Regenerative Medicine Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- Concentration is modest. the leading assignee holds 796 records, and the ranked top 5 combined account for just 11.5% of all 28,186 records in scope — this field has not consolidated.
- Filing peaked in 2017 at 1,386 records and 2021-to-2024 volume fell 45% (1,237 to 682); publication lag means 2025-2026 figures are still filling in, not a confirmed decline.
- Two IPC subclasses dominate composition, A61K (39.5%) and C12N (37.8%) of records, while implant/prosthesis-adjacent A61F sits at just 3.3% — a visible gap relative to the rest of the field.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1,237 records) with 2024 (682) — 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 28,186 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the regenerative medicine patent record shows
The dataset covers 28,186 published records filed against regenerative medicine search terms spanning tissue regeneration, molecular scaffolds, differentiation markers and screening assays, from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. Filing activity rose to a peak of 1,386 records in 2017 and has since been on a downward path through the most recent complete year, though the most recent one or two years are understated because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months. Ownership is diffuse rather than concentrated: the ranked leader holds 796 records, but the top 5 assignees together account for only 11.5% of the full record set.
Technology composition skews heavily toward medicinal preparations (A61K) and microorganism/genetic-engineering methods (C12N), together touching more than three-quarters of records when counted individually. Therapeutic activity claims (A61P), sterilising and disinfecting methods (A61L), and peptide/protein chemistry (C07K) form a second tier. Implants and prostheses (A61F), material analysis (G01N) and enzyme/DNA measurement (C12Q) are present but comparatively thin, which is where claim space looks least occupied.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 28,186-record set: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
A 2017 peak followed by a multi-year pullback
Filings ran from 1,386 in 2017 down to 682 by 2024, a 45% drop across that three-year window from 2021's 1,237. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures (63 in the latest year) as incomplete rather than as evidence the field has gone cold — publication lag means recent filings simply have not surfaced yet.
A61K and C12N carry the field; A61F is the visible gap
A61K (39.5% of records) and C12N (37.8%) dominate, with A61P, A61L and C07K forming a mid tier between 11% and 15%. G01N, C12Q and especially A61F (3.3%) are the thinnest classes in the set, worth a closer look for anyone assessing where prior art is lighter.
Shares are the percentage of the 28,186 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Regenerative Medicine Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about regenerative medicine patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative recent filing
WO2025032586A1 — Acellular plasma and uses thereof for tissue regeneration
The invention discloses a pseudoserum derived from acellular plasma at least partially depleted of fibrinogen and fibrin, as well as methods of preparing the pseudoserum of the invention, therapeutic compositions comprising the same, and uses thereof in regenerative medicine involving tissue regeneration.Filed by Kamada Ltd., published February 2025 — illustrates the current direction of filings toward blood-derived, cell-free regenerative formulations rather than cell-based therapies.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2007024715A2 | Dual variable domain immunoglobin and uses thereof | 1,550 |
| 2 | US7612181B2 | Dual variable domain immunoglobulin and uses thereof | 1,351 |
| 3 | US20070071675A1 | Dual variable domain immunoglobulin and uses thereof | 991 |
| 4 | US20160208243A1 | Novel crispr enzymes and systems | 863 |
| 5 | US8753664B2 | Medical device intended to come into contact with a patient's tissue and related manufacturing method | 838 |
| 6 | US20140273226A1 | Crispr/CAS systems for genomic modification and gene modulation | 793 |
| 7 | US9790490B2 | CRISPR enzymes and systems | 757 |
| 8 | WO2009072003A2 | Sample processing system and methods | 751 |
| 9 | US20060252981A1 | Biocompatible implant and use of the same | 741 |
| 10 | US8268344B2 | Particle-containing complex porous materials | 711 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this searched corpus, not as a ranking of 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 numbers mean for strategy
Three findings that shape where to file, where to watch, and where the ground is less crowded than the headline volume suggests.
No single owner controls the field
The leading assignee holds 796 records out of 28,186, and even the ranked top 10 combined reach only 17.7% of all records. That is a fragmented landscape by the standards of biopharma patenting — a long tail of academic and corporate filers sit behind a handful of larger holders rather than two or three companies locking up the space.
Volume has pulled back from its 2017 peak
Filings peaked at 1,386 records in 2017 and have declined through the most recent complete year, with the 2021-2024 window down 45%. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 counts in the dataset are not yet a reliable read on where filing is actually heading.
Scaffold and implant claims are the thinnest major class
A61K and C12N together dominate composition, but A61F sits at just 3.3% of the 28,186 records — a fraction of the density seen in the medicinal-preparation and genetic-engineering classes. For scaffold- or implant-adjacent regenerative approaches, that thinner footprint is worth checking before assuming the space is crowded.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to regenerative medicine patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where activity is cooling
Academic research institutions dominate the ranked leaders, several tied together through recurring co-assignee relationships rather than acting alone.
A diffuse leadership tier
The top-ranked assignee holds 796 records, well ahead of fifth place at 562 and tenth at 298 — a steady taper rather than a cliff, consistent with a field built on university and research-institute output rather than a small set of dominant corporates.
MIT and the Broad Institute file together heavily
The strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset, MIT with the Broad Institute, spans 431 shared records — far ahead of the next pairings. That kind of recurring joint filing usually marks a stable, funded research partnership rather than one-off collaboration.
Recent-year activity has cooled across the leaders
Every tracked leading assignee shows a sharp year-over-year pullback in the latest year — MIT down 84%, the Broad Institute down 90%, Harvard down 100% to zero. Given publication lag, this reads as filings still working through the pipeline rather than an actual stop in research.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) | 3 | -84% |
| The Regents of the University of California | 2 | -88% |
| The Broad Institute, Inc. | 2 | -90% |
| The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University | 1 | -88% |
| President and Fellows of Harvard College | 0 | -100% |
| Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) | 0 | -100% |
| University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education | 0 | -100% |
| RIKEN Co., Ltd. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this
The dataset points to specific next checks rather than a single conclusion — use them to scope freedom-to-operate work or a filing strategy.
Check the thinner IPC classes before assuming crowding
A61F, G01N and C12Q carry far fewer records than A61K or C12N. Before ruling out a scaffold- or diagnostics-adjacent approach as over-filed, verify the actual density in the specific claim area against these subclass figures.
Explore IPC breakdownTrack the leaders' pipelines, not just their totals
Recent-year momentum has fallen sharply across every tracked leading assignee, but publication lag means this is not yet confirmed as reduced research activity. Revisit this once 2025-2026 data has filled in.
Monitor assignee activityLook closely at recent filings like WO2025032586A1
Cell-free, blood-derived regenerative formulations represent a distinct direction from the cell-based therapies that dominate older, highly-cited records in this set. Recent filing direction is a better guide to where competitive activity is heading than citation counts, which favour older documents.
Review representative filingCommon questions on the regenerative medicine patent landscape
Academic and research institutions dominate the ranked leaders in this dataset, with the top assignee holding 796 records. Ownership is fragmented rather than concentrated: the top 5 assignees combined account for only 11.5% of the 28,186 records in scope, and the top 10 reach 17.7%. That means no single company or university controls the field, and a long tail of smaller filers sits behind the leaders. Anyone assessing competitive risk should look beyond the top few names to that broader tail.
Filing volume peaked in 2017 at 1,386 records and has declined since, with the 2021-2024 window down 45% (1,237 to 682 records). However, publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 in this dataset are incomplete rather than a confirmed drop-off. The safest read is that filing has cooled from its 2017 peak through 2024, with the most recent two years still an open question.
A61K (medicinal preparations) and C12N (microorganisms and genetic engineering) are the two largest classes, covering 39.5% and 37.8% of the 28,186 records respectively. A61P (therapeutic activity), A61L (sterilising and disinfecting) and C07K (peptides and proteins) form a second tier between roughly 11% and 15%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and should not be treated as parts of a whole.
The thinnest major classes in this dataset are A61F (implants and prostheses) at 3.3% of records, C12Q (enzyme and DNA-based measurement) at 4.6%, and G01N (material analysis and testing) at 6.1%. These lower densities suggest scaffold-integrated implants, enzyme-based differentiation assays, and graft material-testing methods are comparatively less claimed than the dominant medicinal-preparation and genetic-engineering areas. That does not guarantee an open path — it means the density is lower and worth checking directly against a specific claim scope.
WO2025032586A1, filed by Kamada Ltd. and published in February 2025, covers a pseudoserum derived from acellular plasma that has been at least partially depleted of fibrinogen and fibrin, along with methods of preparing it, therapeutic compositions containing it, and its use in tissue regeneration. It represents the cell-free, blood-derived formulation direction rather than the cell-based therapies that dominate the older, most-cited records in this corpus. Anyone working on plasma-derived or fibrinogen-depleted regenerative formulations should review this filing's specific claim scope directly rather than relying on the abstract alone.
Research Regenerative Medicine Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole regenerative medicine 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.