Co-filing
10 pairs
co-assignee relationships
Collaboration is limited and mostly internal
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest links are between related corporate entities of the same group rather than cross-company joint filings, suggesting most of this IP is developed in-house.
Strongest pair recurs across 4 shared records
Recent activity
0-1 filings
latest-year momentum, named leaders
Momentum has gone quiet even at the top
Recent-year filing counts for named leading assignees sit at 0 or 1, echoing the broader 2021-to-2024 pullback. That combination — high historical concentration, low current output — is exactly where a well-drafted new claim can still land.
Latest complete filing year
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Amgen Inc. | 1 | — |
| Aatec Medical GmbH | 1 | 0% |
| Bristol Myers Squibb Co. | 0 | — |
| MeMed Diagnostics Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc. | 0 | — |
| F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG | 0 | — |
| Illumina, Inc. | 0 | — |
| GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Ltd. | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. 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.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's Next
Where to take this next
The figures above describe the field as filed; deciding where to file next means running your own candidate claims against this same corpus.
Check a draft claim against the crowded core
Enrichment-selectivity and site-localization claims sit inside the densest part of this landscape. Before drafting, check how close a proposed claim sits to the top-ranked assignees' existing filings.
Run a claim comparison in EurekaTrack the assignees whose momentum has slowed
Several leading assignees show 0-1 filings in the latest year despite large historical portfolios. That gap is worth monitoring for licensing or acquisition signals.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. 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.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions on PTM analysis patents
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.
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.
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.
The clearest gap is on the computational side: bioinformatics-classed records (G16B) make up only 7.8% of the field against over half for core chemistry classes. Sub-areas like site-localization confidence scoring, stoichiometry estimation algorithms, and fragmentation-method selection logic show comparatively thin direct claim coverage relative to the underlying wet-lab enrichment and detection chemistry they support.
US20100331200A1, filed by Millipore Corporation and published in December 2010, claims methods and apparatus for detecting a pattern of post-translational modification across peptide fragments generated by predetermined proteolysis. It is a broad, early framework claim rather than a narrow method patent, which means it can pose freedom-to-operate questions for generic PTM-pattern detection workflows, but it predates most later enrichment-selectivity and site-confidence refinements, leaving room for narrower claims built on top of it.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. 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.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Post Translational Modification Analysis in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole post translational modification analysis 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.