Spatial Barcoding Array Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
A patent landscape review of spatial barcoding arrays for spatial omics: filing trends since 2015, leading assignees, IPC composition, top-cited records and where claim space remains open.
Filing growth = 2021 (4 records) → 2024 (4); 2024 is the last year we treat as complete.
What the spatial barcoding array patent set actually covers
Spatial barcoding arrays are the physical and computational substrate behind spatial transcriptomics and spatial proteomics: slides, beads or probe grids that tag a nucleic acid or protein with a positional address before sequencing or detection. This landscape covers 27 published records matched on that specific claim language, spanning 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the last one to two years of the trend are understated by construction, not because activity has actually dropped.
The scope is narrow by design: it pulls records whose claims tie spatial barcoding or tagging arrays specifically to spatial transcriptomic or spatial proteomic use, not the broader universe of DNA barcoding or microarray patents. That narrowness is why the assignee ranking is short and the filing counts are small in absolute terms — read the shares and rankings below as a picture of a still-consolidating sub-field, not a mature, saturated one.
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 27-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
A flat three-year stretch after an early peak
Filings ran from zero in 2017 to a peak of 8 in 2019, then settled into a flat span: 2021 and 2024 both recorded 4 filings, a 0% change across that window. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in as publication catches up with filing, so treat the most recent bars 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 DNA/enzyme measurement
C12Q (measuring and testing involving enzymes or nucleic acids) appears in 74.1% of the 27 records, far ahead of C07K (peptides and proteins, 33.3%) and C12N (genetic engineering, 18.5%). Therapeutic-side classes such as A61K and A61P each touch only one record, which marks spatial barcoding arrays as still primarily a measurement and tooling technology rather than a therapeutic one.
Shares are the percentage of the 27 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Spatial Omics: Spatial Barcoding Arrays Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about spatial omics: spatial barcoding arrays patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe records carrying the most citation weight
Methods and compositions for characterizing RNA-binding protein binding sites by in-situ reverse transcription-based sequencing
Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to at least methods and compositions for profiling of RNA-binding protein binding sites by in-situ reverse transcription-based sequencing. Provided profiling methods can capture both stable and transient interactions between RBPs and their RNA substrates, especially when the interaction is dynamic or materials are limited. Also disclosed herein are compositions, methods, and kits suitable for profiling of RNA-binding protein binding sites by in-situ reverse transcription-based sequencing.Filed by The University of Chicago; published 2025-04-17 as WO2025081111A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2021237056A1 | RNA integrity analysis in a biological sample | 146 |
| 2 | US20220333195A1 | Method for transposase-mediated spatial tagging and analyzing genomic DNA in a biological sample | 120 |
| 3 | US11519033B2 | Method for transposase-mediated spatial tagging and analyzing genomic DNA in a biological sample | 114 |
| 4 | US11713480B2 | Materials and methods for localized detection of nucleic acids in a tissue sample | 37 |
| 5 | WO2020072907A1 | Solid-phase n-terminal peptide capture and release | 18 |
| 6 | US20210356473A1 | Solid-phase n-terminal peptide capture and release | 3 |
| 7 | US20230340596A1 | Method for transposase-mediated spatial tagging and analyzing genomic DNA in a biological sample | 2 |
| 8 | WO2025081111A1 | Methods and compositions for characterizing RNA-binding protein binding sites by in-SITU reverse transcriptio… | 1 |
| 9 | US20220372547A1 | Materials and methods for localized detection of nucleic acids in a tissue sample | 1 |
| 10 | US20240279643A1 | Biochip for spatial transcriptomic analysis, manufacturing method therefor and application thereof | 1 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to be cited within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as 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 mean for a filing decision
Read together, the ranking, the trend and the IPC mix point to a field that is still open at the edges even where a handful of players hold the earliest, most-cited claims.
A leader, then a long tail
The ranked leader accounts for 8 of the 27 records; by fifth place the count is already down to 2. That gap says the earliest, foundational claims are held by a small group, but there is no single gatekeeper controlling the whole space the way a dominant platform patent would.
Flat, not falling
Filings held steady at 4 in both 2021 and 2024, a 0% change across that three-year span, after an earlier peak of 8 in 2019. Because publication lags filing by around 18 months, the years since 2024 will fill in further and should not yet be read as a decline.
Measurement, not therapy
Three in four records carry a C12Q classification for enzyme or nucleic-acid measurement, versus a single record each in the therapeutic classes A61K and A61P. The field's claim pressure sits on the measurement and array-tagging mechanics, not on downstream clinical use.
Mostly independent filers
The dataset surfaces one recurring co-assignee pairing, between Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine and Sapienza University of Rome, appearing twice. Outside that pairing, filers in this set have largely built their portfolios independently rather than through joint filings.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to spatial omics: spatial barcoding arrays patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
| Assignee | Co-assignee | Shared families |
|---|---|---|
| Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine | Sapienza University of Rome | 2 |
Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine and Sapienza University of Rome are the only recorded co-assignee pair, appearing together on 2 records — the strongest collaboration signal in an otherwise independently-filed set.
Where to take this analysis
The numbers above frame the field; the next step is testing a specific claim or filing strategy against it.
Map a candidate claim against the ranked leaders
Run a proposed spatial barcoding claim against the portfolios of the assignees in the ranking to see how closely it sits to existing coverage in C12Q and C07K.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack the 2025–2026 filing years as they fill in
Because publication lags filing, re-check the trend in a few months to see whether the 2021–2024 plateau extends or breaks upward.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaPressure-test the under-claimed branches
Formulation and therapeutic-use classes barely register in this set — worth checking whether that is genuine white space or simply out of scope for this search string.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaQuestions practitioners ask about this landscape
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 8 companies and universities, counted by patent record. The leader holds 8 of the 27 records in scope, but the count drops quickly after that, with fifth place at only 2 records. This is a leader-plus-long-tail pattern rather than one dominant gatekeeper, so a new entrant should check the leader's claims first but should not assume the whole space is blocked.
Filing peaked at 8 in 2019 and has since flattened: 2021 and 2024 both recorded 4 filings, a 0% change over that three-year span. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset will understate true activity and should not be read as a slowdown. The honest read is a plateau after an early burst, not clear growth or clear decline.
Three-quarters of the 27 records in this set carry a C12Q classification, covering enzyme and nucleic-acid measurement methods, making that the dominant claim area by a wide margin. C07K (peptides and proteins) and C12N (genetic engineering) follow at lower shares, while therapeutic-use classes such as A61K and A61P appear in only one record each. In short, the claim pressure sits on measurement and array mechanics, not on therapeutic application.
The most-cited records in this dataset include filings on RNA integrity analysis and transposase-mediated spatial tagging, with citation counts in the hundreds for the top entries. High citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older documents simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations, so treat them as a marker of influence on later filings rather than a verdict on which patent matters most today.
The IPC composition shows heavy concentration in C12Q and C07K but very thin coverage in B01J, C12M, A61K and A61P, each under 8% of the 27 records. That gap suggests device/apparatus integration and therapeutic-linked applications of spatial barcoding are comparatively under-claimed relative to the core measurement methods. Anyone filing in those adjacent branches should verify the gap is real scope, not just an artefact of this search string, before committing to a claim strategy.
Research Spatial Omics: Spatial Barcoding Arrays Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole spatial omics: spatial barcoding arrays 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.