Prescription Digital Therapeutics Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Concentrated but not locked. the top 5 assignees hold 32.6% of all 420 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 49.0% — leaving roughly half the field to a long tail of single- and low-volume filers.
- Filing kept climbing through 2024. records rose from 35 in 2021 to 51 in 2024, a 46% increase over that span, even as 2022 marked the highest single year recorded so far (67).
- Software classes outweigh drug classes. G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 37.1% of records versus 14.5% for A61K (medicinal preparations), showing the claim pressure sits on software architecture, not the therapeutic payload.
Filing growth compares 2021 (35 records) with 2024 (51) — 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 420 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Prescription digital therapeutics sit at the intersection of software engineering and regulated medicine: claims cover everything from engagement-metric tracking and clinical endpoint capture inside an app, to the regulatory clearance and reimbursement pathway logic that determines whether a clinician can prescribe the software at all. The 420 records in scope span filings from 2015 through mid-2026, drawn from a search string that pairs digital-therapeutic and software-as-medical-device language with the operational vocabulary of clearance, labeling, prescribing workflow and reimbursement.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts in the trend chart are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown. The more reliable signal is the run-up to 2024, the last year that can be treated as materially complete.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 420-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Growth phase, not a plateau
Filings moved from 35 in 2021 to 51 in 2024, a 46% rise over three years, with 2022 standing as the peak year recorded so far at 67. Treat the tail years as incomplete rather than declining.
Software classes dominate the mix
G06F (37.1%) and G16H healthcare informatics (19.3%) lead the eight tracked subclasses, with G06N AI-model computing at 15.7% close behind. A61K medicinal preparations (14.5%) and A61B diagnosis/surgery (12.6%) show the therapeutic and diagnostic side is present but secondary to the software architecture claims. Records commonly carry more than one class, so these shares sum above 100% of the record total.
Shares are the percentage of the 420 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Prescription Digital Therapeutics with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about prescription digital therapeutics and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA recent filing that shows where the claims are heading
Data replication architecture using machine learning for clinical data from digital therapeutic applications
Provided herein are systems and methods for maintaining integrity of data during clinical trials of digital therapeutic applications. A computing system can receive a data element generated based on interactions by a user with a digital therapeutic application during a clinical trial. The computing system can send the data element to each data store of a plurality of data stores. The computing system can access a first data store to retrieve a first instance of the data element, identify it as invalid, and access a second data store to retrieve a second instance for reconciliation.Filed by Click Therapeutics, Inc. — the claims target data-integrity architecture for clinical-trial data generated by app interactions, not the therapeutic content itself.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20180068019A1 | Generating theme-based videos | 272 |
| 2 | US20180137244A1 | Medical image identification and interpretation | 225 |
| 3 | US20150227624A1 | Search infrastructure | 126 |
| 4 | US20160065628A1 | Calculating an entity's location size via social graph | 118 |
| 5 | US20180060512A1 | System and method for medical imaging informatics peer review system | 101 |
| 6 | US20160253688A1 | System and method of analyzing social media to predict the churn propensity of an individual or community of … | 93 |
| 7 | US20150080703A1 | Accelerated evaluation of treatments to prevent clinical onset of alzheimer's disease | 71 |
| 8 | US20230007023A1 | Detecting anomalous digital actions utilizing an anomalous-detection model | 70 |
| 9 | US20210366577A1 | Predicting disease outcomes using machine learned models | 70 |
| 10 | US9843768B1 | Audience engagement feedback systems and techniques | 66 |
Citation counts favour older, longer-indexed records; treat them as a measure of influence within this corpus rather than current technical importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
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 →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 →What the data implies for strategy
Three readings of the same 420-record set, each pointing to a different operational decision.
Half the field still belongs to the long tail
The top 5 assignees combine for 32.6% of all 420 records and the top 10 for 49.0%. That leaves roughly half of filing activity spread across the remaining ranked entrants, many of them single-filing or low-volume players rather than a two- or three-way race.
Growth held through the last complete year
Filings rose from 35 records in 2021 to 51 in 2024, a 46% increase over that span. 2022 was the single busiest year on record at 67 filings, meaning growth has not been strictly linear, but the trailing three-year window shows sustained rather than one-off activity.
The software layer is the busier claim space
G06F (electric digital data processing) touches 37.1% of records against 14.5% for A61K (medicinal preparations). Combined with G16H (19.3%) and G06N (15.7%), the pattern points to dense prior art around data processing, AI models and healthcare informatics — the areas most likely to run into existing claims.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to prescription digital therapeutics, with the prior art for and against each one.
Leaders, collaborators and where activity is thin
The ranking covers 93 companies counted in records — the complete set the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut.
One filer sits well ahead of fifth place
The leading assignee holds 38 records against 18 at fifth place and 13 at tenth — a real gap at the very top, though the drop from fifth to tenth is comparatively shallow, suggesting a cluster of mid-tier filers rather than a sharp cliff.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated in one pairing
Only 9 co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest of these — 2A Biosciences with a Florida State University research foundation — accounts for 9 joint filings on its own, dwarfing every other pairing. Most assignees in this field file independently.
Momentum is thin and uneven across named filers
Among the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum, 2A Biosciences posted 2 filings in the latest year while several previously active filers, including a diabetes-care assignee that fell -100% year over year, show no filings at all in the most recent period. Momentum here is a signal to verify per company, not a field-wide trend.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| 2A BIOSCIENCES INC | 2 | — |
| Instructure, Inc. | 1 | -50% |
| Twitter, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Zynga Inc. | 0 | — |
| TERARECON INC | 0 | — |
| Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| BETTERUP INC | 0 | — |
| Translational Imaging Innovations Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific follow-up questions depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy or competitive tracking.
Check freedom-to-operate against the software core
With G06F and G16H carrying the densest claim coverage, any new filing touching engagement metrics or clinical-endpoint capture should be checked against records in those classes before drafting.
Explore the claim landscapeWatch the mid-tier cluster, not just the leader
The shallow drop from fifth to tenth place suggests several assignees are filing at a similar pace just below the top. Tracking their filings over the next few quarters will show whether one breaks away.
Track assignee activityRevisit 2025-2026 counts once they mature
Publication lag means the most recent two years understate real filing activity. Re-run this trend analysis in a future cut before drawing conclusions about a slowdown.
Set up ongoing monitoringCommon questions about this landscape
The assignee ranking behind this dataset covers 93 companies counted in records, drawn from 420 total records in scope. This is the complete ranked set the data endpoint returns, not a top-50 or top-100 cut, so it includes both high-volume filers and single-filing entrants. The top 5 of those 93 combine for 32.6% of all 420 records, and the top 10 combine for 49.0%, which means over half of filing activity is spread across the remaining companies rather than concentrated at the very top.
Yes, through the last year that can be treated as complete. Records rose from 35 in 2021 to 51 in 2024, a 46% increase over that three-year span, and 2022 was the single busiest year recorded so far at 67 filings. The 2025 and 2026 figures look lower only because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so those years are still filling in rather than reflecting an actual drop.
Predominantly software and data architecture. G06F, the electric digital data processing class, appears on 37.1% of the 420 records in scope, and G16H healthcare informatics appears on 19.3%, compared with 14.5% for A61K medicinal preparations. That pattern indicates claim density sits on the app's engagement tracking, clinical data handling and AI-model logic rather than on the therapeutic substance or protocol itself, since a record can carry more than one IPC class.
That filing, assigned to Click Therapeutics and filed in December 2025, covers a data replication architecture for maintaining integrity of clinical-trial data generated by user interactions with a digital therapeutic application. Its mechanism sends a data element to multiple data stores and reconciles a first instance identified as invalid against a second retrieved instance. It is a data-integrity and clinical-trial-infrastructure claim rather than a claim on any specific therapeutic content or clinical protocol.
Based on the technology composition figures, coverage is thinner in areas adjacent to the software core: reimbursement pathway automation, prescribing workflow interoperability and label-indication update mechanisms show up far less than the G06F- and G16H-heavy claim clusters. A new filer with a genuinely specific mechanism in one of those adjacent areas is less likely to run into the dense prior art sitting on data processing and AI-model claims. That said, thin coverage in the data does not guarantee an open field elsewhere — it only reflects what this 420-record search string captured.
Research Prescription Digital Therapeutics in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole prescription digital therapeutics 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.