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/solid-phase-peptide-synthesis-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Bioprocessing · Patent LandscapeSolid-Phase Peptide Synthesis Patents: Filing Trends and the Companies Behind Them
- 47.2% of all 197 records sit with just five assignees, so coupling chemistry and resin-loading claims are already dense at the top.
- Filing peaked in 2021 at 26 records and has since flattened toward the 2022 midpoint of 13, a growth signal worth checking against the 18-month publication lag.
- C07C, B01J and C40B classes sit under 15% each of the 197 records, pointing to solvent-system and combinatorial-library claims that are comparatively open.
197
Published Records
47%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-85%
3-Yr Growth (lag-adjusted)
US
Leading Jurisdiction
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 197 published records filed against solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) methods, spanning coupling efficiency, resin loading, green solvent replacement, aggregation control during synthesis, and purification burden. The scope runs from 2015 through the 2026-07-31 data cut-off, with IPC coverage anchored in C07K peptide chemistry and extending into B01J catalysis and process classes. Every record in scope carries a C07K classification, which sets the denominator for every share quoted on this page.
Filing activity rose through the late 2010s, peaked in 2021, and has since eased back toward earlier levels — a pattern that should be read alongside the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication, which understates the most recent year by design. Concentration at the top of the assignee ranking is real but not absolute: the leading five hold nearly half of all records, while a long tail of single- and few-filing entrants fills out the remaining 85 ranked companies.
Filing activity and technology composition, 2015–2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis 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
The Data
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 197-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year on year, and how those records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Annual filings rose from 13 in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2021, then eased to 13 by the 2022 midpoint and down to 1 in the partial final year. Treat the tail end as incomplete rather than as a genuine drop-off, given publication lag.
IPC subclass distribution
All 197 records carry a C07K classification by design of the search. Beyond that, C07C (14.7%), A61K (9.1%) and B01J (9.1%) are the next most common classes, with C40B combinatorial-library claims present in 7.6% of records — each share is measured against the full 197-record set, and records can carry more than one class.
Shares are the percentage of the 197 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 Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about solid-phase peptide synthesis and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Representative filing and most-cited records
Representative Record
Methods and systems for solid phase peptide synthesis (US20210047365A1)
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Methods and systems for control of solid phase peptide synthesis are generally described. Control of solid phase peptide synthesis involves the use of feedback from one or more reactions and/or processes (e.g., reagent removal) taking place in the solid phase peptide synthesis system. In some embodiments, a detector may detect one or more fluids flowing across a detection zone of a solid phase peptide synthesis system and one or more signals may be generated corresponding to the fluid(s).Filed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published 2021-02-18.
Most-cited records in this dataset
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US9695214B2 | Solid phase peptide synthesis processes and associated systems | 25 |
| 2 | US5424394A | Synthetic preparation of amylin and amylin analogues | 21 |
| 3 | WO2014149387A2 | Solid phase peptide synthesis processes and associated systems | 20 |
| 4 | US4888385A | BOP reagent for solid phase peptide synthesis | 19 |
| 5 | US10683325B2 | Methods and systems for solid phase peptide synthesis | 18 |
| 6 | US9206222B2 | Solid phase peptide synthesis of peptide alcohols | 17 |
| 7 | US20080089842A1 | Flexibly labeling peptides | 17 |
| 8 | WO2006045503A1 | Method for solid phase peptide synthesis | 17 |
| 9 | US20180057525A1 | Solid phase peptide synthesis processes and associated systems | 14 |
| 10 | WO2003062266A2 | Hybrid synthetic method for antimicrobial peptides | 14 |
Citation counts reflect influence within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; they are not a measure of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis 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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Read together, the concentration figures, the technology split and the receiving-office spread point to where claim space is occupied and where it is not.
Concentration
47.2% of 197
held by top 5 assignees
The top of the field is crowded
Five assignees account for 93 of the 197 records in scope. That density sits specifically around coupling efficiency and resin-loading process claims, the core of the search string, so a new filing aimed squarely at those mechanics is filing into occupied ground.
Top 5 combined, 197-record base
Momentum
26 in 2021
peak filing year
Growth has flattened since the 2021 peak
Filings climbed from 13 in 2017 to 26 in 2021, then eased back to 13 by 2022. Recent-year momentum by individual assignee also shows several leaders at zero filings in the latest year, though the partial final year and publication lag both mean this should not be read as a hard stop.
2017–2026 filing trend
Composition
7.6% of 197
carry C40B combinatorial-library claims
Adjacent classes are thinner
Outside the universal C07K classification, no other IPC subclass exceeds 15% of records. C40B combinatorial chemistry, C07B general organic methods and A61P therapeutic-activity classes all sit in single digits, suggesting claim space beyond core peptide chemistry is less built out.
IPC subclass shares, 197-record base
Geography
54 US filings
leading receiving office
Filing activity clusters in a few offices
The United States leads receiving offices with 54 filings, followed by WIPO PCT applications at 40 and the EPO at 37. India and Canada trail well behind at 13 and 10, which may indicate less competitive pressure in those jurisdictions for the same claim scope.
Receiving office counts
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 solid-phase peptide synthesis, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis 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
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranking covers 85 companies as returned by the data endpoint — not a curated top 50 or top 100 — with a sharp drop from the leader to the rest of the field.
Leader
35 records
held by the top-ranked assignee
One assignee well ahead of fifth place
The leading assignee holds 35 records against 9 at fifth place and 6 at tenth, a steep drop-off that suggests one organisation has built a genuinely broad portfolio around SPPS methods rather than a handful of opportunistic filings.
Assignee ranking, 85 companies
Long tail
85 ranked
companies in the ranking
A long tail beyond the top ten
Top 10 assignees combined hold 65.0% of all 197 records, meaning the remaining 75 ranked companies share the rest — mostly universities, research institutes and smaller biotech filers with one or two records each.
Top 10 combined, 197-record base
Collaboration
10 co-assignee pairs
identified in the dataset
Co-filing is limited but concentrated
Only 10 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest repeated pairings involve a small number of named inventors working alongside two of the larger corporate assignees, pointing to a handful of stable internal research teams rather than broad industry consortia.
Co-assignee pair count
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| PeptiSystems AB | 1 | — |
| Massachusetts Institute of Technology | 0 | — |
| PolyPeptide Laboratories Holding (PPL) AB | 0 | -100% |
| Lonza AG | 0 | — |
| Eli Lilly & Co. | 0 | -100% |
| The University of Queensland | 0 | — |
| Enzene Biosciences Ltd | 0 | — |
| Queen's University of Belfast | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis 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
What's Next
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio benchmarking or identifying open claim space.
Check freedom-to-operate against the top assignees
With 47.2% of records held by five companies, any new filing on coupling efficiency or resin loading should be checked against those specific portfolios before drafting claims.
Run an FTO check in EurekaExplore the under-claimed branches
Green solvent replacement, aggregation control and combinatorial library methods all sit under 15% of records — each is a candidate for a first-mover claim rather than a crowded one.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack momentum among the leaders
Several top assignees show zero filings in the latest year, including two with a -100% year-on-year change. Confirm whether that reflects strategy shifts or simply publication lag before drawing conclusions.
Monitor assignee activity in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis 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
Common questions about this landscape
One assignee leads the ranked field with 35 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 9 and tenth place at 6. That gap suggests a broad, sustained portfolio strategy rather than a single cluster of related filings. The top five assignees combined hold 47.2% of all 197 records in scope, so the field is concentrated but not dominated by a single company.
Filing activity peaked in 2021 at 26 records and has since eased back toward the 2022 level of 13, which reads as flat-to-declining rather than continued growth. The most recent year in the dataset is partial and, like any patent trend, understated by the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication. A clearer picture of the last two years will only emerge as those filings publish.
Outside the universal C07K peptide classification, no other IPC subclass exceeds 15% of the 197 records in scope. Green solvent replacement, aggregation control during synthesis and combinatorial peptide library methods (C40B, at 7.6%) are all thinner branches relative to core coupling and resin-loading claims. These are reasonable areas to search before drafting a new application, though thin coverage is not proof of an open path — it still requires a freedom-to-operate check.
This is Massachusetts Institute of Technology's published application covering methods and systems that use in-line detection and feedback to control solid-phase peptide synthesis reactions, including monitoring fluid exiting a reactor after deprotection. It is one of the most-cited records in this dataset alongside earlier filings on SPPS processes and BOP coupling reagents. Anyone building automated or feedback-controlled SPPS equipment should review its specific claim language before designing a similar detection scheme.
The United States leads with 54 filings, followed by WIPO PCT applications at 40 and the European Patent Office at 37. Australia, India and Canada follow at 16, 13 and 10 respectively. This spread indicates that most applicants prioritise US and international PCT protection first, with secondary filings following in Europe and a smaller set of other jurisdictions.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis 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 Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole solid-phase peptide synthesis 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.