Fastest
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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/shape-memory-alloy-safety-and-compliance-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Advanced Materials & Metallurgy · Patent LandscapeShape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance Patents
- 18 families, one dominant claim shape. Every record sits under A61B surgical device classification, with occluder frame geometry as the recurring subject matter.
- Filings peaked in 2020 at 6, then fell to zero by 2022. Publication lag means the post-2020 years are likely undercounted, not necessarily quieter.
- Compliance claims are secondary, not standalone. Only 3 of 18 records touch sterilising or disinfecting subject matter (A61L), leaving standalone corrosion-safety claims thin.
18
Published Records
-100%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
2020
Peak Filing Year
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
A narrow, device-centred field
This landscape tracks patents at the intersection of shape-memory alloy materials — nitinol chiefly — and the safety and compliance claims built around them: biocompatibility, corrosion resistance, and medical device regulatory fit. The dataset is small and tightly focused, with all 18 published families sitting under surgical device classification rather than spread across a broad materials-science base.
Filing activity clusters around braided occluder frame design, with corrosion-safety and sterilisation language folded into those same device claims rather than filed independently. The result is a field where the dominant claim shape is well established, but the compliance layer underneath it is comparatively under-claimed.
Filing activity and classification split, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
10,000 free credits to start
Filing Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Eighteen published families anchor this dataset, filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off, concentrated almost entirely in surgical device claims.
Filings peaked in 2020, then went quiet
Filings rose from zero in 2017 to a peak of 6 in 2020, then dropped to zero at the 2022 midpoint before a partial uptick toward 2026. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent years understate real activity — the apparent gap after 2020 should be checked against fresh priority-date data rather than read as a slowdown.
Surgical device claims dominate over sterilisation claims
A61B (diagnosis and surgery) covers all 18 records, while A61L (sterilising and disinfecting) appears in only 3. Compliance and biocompatibility language is overwhelmingly filed as dependent claims inside device patents rather than as standalone process filings.
Shares are the percentage of the 18 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about shape-memory alloy safety and compliance and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
The filing anchoring current claim scope
Representative Filing
Frame and patch design for occluder with access passage
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, CARDIOLOGY DIVISION, INC.
Braided occluding devices having an access passage and methods including the same are described herein. The occluding device includes a braided frame with an annular distal disc portion, a waist member, and an annular proximal disc portion defining a passageway through the braided frame, formed with a closed-end braid.Filed by St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, published 2024-02-29 as a continuation of the assignee's earlier occluder frame family.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20210236138A1 | Frame and patch design for occluder with access passage | 18 |
| 2 | WO2021158559A1 | Frame and patch design for occluder with access passage | 14 |
| 3 | US20210059684A1 | Erosion mitigating occluder | 12 |
| 4 | US20210236102A1 | Occluder locking mechanisms | 8 |
| 5 | US20210059651A1 | Occluder including external skirt | 7 |
| 6 | EP3834738A2 | Erosion mitigating occluder | 1 |
Ranked by citation count within the searched corpus; older records accumulate citations by tenure, so treat this as a signal of influence rather than current importance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (6 of 6 rows); clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Where to run it
For builders
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 →Signal Check
What the numbers actually indicate
Three findings stand out once the filing trend, classification split and citation pattern are read together.
Filing Trend
2020 peak, 6 filings
peak year
Activity is bursty, not steady
Filings moved from zero in 2017 to a peak of 6 in 2020, then fell to zero at the 2022 midpoint. That pattern reads more like a single wave of device development than sustained year-on-year investment, though the most recent years are understated by publication lag.
Filing trend, 2015–2026 cut-off
Classification Split
18 vs 3
A61B vs A61L records
Compliance is a feature, not a filing category
All 18 records sit under A61B surgical devices; only 3 also touch A61L sterilising and disinfecting. Corrosion-safety and biocompatibility claims are written as dependent limitations on device patents rather than pursued as independent compliance filings.
IPC subclass distribution
Filing Geography
13 US, 4 EPO, 1 PCT
receiving offices
US-centred with a modest European footprint
Thirteen of the recorded filings went through the United States, with a smaller EPO presence and a single PCT filing. That concentration suggests the regulatory and commercial priority for this claim set has been the US medical device market first.
Receiving office breakdown
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to shape-memory alloy safety and compliance, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Players & Momentum
Who is filing, and where the claim space is thin
The assignee picture in this dataset is narrow enough that a single family lineage accounts for the most-cited records; the interesting signal is less about a competitive field and more about where nobody has filed yet.
Lead Assignee
1 filing, -50% YoY
latest-year momentum
St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division
Holds the most-cited records in the set, including the occluder frame family and its 2024 continuation, US20240065700A1. Latest-year filing volume is down 50% year-on-year, though this is one data point and should be checked against newer priority dates.
Recent-year momentum by assignee
Filing Geography
13 of 18 via US
receiving office
US-first filing strategy
The bulk of records were filed through the United States Patent and Trademark Office, with a smaller EPO cohort and a single PCT filing, consistent with a US-market-first commercialisation approach for occluder devices.
Receiving office split
Classification Concentration
18 of 18 in A61B
surgical device claims
No competing classification cluster
Every record in the dataset falls under A61B, meaning there is no rival technology cluster (such as a standalone materials-science or coatings classification) competing for claim space here — the entire field is framed as surgical device engineering.
IPC subclass distribution
Recent-year filing momentum
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. | 1 | -50% |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps
Where to take this analysis
The filing pattern here raises specific follow-up questions rather than closing the topic off.
Check post-2022 priority filings directly
The drop to zero filings at the 2022 midpoint is very likely a publication-lag artefact rather than a real slowdown. Pulling priority-date records rather than publication-date records would clarify whether activity actually continued.
Run a priority-date search in EurekaMap the closed-end braid claim boundary precisely
The dominant claim family turns on a specific combination of disc geometry, waist member and closed-end braid termination. A full claim chart against that boundary would show exactly how much design-around room exists in open-end or welded alternatives.
Build a claim chart in EurekaTest the standalone compliance-claim hypothesis
With only 3 of 18 records touching A61L, a targeted prior-art search focused purely on corrosion-safety or biocompatibility methods, independent of any specific device, would confirm whether the white space read here holds up.
Search white space in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
In this dataset, biocompatibility and corrosion-safety language is almost never filed as a standalone patent; only 3 of 18 records fall under A61L (sterilising and disinfecting), and those are typically dependent claims attached to a surgical device family under A61B. If you are searching for a freestanding biocompatibility-testing patent, expect to find it bundled inside occluder or implant device filings rather than as its own claim set. A targeted search should pull the full device family and read the dependent claims, not just the title.
The most-cited records in this set, including US20210236138A1 and its PCT counterpart WO2021158559A1, along with the more recent US20240065700A1, trace to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division. These cover braided frame geometry with distal and proximal disc portions, a waist member, and a closed-end braid termination. Competing or alternative designs in the same set use open-end braids, external skirts, or different locking mechanisms, which points to where design-around options currently sit.
The trend shows a peak of 6 filings in 2020 followed by a drop to zero at the 2022 midpoint, but this should not be read at face value. Publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so filings made in 2024 and 2025 may not yet be visible in the public record. A genuine slowdown is possible, but the safer interpretation is that the post-2020 years are simply undercounted until more publications clear the pipeline.
A61B covers diagnostic and surgical instruments and devices, which is where all 18 records in this dataset sit, including occluder frames, locking mechanisms, and access-passage designs. A61L covers sterilising, disinfecting and biocompatibility-related subject matter, and only 3 of the 18 records touch it. Practically, this means the corrosion-safety and sterilisation methods relevant to shape-memory alloy devices are described as features of a specific device rather than filed as independent compliance processes.
Yes — the thin A61L coverage (3 of 18 records) against near-total A61B saturation suggests standalone corrosion-safety or sterilisation-method claims, decoupled from a specific device geometry, remain under-filed. The near-zero 2022 midpoint alongside a 2020 peak also warrants checking whether newer priority filings have quietly re-entered this space. Anyone filing a first claim there should tie it to a measurable corrosion-resistance or biocompatibility threshold rather than a specific frame design, to avoid overlapping the dominant occluder-frame claims already in force.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Shape-Memory Alloy Safety and Compliance in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole shape-memory alloy safety and compliance 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.