Small Angle X-Ray Scattering Patents: Who Leads, Trends 2026
- 37.6% concentration. The top 5 assignees hold 170 of the 452 records in scope — a genuinely concentrated field rather than a fragmented one.
- Filing doubled 2021-2024. From 8 to 16 filings across the three-year span, even as the field cooled from its 2020 peak of 104.
- Material analysis dominates the claims. G01N accounts for 29.6% of the 452 records, well ahead of optics (G02B, 17.9%) and layered products (B32B, 16.4%).
Filing growth compares 2021 (8 records) with 2024 (16) — 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 452 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) patenting spans instrument design, data reduction methods and the materials characterised with the technique — from polymer films to lamellar drug-delivery systems. This landscape draws on 452 published records filed or published between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off, spanning IPC classes as different as G01N material testing and A61K medicinal preparations.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent filing years understate real activity; the trend and concentration figures below should be read with that lag in mind rather than as a signal of the field slowing down.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 452 records: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
A 2020 peak, then a documented rebound
Filings ran from 26 in 2017 to a peak of 104 in 2020, before settling into a lower band. Within that lower band, the 2021-2024 span shows a clear doubling — 8 filings to 16, a +100% move over three years — even though the 2020 peak itself has not been matched since.
Material testing leads, but the field spans eight active classes
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears in 29.6% of the 452 records, ahead of G02B optics (17.9%) and B32B layered products (16.4%). Polymer-related classes C08L and C08J together cover a large share of records, and medical and diagnostic classes (A61K, A61B) show SAXS's spread into pharmaceutical and clinical characterisation. Because records carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% of the 452 total.
Shares are the percentage of the 452 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Small Angle X-Ray Scattering with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about small angle x-ray scattering and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
Processing method for small angle scattering data from a lamellar system (EP4790398A1)
The filing describes a method for processing small angle scattering data from a lamellar system: it takes a scattering spectrum of intensities over a finite momentum-transfer range, computes a modified pair distance distribution function, and from it determines the number of lamellae and/or the lamellar repeat distance.Filed by Xenocs SAS; published 2026-08-12.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US8121249B2 | Multi-parameter X-ray computed tomography | 312 |
| 2 | US5221724A | Polysiloxane polyurea urethanes | 163 |
| 3 | US20080273662A1 | CD-GISAXS System and Method | 145 |
| 4 | US5802137A | X-ray optics, especially for phase contrast imaging | 104 |
| 5 | US7920676B2 | CD-GISAXS system and method | 99 |
| 6 | US7463712B2 | Scatter correction for x-ray imaging using modulation of primary x-ray spatial spectrum | 90 |
| 7 | US6069934A | X-ray diffractometer with adjustable image distance | 80 |
| 8 | US5850425A | X-ray optics, especially for phase contrast | 78 |
| 9 | WO2008029107A2 | Phase contrast imaging | 73 |
| 10 | WO1995005725A1 | Improved x-ray optics, especially for phase contrast imaging | 68 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply by virtue of being searchable longer; treat them as a measure of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial relevance.
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 read-outs from the dataset that matter more for strategy than the raw counts alone.
The leader sets the pace
The leading assignee alone holds 64 records, and the top 5 combined hold 170 of the 452 records in scope (37.6%). That is enough concentration that a new entrant filing core data-reduction or detector-geometry claims should expect to run into that group's prior art first.
A rebound below the 2020 peak
Filing volume doubled from 8 in 2021 to 16 in 2024, even though the field has not returned to its 2020 peak of 104. Read together with the publication lag, this looks like renewed rather than fading interest.
Claims spread well beyond instrumentation
G01N material testing leads at 29.6% of the 452 records, but G02B optics, B32B laminates, C08L/C08J polymers, and A61K/A61B/G21K each clear at least 9.3% of records. SAXS claim activity is as much about the materials characterised as the instrument doing the characterising.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to small angle x-ray scattering, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Cornell University | Yale University | 22 |
| University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | Brookhaven Science Associates LLC | 15 |
| NEXTRAY | Brookhaven Science Associates LLC | 8 |
| NEXTRAY | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | 8 |
| University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | University of Saskatchewan | 8 |
| Unilever Global IP Ltd | Unilever IP Holdings B.V. | 6 |
| NEXTRAY | ZHONG ZHONG | 4 |
| NEXTRAY | PARHAM CHRISTOPHER | 4 |
The strongest co-assignee pairing in the dataset links two university research groups at 22 shared records, well ahead of the next pairing at 15 — a sign that some of the field's deepest technical work is happening through sustained academic partnerships rather than solo corporate filing.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders come from a mix of instrument makers, university research groups and materials companies — a sign that SAXS patenting spans hardware, method and application claims rather than sitting in one camp.
Hardware and optics still anchor filing
Instrument and optics specialists file heavily into the US and EPO, with detector geometry and beam-path claims forming a recognisable core of the dataset even as materials applications broaden the field.
University groups file jointly and repeatedly
Two university-linked pairings account for the dataset's strongest co-assignee relationships, pointing to long-running joint research programmes rather than one-off collaborations.
Formulation and diagnostic claims are a growing slice
Medicinal preparation (A61K) and diagnosis/surgery (A61B) classes each cover roughly one in ten of the 452 records, showing SAXS characterisation claims extending well past materials science into pharmaceutical and clinical use.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Cornell University | 1 | — |
| LG Chem, Ltd. | 0 | — |
| OSMIC INC | 0 | — |
| Yale University | 0 | — |
| UCL Business Ltd | 0 | — |
| Rhodia Operations SAS | 0 | — |
| NEXTRAY | 0 | — |
| Unilever Global IP Ltd | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The landscape points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying a filing gap.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top 5
With 37.6% of the 452 records held by five assignees, any new detector-geometry or data-reduction filing should be checked against that group's claim scope before drafting.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkTrack the post-2024 filings as they publish
Because of the roughly 18-month publication lag, 2025-2026 filings are still incomplete in this dataset; revisit the trend once those years mature.
Set up a monitoring alertScope the under-claimed branches
Beam-damage correction and absolute-intensity calibration show limited recent activity from the ranked leaders, which may make them a more open place to file.
Explore white space with EurekaCommon questions about SAXS patenting
The dataset's ranking is led by a single assignee with 64 of the 452 records in scope, with the top 5 assignees combined holding 170 records (37.6%). That level of concentration means a handful of organisations, largely instrument makers and university-linked research groups, control a meaningful share of the field's claim space. It does not mean the field is closed to new entrants, but new filings in core detector-geometry or data-reduction claims are likely to run into this group's prior art first.
Filing peaked at 104 records in 2020 and has not returned to that level since, but the 2021-2024 window shows a clear doubling from 8 to 16 filings, a +100% increase. Because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one or two years in any dataset look artificially quiet and should not be read as a decline. On the evidence available for complete years, the field is rebounding rather than fading.
While G01N material analysis and testing leads at 29.6% of the 452 records, the field spans optics (G02B, 17.9%), layered products (B32B, 16.4%), polymer compositions and processing (C08L and C08J), and medical or diagnostic applications (A61K and A61B, each above 9%). This spread reflects that SAXS is as much a characterisation technique applied across materials and pharmaceutical science as it is an instrumentation category. A search limited to instrument claims alone would miss most of the dataset.
Recent-year momentum data shows several of the dataset's most prominent assignees recording zero filings in the latest year, while activity concentrates in specific data-processing niches like lamellar repeat-distance extraction. Branches such as beam-damage-corrected data reduction, absolute-intensity calibration workflows and GISAXS detector-distance auto-calibration show comparatively thin recent activity from the ranked leaders. These are reasonable areas to scope before committing to a full patentability search, though thin recent activity is not the same as an open field — a proper clearance search is still needed.
EP4790398A1, filed by Xenocs SAS and published 2026-08-12, describes a method for processing small angle scattering data from a lamellar system: it takes a scattering intensity spectrum over a finite momentum-transfer range, computes a modified pair distance distribution function, and from it derives the number of lamellae and the lamellar repeat distance. It sits squarely in the data-reduction and analysis branch of the landscape rather than in instrument hardware. Anyone building software or methods around lamellar-structure SAXS analysis should review its exact claim scope before designing a similar pipeline.
Research Small Angle X-Ray Scattering in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole small angle x-ray scattering 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.