Spectral Databases Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- A single leader out front. the top-ranked assignee holds 30 records against a fifth-place figure of 4 and a tenth-place figure of 2 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.
- Filing has cooled from a 2017 peak of 24 but is not dead. the 2021-to-2024 span (the last complete years) shows filings rising from 2 to 3, a +50% move off a small base.
- Material analysis dominates the claim space. G01N appears in 75.8% of the 66 records in scope, with H01J close behind at 63.6% — bioinformatics (G16B) sits at just 18.2%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (2 records) with 2024 (3) — 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.
What this landscape covers
This review covers 66 published records at the intersection of mass spectral databases and spectrum classification models, filtered to filings that also touch database curation, peak picking, dimensionality reduction, class imbalance, cross validation or novel species handling. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026-07-31 cut-off, with publication lag meaning the most recent one to two years understate actual filing activity.
The dataset sits inside in vitro diagnostics but draws heavily on adjacent instrumentation and materials-analysis classes, reflecting that spectral matching work is claimed as much through the analytical hardware and data pipeline as through the diagnostic use case itself.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 66-record set: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.
Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a smaller recent rise
Filings peaked at 24 in 2017, then fell sharply. Restricting to the last complete years, 2021 filings (2) rose to 3 in 2024 — a +50% move, though off a low base and not enough to approach the 2017 peak. 2025 and 2026 figures will keep revising upward as publications catch up to filing dates.
Technology composition: instrumentation-heavy, bioinformatics thin
G01N (material analysis and testing) touches 75.8% of the 66 records and H01J (electron and discharge tubes) 63.6%, confirming that most filings anchor claims in the physical measurement apparatus. B01L (lab apparatus, 42.4%) and A61B (diagnosis and surgery, 24.2%) follow. G16B (bioinformatics) and B82Y (nanotechnology applications) each sit at 18.2%, and C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement) at 9.1% — the thinnest-claimed classes in scope. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares sum to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 66 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Spectral Databases and Classification Models with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about spectral databases and classification models and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in this landscape
Computer-assisted structure identification (US20140297201A1)
Filed by Philip Morris Products S.A., this patent covers a method for analysing mass spectral data from GC×GC (two-dimensional) mass spectrometry: comparing an analyte's spectral data against a library of candidate compounds of known structure, identifying candidates by similarity, predicting an analytical property for each candidate with a quantitative model built on molecular descriptors, and scoring each candidate against a measured value of that property.It is the most-cited record in this landscape, with 75 citations.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20140297201A1 | Computer-assisted structure identification | 75 |
| 2 | US20180158661A1 | Collection probe and methods for the use thereof | 45 |
| 3 | US20140127672A1 | Disease detection in plants | 29 |
| 4 | US20140235503A1 | Prediction method of glomerular filtration rate from urine samples after kidney transplantation | 23 |
| 5 | WO2012040318A2 | Compositions, methods and kits for detecting melanoma and margins of melanoma | 21 |
| 6 | US20230282311A1 | Method and system to identify natural products from mass spectrometry and genomics data | 13 |
| 7 | US20190206665A1 | Rapid authentication using surface desorption ionization and mass spectrometry | 10 |
| 8 | WO2018045208A1 | Collection probe and methods for the use thereof | 9 |
| 9 | WO2025019764A1 | Methods and systems for predictive classification by mass spectrometry and trained large spectral models | 7 |
| 10 | US10643832B2 | Collection probe and methods for the use thereof | 6 |
Citation counts reward older filings that have had more time to accumulate references — read them as a signal of influence within this corpus, not of current commercial weight.
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 say about this field
Three findings that shape where to file, where not to, and who to watch.
One assignee well ahead of a thin field
The leading assignee holds 30 records against a fifth-place count of 4 and a tenth-place count of 2, out of 26 ranked companies. That gap suggests one organisation built a sustained filing programme here while most others made a handful of opportunistic filings.
A modest recovery off a low base
After the 2017 peak of 24 filings, activity dropped sharply. The last complete years show a rise from 2 filings in 2021 to 3 in 2024 — real growth, but on volumes far below the field's early peak.
Claims sit on the instrument, not just the algorithm
Material analysis and testing (G01N) and electron/discharge tube claims (H01J) dominate the technology mix, meaning most filings tie their spectral-matching or classification methods to specific measurement hardware rather than claiming the software layer alone.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to spectral databases and classification models, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the field is open
The ranked assignees skew academic and instrumentation-heavy, with recent momentum concentrated in a narrow set of names.
A university-and-instrumentation mix at the top
The ranking includes major research universities alongside instrumentation and consumer-products companies, reflecting that spectral database work spans basic research, lab equipment claims and applied product testing.
Momentum has narrowed to one active filer
In the most recent year captured, only one ranked assignee — Matterworks — shows filing activity; the other tracked leaders show none in that year, though publication lag means this picture will shift as later filings surface.
A small cluster of repeat co-inventors
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, with the strongest pairings repeating three times each around a small group of individual inventors — a sign of a tight academic collaboration network rather than broad cross-company partnering.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| MATTERWORKS INC | 1 | — |
| Board of Regents, The University of Texas System | 0 | — |
| Waters Technology Corporation | 0 | — |
| Carnegie Mellon University | 0 | — |
| Philip Morris Products S.A. | 0 | — |
| Imperial College Innovations Ltd | 0 | — |
| The Regents of the University of California | 0 | — |
| ZHAO WEIXIANG | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy or new filing.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader
With one assignee holding 30 of the ranked records, any new filing in this space should be checked against that portfolio specifically, not just the field average.
Run a freedom-to-operate checkProbe the under-claimed IPC branches
G16B, B82Y and C12Q each sit near or below a fifth of the 66 records — worth a closer look before assuming the space is crowded.
Explore white space in EurekaTrack the post-2024 filing picture as it fills in
2025 and 2026 numbers will keep rising as publications catch up; revisit the trend once 18 months of lag has cleared.
Set up a filing alertCommon questions on this landscape
The ranking covers 26 companies, with one assignee holding 30 records well ahead of a fifth-place figure of 4 and a tenth-place figure of 2. The field mixes research universities, instrumentation makers and at least one consumer-products company, reflecting that spectral database work spans basic research, lab hardware claims and applied testing. There is no broad tier of equally sized competitors below the leader — it drops off quickly.
Filing peaked in 2017 at 24 records and fell substantially afterward. Looking only at the last complete years, 2021 to 2024, filings rose from 2 to 3, a +50% increase, though still far below the 2017 level. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so the most recent trend should not yet be read as falling or flat.
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears in 75.8% of the 66 records in scope, and H01J (electron and discharge tubes) in 63.6%, showing that most claims are anchored to physical measurement instrumentation rather than software alone. B01L (lab apparatus) and A61B (diagnosis and surgery) follow at 42.4% and 24.2%. Bioinformatics-specific claims under G16B sit at only 18.2%, suggesting more room to file there relative to the instrumentation-heavy classes.
US20140297201A1, assigned to Philip Morris Products S.A., covers a method for matching two-dimensional GC×GC mass spectral data against a library of candidate compounds, predicting analytical properties with a descriptor-based model, and scoring candidates against measured values. It is the most-cited record in this landscape at 75 citations, making it a reference point for structure-identification workflows built on spectral library matching. Anyone building a similar candidate-scoring pipeline should review its claim scope closely, particularly around the scoring-and-prediction step.
The thinner IPC classes in this dataset — G16B (bioinformatics, 18.2%), B82Y (nanotechnology applications, 18.2%) and C12Q (enzyme/DNA measurement, 9.1%) of the 66 records — carry fewer claims relative to the dominant instrumentation classes G01N and H01J. That gap suggests algorithmic and bioinformatics-layer claims tied to spectral classification, novel-species handling, or class-imbalance methods are less contested than hardware-anchored claims. Any filing strategy here should be checked against the leading assignee's portfolio first, since it accounts for 30 of the ranked records.
Research Spectral Databases and Classification Models in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole spectral databases and classification models 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.