In Situ Sequencing Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
A data-backed look at spatial omics in situ sequencing patents: who holds the concentrated core claims, how filings grew from 2021 to 2024, and where technology white space remains for 2026.
Filing growth = 2021 (7 records) → 2024 (20); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete. Top-5 share = the 5 largest assignees ÷ all 210 records in scope (CR5), not the ranked leaders only.
What the in situ sequencing patent record shows
In situ sequencing keeps nucleic acid sequencing chemistry tethered to the tissue or cell where the target sits, rather than extracting and pooling molecules before reading them. That constraint is what makes the patent record so concentrated: the foundational polony-bead sequencing patents from the mid-2000s still rank among the most cited records in the field, and the assignees who built on that base — academic technology-transfer offices and a handful of instrument companies — now hold the large majority of filings. Filing activity in this dataset runs from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with a visible peak in 2022 and a growth run from 2021 to 2024 that outpaces most adjacent genomics sub-fields.
Because publication trails filing by roughly 18 months, the last one or two years in any trend chart understate real activity — 2024 is the most recent year that can be read as a complete picture, and it shows filings still climbing.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 210-record dataset: how filing volume moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim language.
A field that peaked in 2022 and kept growing into 2024
Filings ran from 22 in 2017 to a peak of 66 in 2022, then continued rising from 7 filings in 2021 to 20 in 2024 — a 186% increase over that three-year span. 2025 and 2026 figures in the chart are still filling in as publication catches up with filing, so treat the tail as a floor, not a ceiling.
Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in. Growth rates on this page therefore end at 2024; running them to the last bar would understate the field.
Claims concentrate in enzyme and DNA measurement classes
C12Q (measuring/testing involving enzymes or DNA) appears in 73.8% of the 210 records, far ahead of C12N genetic engineering at 27.6% and G01N material analysis at 20.0%. Smaller subclasses — G16B bioinformatics, B01L lab apparatus, C07H nucleic acid chemistry and G02B optics — each sit near or under 7%, marking narrower but less contested claim territory.
Shares are the percentage of the 210 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Spatial Omics: In Situ Sequencing Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about spatial omics: in situ sequencing patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe documents anchoring this field
Method for Constructing In Situ Sequencing Library, and In Situ Sequencing Method and Application
The filing describes a method for building an in situ sequencing library: a sample is placed on a solid support with RNA-capture function, mRNA is fixed and captured without cross-linking, reverse-transcribed to cDNA, and residual tissue or cell material is removed so the cDNA remains immobilised on a cleaned solid support ahead of target capture and amplification.Filed by BGI Shenzhen, published 2026-07-30 — one of the most recent records in scope and a sign that library-construction chemistry, not just imaging or detection, is still an active claim front.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2005082098A2 | Polony fluorescent in SITU sequencing beads | 454 |
| 2 | US10059990B2 | In situ nucleic acid sequencing of expanded biological samples | 448 |
| 3 | US7425431B2 | Polony fluorescent in situ sequencing beads | 366 |
| 4 | US20190194709A1 | Methods of Combining the Detection of Biomolecules Into a Single Assay Using Fluorescent In Situ Sequencing | 343 |
| 5 | US20070087362A1 | Polony fluorescent in situ sequencing beads | 334 |
| 6 | WO2018045181A1 | Methods of generating libraries of nucleic acid sequences for detection via fluorescent in situ sequencing | 248 |
| 7 | WO2018045186A1 | Methods of combining the detection of biomolecules into a single assay using fluorescent in situ sequencing | 242 |
| 8 | WO2023287765A1 | Methods for spatial analysis using targeted probe silencing | 105 |
| 9 | US20160304952A1 | In situ nucleic acid sequencing of expanded biological samples | 102 |
| 10 | US10526649B2 | Augmenting in situ nucleic acid sequencing of expanded biological samples with in vitro sequence information | 86 |
Citation counts favour older documents inside a searched corpus — read them as a measure of influence on later filings, not as a signal 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 concentration and growth numbers mean for a filing strategy
Four figures from this dataset carry direct implications for anyone deciding where to file next or who to watch.
The top of the field is nearly closed
Five assignees hold 167 of the 210 records in scope. That kind of concentration means core sequencing-chemistry claims are largely spoken for, and new entrants are more likely to find room in adjacent processing, imaging or bioinformatics claims than in the base chemistry itself.
Filing activity is still accelerating, not cooling
Filings rose from 7 in 2021 to 20 in 2024, the last year with a complete publication picture. The 2022 peak of 66 total filings and this three-year growth figure both point the same direction: this is a field attracting more claims, not fewer, even as the base chemistry patents age.
Enzyme and DNA-measurement claims are the busiest lane
Nearly three-quarters of records touch C12Q, the subclass covering enzyme- and DNA-based measuring and testing methods. Filing here means facing the densest prior art in the field; the lighter subclasses — optics, bioinformatics, lab apparatus — carry far fewer records each.
A small, tight collaboration network
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear across the dataset, and the strongest links repeat across the same handful of parties. That is a narrow network for a field this active, suggesting most assignees are filing solo rather than through joint development structures.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to spatial omics: in situ sequencing patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis
The numbers above answer what the field looks like today. The next questions are about where to act.
Map the white space inside C12Q
73.8% of records share one IPC subclass, but not every sub-branch inside it is equally crowded. A claim-level breakdown inside C12Q would separate saturated sequencing-chemistry sub-groups from lighter-filed processing steps.
Explore claim clusters in EurekaTrack the assignees below the top 10
The top 10 hold 96.2% of records, but the remaining 36 ranked assignees include the entrants most likely to shift strategy or get acquired. Watching their filing cadence flags competitive moves early.
Set up assignee tracking in EurekaRevisit the 2025-2026 trend once publication catches up
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent two years in this dataset will keep rising as more records post. A follow-up pull in 6-12 months will sharpen the true 2025 filing count.
Run a fresh landscape pull in EurekaCommon questions on in situ sequencing patents
The dataset ranks 46 assignees, and the field is heavily concentrated at the top: the top 5 hold 79.5% of all 210 records in scope, and the top 10 hold 96.2%. The leading assignee alone accounts for 52 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 13. This means most of the ranked list consists of single-digit or single-filing entrants sitting well behind a small group of dominant holders, typically academic institutions and instrument makers.
It is growing. Filings rose from 7 in 2021 to 20 in 2024, a 186% increase over that three-year span, and the field's peak year so far is 2022 with 66 filings. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the lower counts shown for 2025 and 2026 in any chart understate real filing activity rather than reflecting a slowdown — those years are still filling in.
C12Q, the IPC subclass covering enzyme- and DNA-based measuring and testing, appears in 73.8% of the 210 records in scope, making it by far the busiest claim area. C12N genetic engineering (27.6%) and G01N material analysis (20.0%) follow well behind. Smaller subclasses like G16B bioinformatics, B01L lab apparatus, C07H nucleic acid chemistry and G02B optics each sit around 6-7% of records, marking narrower but less contested filing territory for anyone entering the field.
The United States leads as a receiving office with 68 filings, followed by WIPO PCT applications at 44 and the European Patent Office at 43. China follows at 13, with Australia and Canada each at 5. The gap between the US/PCT/EPO group and everyone else suggests most applicants are pursuing broad, multi-jurisdiction protection through the major systems rather than filing narrowly in a single national office.
US20260218295A1, filed by BGI Shenzhen and published 2026-07-30, claims a method for constructing an in situ sequencing library that fixes and captures mRNA on a solid support, reverse-transcribes it to cDNA, and removes residual tissue before amplification. Its filing date makes it one of the most recent records in this dataset, and it signals that library-construction chemistry — not only detection or imaging — remains an active area for new claims even against a backdrop of foundational patents from the mid-2000s that are still heavily cited today.
Research Spatial Omics: In Situ Sequencing Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole spatial omics: in situ sequencing patent landscape 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.