Suture Anchors Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 36.4% concentration. The five leading assignees together hold 635 of the 1,744 records in scope, so the bulk of core anchor claim space sits with a small group of device makers.
- Filing has cooled but not stalled. From a 2019 peak of 111 records, filings ran 65 in 2021 to 58 in 2024 — an 11% pullback over that span, not a collapse.
- Diagnosis & surgery dominates the class mix. A61B covers 85.0% of all records, while material-science classes like polymer compositions and filament spinning sit under 2.5% each — a sign that material claims are comparatively open.
Filing growth compares 2021 (65 records) with 2024 (58) — 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 1,744 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the suture anchor patent record shows
Suture anchors sit at the intersection of orthopaedic hardware and soft-tissue fixation, and the patent record reflects that: claims cluster around pullout strength, bone quality accommodation, insertion torque and, increasingly, knotless locking mechanisms. The search scope covers 1,744 published records dated between 2015 and the 2026-07-31 cut-off, spanning both device-geometry patents and the material-science filings that support them.
Filing offices skew heavily toward the United States, with meaningful volume also filed at the EPO, in Australia, through the WIPO/PCT route, and in Canada — consistent with a field where regulatory clearance markets double as the primary commercial and defensive filing venues.
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 1,744-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how records distribute across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017–2026
Filings rose from 31 in 2017 to a peak of 111 in 2019, then eased to 65 by 2021 and 58 by 2024 — an 11% decline over that three-year window. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the most recent years understate actual filing activity.
IPC subclass composition
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears in 85.0% of records, reflecting how most anchor claims are framed as surgical instruments or procedures. A61F (implants & prostheses) and A61L (sterilising & disinfecting) follow at 21.2% and 12.0%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to more than 100% of the 1,744-record total.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,744 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Suture Anchors with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about suture anchors and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited foundational patents
Soft suture anchor assembly with locking element (US20260137381A1)
A soft suture anchor assembly includes a soft anchor defining a tubular body and a locking member coupled directly to and extending distally from the anchor's distal end. The locking member body defines at least one passage through which a transfer member draws repair suture in a first direction, with the passage designed to allow the suture to slide freely in that direction while preventing reverse travel.Filed by Smith & Nephew, published 2026-05-21 — illustrates the current push toward soft, knotless anchor bodies with directional suture-locking geometry rather than rigid hardware.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US5891160A | Fastener delivery and deployment mechanism and method for placing the fastener in minimally invasive surgery | 2,092 |
| 2 | US5224946A | Bone anchor and method of anchoring a suture to a bone | 868 |
| 3 | US5141520A | Harpoon suture anchor | 832 |
| 4 | US5571139A | Bidirectional suture anchor | 781 |
| 5 | US6280474B1 | Devices for tissue repair and methods for preparation and use thereof | 759 |
| 6 | US5643320A | Soft tissue anchor and method | 689 |
| 7 | US5964783A | Suture anchor with insert-molded suture | 662 |
| 8 | US20060030884A1 | Suture anchor and approximating device | 622 |
| 9 | US5626613A | Corkscrew suture anchor and driver | 606 |
| 10 | US5868789A | Removable suture anchor apparatus | 561 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
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 filing strategy
Three read-outs from the dataset that matter for anyone deciding where to file next in this space.
Core anchor claims are held by a small group
The five leading assignees together account for 635 of the 1,744 records in scope. That level of concentration means core mechanical anchor geometry — deployment mechanisms, bidirectional fixation, harpoon-style bodies — sits on dense prior art controlled by a handful of established orthopaedic device makers.
Volume has eased from its 2019 peak, not collapsed
Filings peaked at 111 records in 2019 and had settled to 58 by 2024, an 11% decline across the last three years that can be treated as complete. That is a maturing core, not an exiting field — later years in the trend are still filling in as publications catch up to filing dates.
Material science claims are comparatively open
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) touches 85.0% of records, while yarn/filament and polymer-composition classes such as D02G, A61K and C08L each sit at 1.4% of the 1,744-record total. Anchor geometry is heavily claimed; suture material chemistry and filament construction are far less so.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to suture anchors, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where activity is shifting
The ranked leaders in this dataset cover 100 companies by record count. Recent-year momentum figures show single-digit annual filing counts even for the largest historical filers, consistent with a field where the core patent estate was built earlier in the coverage window.
The top filer holds the largest single share
The leading assignee's 147 records is the largest individual total in the ranking, well ahead of the fifth-place holder at 86 and tenth place at 56 — a gap that widens quickly outside the top few names.
Half the field sits with ten companies
The ten leading assignees combine for 971 records, 55.7% of all 1,744 records in scope. The remaining 90 ranked companies and the unranked long tail share the other 44.3%, indicating a field with a dense core and a wide but thin periphery.
Recent-year filing counts have thinned across major names
Several of the historically largest filers show only one or zero records in the latest tracked year, with year-over-year changes ranging as steep as -67% and -100% for specific assignees. This pattern is consistent with the broader lag in recent-year publication data rather than a sudden exit from the field.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Arthrex, Inc. | 1 | -67% |
| ConMed Corp. | 1 | -50% |
| Tepha, Inc. | 1 | — |
| DePuy Mitek, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Smith & Nephew, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Howmedica Osteonics Corp. | 0 | — |
| Ethicon, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Integrity Orthopaedics, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to two practical next steps for teams evaluating freedom-to-operate or new filing angles in suture anchor technology.
Map claim boundaries on the dense core
With 55.7% of records held by ten assignees, a freedom-to-operate review of anchor geometry and knotless locking mechanisms should start with those leaders' active families before drafting new mechanical claims.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaProbe the material-science white space
Polymer composition, filament spinning and coating-related classes each sit under 2.5% of records, suggesting room for claims on suture material chemistry and abrasion resistance that are not crowded by the mechanical-geometry filers.
Run a white space search in EurekaCommon questions about suture anchor patents
The dataset ranks 100 assignees by record count, with the leading company holding 147 of the 1,744 records in scope. The top five assignees combined account for 635 records, or 36.4% of the total, showing that core anchor technology is concentrated among a small number of established orthopaedic device makers rather than spread evenly across the field. Anyone doing freedom-to-operate work should treat those leaders' portfolios as the first stop, not the last.
Filings peaked at 111 records in 2019 and eased to 58 by 2024, an 11% decline across that three-year span using the most recent years that can be treated as complete. This reads as a maturing core technology rather than a field in decline, since foundational mechanical claims were largely staked out earlier in the coverage window. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because patent publication typically lags actual filing by about 18 months.
The large majority of records, 85.0% of the 1,744 in scope, carry an A61B classification covering diagnosis and surgery, reflecting how most anchors are claimed as surgical devices or procedures. Implants and prostheses (A61F) appear in 21.2% of records and sterilising/disinfecting (A61L) in 12.0%. Material-focused classes such as polymer compositions, filament spinning and yarn texturing each sit near 1.4%, a much smaller share that points to comparatively open claim space around suture and anchor material chemistry.
Recent filings such as the 2026 Smith & Nephew soft anchor assembly claim a tubular anchor body paired with a locking member that has passages allowing a transfer member to draw repair suture through in one direction while blocking reverse travel. This directional-locking approach is one route device makers are using to avoid manual knot-tying during arthroscopic repair. Claims in this area tend to center on the locking geometry and passage configuration rather than the base anchor material.
The clearest gaps sit in material science rather than mechanical geometry: polymer composition, filament spinning, and coating or abrasion-resistance classes each account for roughly 1.4% to 2.4% of the 1,744 records, far below the 85.0% concentration in surgical-device classifications. This suggests that claims tied to suture material chemistry, bioresorbable polymer formulations, or abrasion-resistant coatings face less prior art density than claims on anchor body geometry or deployment mechanisms, though any filing strategy should be checked against the specific active families of the leading assignees.
Research Suture Anchors in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole suture anchors 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.