Sample Preparation for Clinical Mass Spectrometry Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Concentrated but not locked up. The top 5 assignees hold 15.9% of all 4,007 records and the top 10 hold 24.8% — meaningful clustering, but a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants still has room to move.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. Volume peaked at 254 records in 2017; from 2021 to 2024, the last year treated as complete, filings fell 26% (147 to 109).
- Protein precipitation and SPE claims sit inside a crowded medicinal-chemistry backdrop. A61K appears on 44.3% of records and G01N on 31.7%, showing how tightly sample-prep claims are bound up with the therapeutic and analytical filings around them.
Filing growth compares 2021 (147 records) with 2024 (109) — 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 4,007 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks patent families addressing sample preparation for clinical mass spectrometry — protein precipitation, solid phase extraction, phospholipid removal, and the automation platforms and plate formats built around them. The search spans records published between 2015 and mid-2026, drawing on 4,007 records filed by 100 ranked assignees plus a much larger set of smaller filers.
The technology sits at the intersection of clinical diagnostics workflow and analytical chemistry: claims range from device-level extraction media and plate architecture to method claims covering recovery consistency and reduced operator variability. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart understate actual filing activity.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 4,007 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims fall under.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings peaked at 254 records in 2017. Using 2021 to 2024 as the most recent complete window, volume declined 26%, from 147 to 109 records. 2025 and 2026 figures (down to 14 in the partial latest year) are still filling in as publications catch up with filing dates, so they should not be read as a continued drop.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
A61K (medicinal preparations) appears on 44.3% of the 4,007 records, ahead of G01N (material analysis and testing) at 31.7% and C07D (heterocyclic compounds) at 31.6%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% — the overlap itself signals that sample-prep claims are rarely filed in isolation from the therapeutic or analytical claims they support. B01D (separation processes), at 5.9%, is the smallest slice and marks the most narrowly claimed corner of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 4,007 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Sample Preparation for Clinical Mass Spectrometry with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about sample preparation for clinical mass spectrometry and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited records
US20080213906A1 — Compositions and methods for combining protein precipitation and solid phase extraction
A composition, method and device for the preparation of biological samples for subsequent LC-MS analysis using a combined and concurrent protein precipitation and solid phase extraction (SPE) process is described. Through an integrated combination of protein precipitation, filtration, and SPE using a novel zirconia-coated chromatographic media, interfering compounds, such as proteins and phosphate-containing compounds, are eliminated from the biological samples, affording a higher degree of analyte response during LC-MS analysis.Filed by Sigma-Aldrich Co., LLC, published 2008-09-04. Its combined precipitation-plus-SPE claim, anchored to zirconia-coated media, is a reference point for anyone designing a single-pass sample cleanup workflow.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2002037990A2 | Method and product for removing carcinogens from tobacco smoke | 570 |
| 2 | WO2013033230A1 | Oligomer-conjugate complexes and their use | 515 |
| 3 | WO2004000814A1 | 8-(biaryl) quinoline PDE4 inhibitors | 406 |
| 4 | WO2004005258A1 | Di-ARYL-substituted-ethane pyridone PDE4 inhibitors | 385 |
| 5 | US6194900B1 | Integrated miniaturized device for processing and NMR detection of liquid phase samples | 376 |
| 6 | US20040102360A1 | Combination therapy | 305 |
| 7 | US20020176804A1 | Microfluidic substrate assembly and method for making same | 284 |
| 8 | US20130156845A1 | Lipid formulated single stranded RNA | 280 |
| 9 | US5997708A | Multilayer integrated assembly having specialized intermediary substrate | 256 |
| 10 | WO2011139702A2 | Modified nucleosides and oligomeric compounds prepared therefrom | 239 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older records; they are not a measure 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 say about the field
Reading the concentration, growth and citation figures together points to a field with an established core and open edges.
Leadership is clustered, not cornered
The top 5 assignees combine for 15.9% of all 4,007 records, and the top 10 reach 24.8%. That leaves roughly three-quarters of the field spread across a long tail of the remaining 90 ranked assignees plus unranked filers — enough concentration to know who to watch, not enough to call any single sub-area closed.
Volume has eased from its 2017 peak
Filings peaked at 254 in 2017 and, across the most recent complete three-year window, fell 26% from 147 in 2021 to 109 in 2024. That is a real cooling, not an artifact of publication lag, since 2024 is the last year the dataset treats as complete.
Separation-process claims are the thinnest slice
B01D (filtration and separation processes) sits on just 5.9% of records, well behind A61K at 44.3% and G01N at 31.7%. Claims narrowly scoped to physical separation hardware are comparatively rare next to the broader medicinal-preparation and analytical-testing filings that dominate the corpus.
Influence skews toward older, broader filings
The most-cited records in this corpus date back well before the current filing window and cover broader chemistry than sample prep alone. High citation counts here mark historical reference points for later filers, not a signal of which recent filings matter most.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to sample preparation for clinical mass spectrometry, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gate sits
The leader board is dominated by large pharmaceutical and instrumentation names, but recent-year activity from several of the top filers has gone quiet, and a handful of co-filing pairs point to specific collaborations rather than broad industry consolidation.
A single filer sits well ahead of the field
The top-ranked assignee holds 206 records, more than double the fifth-place count of 85. That gap at the very top, alongside a fifth-to-tenth spread of 85 down to 61, shows leadership concentrated in one or two names rather than spread evenly across the leading group.
Co-filing is narrow and specific
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairing co-filing 36 records together. This points to a handful of durable institutional partnerships — academic-industry or subsidiary-parent links — rather than an industry-wide pattern of joint filing.
Several top-ranked filers have gone quiet
A number of the assignees at the top of the ranking, including one with a -100% year-on-year change, show zero filings in the latest tracked year. Given the 18-month publication lag, some of this is timing, but the pattern is broad enough across multiple leaders to note as a real shift in filing behaviour, not a single outlier.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Merck Frosst Canada Inc. | 0 | — |
| Novartis AG | 0 | — |
| Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. | 0 | — |
| Singulex Inc. | 0 | — |
| Bayer Pharma AG | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | -100% |
| Signal Pharmaceuticals LLC | 0 | — |
| Merck & Co., Inc. | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The landscape points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, competitive tracking, or identifying open claim space.
Map claims against the leading assignees
With 24.8% of records held by the top 10 filers, a freedom-to-operate review should start by pulling full claim sets from the highest-ranked assignees before searching the long tail.
Explore assignee claims in EurekaTrack the under-claimed branches
Low B01D density (5.9% of records) alongside heavier A61K and G01N coverage suggests specific separation-hardware and workflow-automation claims are worth monitoring as filing picks back up.
Set up a monitoring search in EurekaWatch for renewed filing activity
Several top assignees show zero filings in the latest year; given the publication lag, a re-check in 12-18 months will clarify whether this is a genuine pullback or a reporting gap.
Build a watch list in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
The leading assignee in this dataset holds 206 of the 4,007 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-ranked filer at 85. The top 5 assignees combined account for 15.9% of all records, and the top 10 account for 24.8%. The remainder is spread across a long tail of smaller filers, so leadership is clustered at the very top rather than evenly distributed across a broad group of large players.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 254 records and has since eased. Over the most recent three-year window that can be treated as complete, 2021 to 2024, filings fell 26%, from 147 to 109. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear much lower, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than an actual collapse in filing activity, so those final years should not be read as confirmed decline.
A61K, covering medicinal preparations, appears on 44.3% of the 4,007 records, the single largest share. G01N (material analysis and testing) and C07D (heterocyclic compounds) follow at 31.7% and 31.6% respectively, with A61P, C07K, C12N, C12Q and B01D covering smaller shares down to 5.9% for B01D. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages add up to well over 100%, and the overlap itself shows how closely sample-prep claims track the drug and diagnostic claims they support.
US20080213906A1, filed by Sigma-Aldrich, claims a combined and concurrent protein precipitation and solid phase extraction process built around a zirconia-coated chromatographic media, aimed at removing proteins and phosphate-containing compounds before LC-MS analysis. It is a useful reference point for anyone building a single-pass cleanup workflow that fuses precipitation and SPE in one step. Whether it blocks a specific new design depends on claim scope details, such as the media chemistry and process sequence, that a formal freedom-to-operate review would need to check against the granted claims rather than the published abstract alone.
Filing density is comparatively thin around separation-process hardware, with B01D present on only 5.9% of the 4,007 records compared with 44.3% for A61K. Specific branches worth watching include phospholipid-removal plate chemistries, low-solvent SPE formats, and automated recovery-consistency or operator-variability controls, which sit adjacent to the dense precipitation and SPE claims but are not yet heavily claimed themselves. A first claim in these areas would need to specify the automation or chemistry element precisely enough to sit outside the broader method claims already filed by the leading assignees.
Research Sample Preparation for Clinical Mass Spectrometry in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole sample preparation for clinical mass spectrometry 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.