Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Patents: Leader, Trends & White Space 2026
- One company files nearly a third of the field. The leader holds 19 of 62 records, and the top five combined account for 77.4% of all records in scope.
- Filing went from occasional to routine in three years. Annual filings rose from 1 in 2021 to 19 in 2024, a +1800% jump, before the most recent partial years understate the true count.
- The claim space is almost entirely biological, not mechanical. C07K and A61K classes each cover roughly nine in ten records, while device-side classes like A61M sit under 4%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (1 records) with 2024 (19) — 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 62 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) delivery sits at the intersection of formulation chemistry and clinical administration: high-concentration immunoglobulin preparations, hyaluronidase-facilitated dispersion, and the dosing and device choices that let patients infuse at home rather than in a clinic. The 62 records gathered here span 2015 through the current filing year, with the field still actively growing at the data cut-off of 2026-07-31. The search combines device and delivery language with clinical markers such as infusion site reaction and dosing interval, which is why the majority of hits sit in pharmaceutical composition classes rather than pure hardware classes.
Filing activity was negligible before 2021 and accelerated sharply afterward, concentrated in a small number of assignees. That combination — a young filing curve and a dominant leader — is the shape a landscape takes when a therapeutic approach has just cleared a formulation or dosing hurdle and multiple firms are racing to claim the resulting product space.
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 62 records: how filing pace changed year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records fall into.
A late but steep filing curve
Annual filings sat at zero in 2017 and stayed low through the late 2010s. The jump from 1 filing in 2021 to 19 in 2024 marks the field's inflection point; 2024 is the most recent year that can be read as complete, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months and 2025-2026 figures will keep rising as those applications publish.
Composition claims dominate the classification mix
C07K (peptides and proteins) and A61K (medicinal preparations) each appear on roughly nine in ten of the 62 records, with A61P (therapeutic activity) close behind at 79.0%. Device- and diagnostic-adjacent classes — A61B, A61M, C12N — each sit at or below 6.5% of records, indicating the bulk of claim activity is on the biologic formulation itself rather than the delivery hardware.
Shares are the percentage of the 62 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Delivery with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about subcutaneous immunoglobulin delivery and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRepresentative and most-cited filings
WO2024231423A1 — Immunoglobulin preparations for treatment of systemic sclerosis
Filed by CSL BEHRING AG and published 2024-11-14, this application covers liquid polyclonal immunoglobulin preparations administered subcutaneously for systemic sclerosis, including diffuse and limited cutaneous forms. It specifies high immunoglobulin concentrations, in the range of 15-30% or more narrowly 16-22% w/v, positioning the claims around the formulation itself rather than a delivery device.Abstract condensed from the original filing.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2025017368A1 | Methods of treating chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy | 4 |
| 2 | WO2024091417A1 | Human hyaluronidase 1 mutants | 1 |
| 3 | US12325738B2 | Treatment of CIDP | 1 |
| 4 | US20210206837A1 | Treatment of cidp | 1 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings; treat them as a signal of influence rather than current relevance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (4 of 4 rows); 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
The concentration, timing and classification patterns each point to a different practical conclusion for anyone assessing this space.
The field is not open at the top
The leading assignee alone holds 19 of 62 records, and the top five together account for 77.4% of everything in scope. A new entrant filing broad composition claims on high-concentration SCIG formulations is filing into occupied ground; differentiation has to come from a specific mutant, excipient system, or indication.
The curve is recent, not mature
Filings moved from 1 in 2021 to 19 in 2024. That is a field still being staked out, not one settling into maturity — dense filing density here means claim space is occupied, not that the underlying approaches are exhausted.
This is a formulation fight, not a device fight
Peptide and protein composition classes (C07K) and medicinal preparation classes (A61K) dominate the record set, each near nine in ten records, while device classes such as A61M appear on only 3.2%. Most of the contested ground is the biologic itself and its concentration or stabilisation, not the pump or needle.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to subcutaneous immunoglobulin delivery, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the room still exists
A small group of pharmaceutical and biologics companies accounts for nearly all activity, but the recent-year momentum data shows even the frontrunners have gone quiet in the latest counted year — a sign the current wave of filing has crested for now rather than that the technology is settled.
One assignee sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds nearly a third of all records in this landscape, giving it the broadest base of prior art to search against before filing a new SCIG formulation or dosing claim.
A workable second tier exists
Fifth place holds 5 records and tenth place holds 2, showing a real but thin mid-tier of filers below the leader rather than a sharp cliff straight to single-filing entrants.
Recent-year activity has cooled across the board
Several of the most active historical filers, including two with -100% year-on-year change, show no filings in the latest counted year. Only one tracked assignee still shows activity in that year, at 2 filings, which is consistent with a filing wave that peaked in 2024 and is now working through publication lag rather than continuing to accelerate.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| argenx BVBA | 2 | — |
| CSL Behring AG | 0 | -100% |
| IMVT Corp | 0 | — |
| Shanghai Bao Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| IMVT CORP | 0 | — |
| ABCURO INC | 0 | -100% |
| GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited | 0 | -100% |
| Neurimmune AG | 0 | — |
Where to take this from here
The landscape data points to specific next checks rather than a single conclusion.
Search the formulation claims directly
Since C07K and A61K classes cover the large majority of records, a freedom-to-operate check should start with composition and concentration claims, not device claims.
Run a claim search in EurekaWatch the mid-tier filers
With a workable second tier below the leader, tracking the fifth-through-tenth ranked assignees may surface emerging approaches before they reach the top of the ranking.
Set up assignee monitoring in EurekaRevisit after the next publication cycle
Because 2025-2026 filings are still publishing, the true peak year and current leader position may shift once those records catch up.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
One assignee leads the field with 19 of the 62 records in this dataset, and the top five assignees combined hold 77.4% of all records. That level of concentration means most of the foundational formulation and high-concentration immunoglobulin claims are already staked out by a small group of pharmaceutical and biologics companies. A new entrant should expect to search against this leader's portfolio first before drafting composition claims in the same space.
Yes, filings rose from essentially zero before 2021 to 19 in 2024, a +1800% increase over that three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year that can be treated as a complete count, since publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 figures will continue to rise as those applications publish. The overall shape is a field that only recently moved from occasional filing to routine activity.
The large majority of records sit in peptide and protein composition classes (C07K, 88.7% of records) and medicinal preparation classes (A61K, 87.1%), with therapeutic activity class A61P close behind at 79.0%. Device-oriented classes such as A61M for body-fluid delivery devices appear on only 3.2% of records. This tells you the contested claim space is mostly the biologic formulation and its concentration or stabilisation, not the pump, needle or wearable hardware.
The thin classes point to it: device-side viscosity reduction, wearable pump integration specific to SCIG, and infusion-site reaction mitigation are all represented far less than the core formulation claims. Home administration dosing algorithms are also lightly claimed relative to the underlying immunoglobulin preparations. These are the branches where a first claim is more likely to clear prior art than a broad composition claim would.
It has not slowed in the sense of the technology losing relevance — 2024 was the peak year at 19 filings — but recent-year momentum by assignee shows several previously active filers, including two with a -100% year-on-year change, recorded zero filings in the latest counted year. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the low counts in 2025 and 2026 mostly reflect applications still working through the pipeline rather than a genuine drop in R&D activity. It is best read as a temporary lag, not a decline.
Research Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Delivery in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole subcutaneous immunoglobulin delivery 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.