Rotator Cuff Repair Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 52.4% of all 340 records sit with the top five assignees, so most competitive activity is already staked out by a small group of filers.
- +233% filing growth from 2021 to 2024 (6 to 20 records), the clearest complete-year signal that construct filing has re-accelerated after a mid-decade lull.
- Textile-class filings stay thin woven fabric, braiding and filament classes (D03D, D01F, D04D, D04C) each sit under 4% of records, well behind the surgical and implant classes.
Filing growth compares 2021 (6 records) with 2024 (20) — 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 340 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This landscape tracks 340 published records filed against rotator cuff repair constructs between 2015 and mid-2026, spanning double-row and transosseous-equivalent repair techniques, footprint coverage claims, augmentation patches, suture configurations and the rehabilitation protocols tied to them. The scope is technique- and construct-level rather than material-only, which is why surgical (A61B) and implant (A61F) classes dominate the composition while textile-specific classes remain a minority.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 at 46 records, dipped, and has climbed again through the most recent complete year. Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 counts shown in the trend chart are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 340-record dataset: the year-by-year filing curve, and the IPC subclasses those records are classified under. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, the class shares below add up to more than 100% of the record total.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Filings peaked in 2017 at 46 records, then fell before rebuilding to 20 records in 2024 — a +233% increase from the 6 filed in 2021. Treat 2025 and 2026 as incomplete given the roughly 18-month publication lag.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) covers 73.5% of the 340 records and A61F (implants and prostheses) covers 31.2%, confirming this field is claimed primarily as surgical technique and hardware. Textile-oriented classes — D03D, D01F, D04D and D04C — each sit at or below 3.5% of records, marking them as comparatively under-claimed relative to the surgical core.
Shares are the percentage of the 340 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Rotator Cuff Repair Constructs with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about rotator cuff repair constructs and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a representative filing
Composition comprising recombinant parathyroid hormone for healing after rotator cuff repair
The filing (US20220249620A1, assigned to Seoul National University Hospital, published 2022-08-11) describes a composition containing teriparatide as an active ingredient for healing tears at a suture site after rotator cuff repair. It claims a tendon-to-bone healing effect when administered to patients, particularly those with tears larger than 2 cm, positioned as a way to lower re-tear rates and improve post-repair healing.This is a biologic-adjunct claim rather than a mechanical construct claim, illustrating how the field extends beyond suture and anchor hardware into pharmacological augmentation of the healing tendon-bone interface.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20020147456A1 | Superelastic suture passing devices and methods | 368 |
| 2 | US20070190108A1 | High performance reticulated elastomeric matrix preparation, properties, reinforcement, and use in surgical d… | 318 |
| 3 | US20120265219A1 | Arthroscopic technique for load sharing with patch and suture assembly | 170 |
| 4 | US20090312793A1 | Medical device and procedure for attaching tissue to bone | 153 |
| 5 | US7842050B2 | Suture passing devices | 131 |
| 6 | US20040010273A1 | Superelastic suture passing devices and methods | 96 |
| 7 | US20130197578A1 | Biased wedge suture anchor and method for soft tissue repair | 82 |
| 8 | US20120130422A1 | Novel suture | 81 |
| 9 | US20130197577A1 | Restricted wedge suture anchor and method for soft tissue repair | 76 |
| 10 | US20100179573A1 | Medical device and procedure for attaching tissue to bone | 69 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records because they have had more time to accumulate citations — read this table as a signal of influence on the field's prior art, not as a ranking of current commercial 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 a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once concentration, growth and technology composition are read together.
Construct claim space is already crowded at the top
With the top five assignees holding 52.4% of all 340 records and the top ten holding 69.4%, a new entrant filing on core double-row or transosseous-equivalent mechanics is filing into dense prior art held by a small number of established orthopedic device makers.
Filing activity has re-accelerated post-2021
After bottoming at 6 records in 2021, filings rose to 20 in 2024 — the last year the trend can be treated as complete. That trajectory suggests renewed commercial interest in construct refinement rather than a maturing, slowing field.
Textile and fibre classes are thin relative to surgical classes
Woven fabric (D03D), filament (D01F), trimmings (D04D) and braiding (D04C) classes each account for 3.5% or less of the 340 records, versus 73.5% for A61B. That gap is where augmentation-patch material science is comparatively under-claimed against surgical technique.
The oldest highly-cited records still anchor prior art searches
The most-cited record in scope, on superelastic suture passing devices, carries 368 citations. High citation counts here reflect age and foundational status in a searched corpus, not that the underlying mechanism is still the commercial standard.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to rotator cuff repair constructs, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
Filing activity concentrates among a small set of established sports medicine and orthopedic device makers, with a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants behind them.
One filer sits well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 78 of the 340 records in scope, roughly double the fifth-place count of 14, indicating a sustained, multi-year filing programme rather than a single burst of activity.
The drop-off after the leader is gradual, not a cliff
Fifth place holds 14 records and tenth place holds 10, a comparatively shallow decline that points to several active competitors filing at a similar pace just behind the leader, rather than a two-firm race.
Co-filing is limited and mostly individual-inventor driven
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, the strongest being a two-inventor pairing at 9 shared records, followed by an academic-industry pairing at 5. Cross-company joint filing is rare in this field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Arthrex Inc | 1 | -50% |
| Medos International SARL | 0 | — |
| The Cleveland Clinic Foundation | 0 | — |
| CORE ESSENCE ORTHOPAEDICS LLC | 0 | — |
| KAPLAN LEE D | 0 | — |
| DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Smith & Nephew plc | 0 | — |
| Arthrocare Corp | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The concentration and composition patterns above point to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy or technology scouting.
Map claims against the leading assignees' portfolios
With over half of records held by five assignees, a freedom-to-operate check should start with their specific claim scope on double-row and transosseous-equivalent mechanics before drafting new construct claims.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaProbe the textile-class white space
Braiding, weaving and filament classes remain thin relative to the surgical core, suggesting augmentation-patch material claims may face less crowded prior art than mechanical construct claims.
Run a white space search in EurekaTrack post-2021 filing momentum by assignee
Filing activity rebuilt from 6 records in 2021 to 20 in 2024; identifying which assignees drove that rebuild flags who is actively re-investing in this space now.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on rotator cuff repair construct patents
Filing activity is concentrated: the leading assignee holds 78 of the 340 records in scope, and the top five assignees together hold 52.4% of all records. The drop from fifth to tenth place is gradual rather than steep, meaning several mid-tier competitors are filing at a broadly similar pace just behind the leaders. A freedom-to-operate review should treat the top five as the primary blocking risk rather than assuming a single dominant holder.
Filings rose from 6 records in 2021 to 20 in 2024, a +233% increase over that span, indicating renewed rather than declining interest. The overall trend peaked earlier, in 2017, at 46 records, then dipped before rebuilding. Counts for 2025 and 2026 appear lower in the raw data but should not be read as a slowdown, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and those years are still filling in.
Surgical technique and implant claims dominate, with A61B covering 73.5% of the 340 records and A61F covering 31.2%. By contrast, textile-oriented classes — woven fabrics, braiding, filament and trimmings — each account for 3.5% or less of records. That gap suggests augmentation-patch material science and fibre architecture carry comparatively less claim density than the surgical mechanics around them.
US20220249620A1, assigned to Seoul National University Hospital, claims a composition containing teriparatide (a recombinant parathyroid hormone fragment) as an active ingredient to promote tendon-to-bone healing after rotator cuff repair, with a stated benefit in patients with tears larger than 2 cm. It is a pharmacological-adjunct claim rather than a mechanical construct claim, so it primarily constrains biologic augmentation approaches used alongside suture or anchor-based repair, not the suture configuration or anchor hardware itself. Anyone developing a biologic healing adjunct for this indication should review its specific composition and dosing language closely.
The most-cited record in this dataset covers superelastic suture passing devices, with 368 citations, followed by a record on reticulated elastomeric matrix preparation for tissue augmentation at 318 citations. High citation counts in a searched corpus tend to favour older, foundational filings rather than the most commercially current technology, so these figures are best read as markers of influence on subsequent prior art rather than an indicator of what is dominant in the market today.
Research Rotator Cuff Repair Constructs in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole rotator cuff repair constructs 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.