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 (80 records) with 2024 (142) — 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 949 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
This landscape covers radioligand therapy and theranostics patent filings from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, spanning ligand-conjugate chemistry, alpha- and beta-emitter labelling, dosimetry planning, kidney-protection dosing and the supply-chain claims that surround production of these agents. The 949 records in scope were identified by searching titles, abstracts and claims for radioligand therapy, theranostic pairing and targeted radionuclide language alongside lutetium labelling, alpha therapy, dosimetry, tumour uptake, kidney protection and supply-chain terms.
Because a single patent family can generate multiple published documents across jurisdictions, the assignee ranking on this page counts patent families rather than raw document counts, giving a fairer view of who actually holds distinct inventions in this space.
The dataset spans 949 published records from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, covering radioligand chemistry, dosimetry planning and the supply-chain and delivery claims that surround them.
Annual filings rose from 67 in 2017 to a peak of 142 in 2024, with the 2021-2024 span alone up 78%. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent two years will keep rising as more records publish.
81.3% of the 949 records carry an A61K medicinal-preparations classification and 53.6% carry A61P therapeutic-activity codes, with C07K peptide/protein chemistry present in 41.2%. Dosimetry-adjacent classes (G01N, 14.5%) and radiation-therapy hardware (A61N, 3.9%) are comparatively thin, marking where claim density drops off sharply.
Shares are the percentage of the 949 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 radioligand therapy and theranostics and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe present disclosure provides a high-energy, low toxicity radiopharmaceutical composition comprising actinium that performs as an anti-tumor agent for targeted radionuclide therapy and has improved shelf-life stability. Specifically, the radiopharmaceutical composition may include actinium-225-PSMA I&T, sodium ascorbate, and optionally hydrochloric acid. The radiopharmaceutical composition may be suitable for administration to a patient in need thereof, such as for the purpose of treating prostate cancer.Filed by Curium US LLC, published 2026-03-19


| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2016067035A1 | Bicyclic peptide ligands specific for mt1-mmp | 205 |
| 2 | US6965847B2 | Methods and computer readable medium for improved radiotherapy dosimetry planning | 91 |
| 3 | US20020046010A1 | Methods and computer readable medium for improved radiotherapy dosimetry planning | 50 |
| 4 | WO2013061083A2 | Therapeutic agents and uses thereof | 49 |
| 5 | US10100125B2 | Humanised anti kallikrein-2 antibody | 36 |
| 6 | WO2018222778A1 | Prostate-specific membrane antigen targeted high-affinity agents for endoradiotherapy of prostate cancer | 35 |
| 7 | WO2015075445A1 | Humanised anti kallikrein-2 antibody | 34 |
| 8 | US20180280525A1 | Bicyclic peptide ligands specific for mt1-mmp | 33 |
| 9 | US10532106B2 | Bicyclic peptide ligands specific for MT1-MMP | 33 |
| 10 | WO2013167756A1 | Radio-pharmaceutical complexes | 33 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older filings tend to lead simply by virtue of having had more time to accumulate citations.
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 →Four patterns stand out once the 949 records are broken down by classification, filing year and assignee concentration.
The top five ranked assignees account for 353 of the 949 records in scope, with the top ten reaching 545 records, or 57.4%. That leaves the remaining 90+ ranked companies filing far smaller volumes, so freedom-to-operate work should prioritise the leaders first.
Annual filings climbed from 80 in 2021 to a peak of 142 in 2024. That three-year growth run is the clearest complete-year signal in the dataset; 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete due to normal publication lag.
Medicinal-preparation claims (A61K) appear in 81.3% of the 949 records, with therapeutic-activity claims (A61P) in 53.6% and peptide/protein chemistry (C07K) in 41.2%. Radiation-delivery hardware (A61N) trails at 3.9%, marking the thinnest major branch.
The most-cited record in the set, a bicyclic-peptide-ligand filing, carries 205 citations — far ahead of the next tier, which includes dosimetry-planning patents cited in the 50-90 range. High citation counts here reflect influence built up over time, not current filing priority.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to radioligand therapy and theranostics, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Bayer AS | Bayer AG | 43 |
| Bayer AS | Bayer Pharma AG | 38 |
| Provincial Health Services Authority | University of British Columbia | 23 |
| Johns Hopkins University | Idagar LLC | 20 |
| Provincial Health Services Authority | TRIUMF (Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics) | 7 |
| Fredax LLC | Janssen Biotech Inc | 6 |
| Johns Hopkins University | Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg | 4 |
| Johns Hopkins University | Institute of Biotechnology, Czech Academy of Sciences | 4 |
The dataset records 10 co-assignee pairs, with the strongest pairings clustering around a small number of corporate affiliates and a university-health-authority partnership — a sign of tightly held internal collaboration rather than broad cross-industry co-filing.
A handful of pharmaceutical and academic assignees hold a disproportionate share of the 949 records, with co-filing patterns showing tight internal collaboration rather than broad industry partnership.
The leading assignee in the ranking holds 123 of the 949 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 44 and tenth place at 35 — a steep drop-off that marks this as a leader-plus-long-tail field rather than an evenly distributed one.
Filing volume compresses quickly after the leader: fifth place holds 44 records and tenth place 35, together with the leader making up the top ten's 57.4% share of all 949 records. Below tenth, volumes drop into single- and low-double-digit filings.
The dataset records 10 co-assignee pairs, with the strongest pairing appearing 43 times and a university-health-authority pairing appearing 23 times. This pattern reads as internal corporate-affiliate filing and academic-health-system partnership rather than cross-company joint development.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Bayer AS | 3 | — |
| Bayer AG | 3 | — |
| 3B Pharm GmbH | 2 | -67% |
| The University of Iowa Research Foundation | 1 | -75% |
| Fredax LLC | 0 | — |
| Johns Hopkins University | 0 | -100% |
| Bayer Pharma AG | 0 | — |
| Provincial Health Services Authority | 0 | — |
The trends above point to where filing is dense and where it is thin, but deciding whether a specific claim is clear or blocked requires looking at the actual claim language.
Filing density in A61K and C07K is high; before committing to a ligand-conjugate approach, check which claims from the leading assignees actually cover your specific chemistry.
Search claim scope in EurekaWith the top ten holding 57.4% of the 949 records in scope, watching their newest publications is the fastest way to see where the field moves next.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaChelation chemistry and dosimetry classes carry far lower filing density than the core formulation claims, which is where a narrowly drafted new claim is more likely to clear prior art.
Explore white space in EurekaFiling is concentrated at the top: the five most active assignees together account for 37.2% of the 949 records in scope, and the top ten account for 57.4%. Beyond that, the ranked list of 100 companies thins into a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants, which is typical for a field still consolidating around a handful of clinical-stage platforms. Because families rather than raw documents are the fairer comparison, the ranking used here counts patent families, not every published document variant.
Medicinal-preparation claims under A61K cover 81.3% of the 949 records, and therapeutic-activity claims under A61P cover 53.6%, meaning most filings sit on ligand and formulation chemistry rather than hardware. Peptide and protein chemistry (C07K) is present in 41.2% of records, reflecting the weight of receptor-targeting ligand platforms. Radiation-therapy delivery hardware, by contrast, is the thinnest major class at 3.9%, which suggests less crowded claim space there relative to the chemistry.
Yes through the last complete year: filings rose from 67 in 2017 to a peak of 142 in 2024, a 78% increase over the 2021-2024 span alone. Figures for 2025 and 2026 in the raw data appear lower, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than a real slowdown — those years are still filling in as more applications publish. Treat any apparent dip in the most recent one to two years with that caveat rather than as evidence of cooling activity.
The organo-metallic and chelation chemistry class (C07F) sits at only 4.7% of the 949 records and the radiation-therapy/electrotherapy class (A61N) at 3.9%, both far below the 81.3% weight carried by general medicinal-preparation claims. That gap points to under-claimed territory around specific chelator-radionuclide pairings, kidney-protection dosing regimens, and dosimetry methods tuned to newer isotopes. A narrowly drafted claim combining a specific radionuclide-chelator pair with a defined protective-dosing step is more likely to clear prior art than a broad formulation claim in the crowded A61K space.
A 2026 filing from Curium US LLC, US20260077075A1, claims an actinium-225 PSMA I&T radiopharmaceutical composition stabilized with sodium ascorbate and optional hydrochloric acid, targeting improved shelf-life and lower toxicity for prostate-cancer treatment. It illustrates the current direction of filing activity: incremental formulation and stability improvements on established targeted-radionuclide chemistry rather than entirely new mechanisms. That pattern is consistent with the broader dataset, where medicinal-preparation and therapeutic-activity classes dominate over novel delivery hardware.
Go past this page: query the whole radioligand therapy and theranostics 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.