Book a demo

Synthetic Tissue Adhesives Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026

Synthetic Tissue Adhesives Patents: Leaders & Filing Trends 2026
https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/synthetic-tissue-adhesives-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Medical Biomaterials
Synthetic Tissue Adhesive Patents: Who Holds the Claim Space Now
  • 14.2% concentration at the top. The five leading assignees hold 704 of 4,968 records in scope — a real lead, but not a lock on the field.
  • Filing cooled after a 2017 peak. Filings hit 281 in 2017 and, on the last complete comparison, fell 41% from 190 (2021) to 113 (2024).
  • Adhesives claims are a minority class. Only 14.4% of records sit in C09J (Adhesives) — most of the corpus is filed under drug and sterilisation classes instead.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
4,968
Published Records
14%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-41%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (190 records) with 2024 (113) — 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 4,968 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Field Overview

What this dataset covers

Synthetic tissue adhesives sit at the intersection of surgical hardware and medicinal chemistry. The search string behind this dataset pairs adhesive terms (tissue adhesive, cyanoacrylate adhesive, surgical glue) with the performance properties that actually decide whether a formulation reaches a hospital shelf: cure exotherm, wet adhesion, cytotoxicity, flexibility after cure, peel strength, shelf stability. That pairing is deliberate — it screens out adhesive patents that never address biological performance, and screens out drug patents that never address bonding.

The result is 4,968 published records spanning 2015 through the middle of 2026. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will look thinner than they eventually turn out to be.

Filing activity, 2017–2026
  1. 1MELINTA SUBSIDIARY CORP176
  2. 2MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH159
  3. 3MELINTA THERAPEUTICS INC145
  4. 4CYTRELLIS BIOSYST118
  5. 5MEDIMMUNE LTD106
  6. 6ETHICON INC106
  7. 7HENKEL KGAA105
  8. 8ACTAMAX SURGICAL MATERIALS LLC102
  9. 9FUNDACIO PRIVADA INST DINVESTIGACIO ONCOLOGICA DE VALL DHEBRON (VHIO)101
  10. 10INSTITUCIO CATALANA DE RECERCA I ESTUDIS AVANCATS (ICREA)101
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 4,968 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the records actually sit in.

Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a pullback

Annual filings peaked at 281 in 2017. Using the last two complete years available for comparison, filings fell 41% from 190 in 2021 to 113 in 2024. Treat 2025 and 2026 figures as provisional; they will revise upward as publication catches up.

Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a pullback07515022530028120172018201920202021202220232024202592026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

A61K (Medicinal preparations) and A61L (Sterilising & disinfecting) dominate, covering 43.4% and 36.1% of the 4,968 records respectively — evidence that most filers are protecting the chemistry and biocompatibility of the adhesive, not the bonding mechanism itself. C09J (Adhesives), the subclass most specific to the bonding function, covers only 14.4% of records, and A61F (Implants & prostheses) trails at 8.8%.

Technology composition by IPC subclassA61K · Medicinal preparations2,15543.4%A61L · Sterilising & disinfecting1,79536.1%A61P · Therapeutic activity of compou…93618.8%C09J · Adhesives71314.4%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery53210.7%C12N · Microorganisms & genetic engin…4679.4%C08F · Addition polymers (vinyl etc.)4459.0%A61F · Implants & prostheses4388.8%Other4,03081.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 4,968 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about synthetic tissue adhesives and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Prior Art

Foundational and most-cited records

Representative Early Filing
US4560723A1985-12-24

US4560723A — Cyanoacrylate adhesive composition having sustained toughness

MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORP. OF MINNESOTA

Filed by Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company and granted in 1985, this patent covers cyanoacrylate adhesive compositions combining a toughener — a core-shell copolymer such as an MBS, ABS, or MABS type, optionally purified to remove impurities that trigger premature polymerization — with a cyanoacrylate-compatible, toughener-compatible sustainer such as diphenylmethane or dichlorobenzene. The combination improves retention of toughness after heat aging of the cured bond.Long-expired but still a reference point for toughened cyanoacrylate formulation claims.

View full record
Most-cited records in this dataset
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US5410016APhotopolymerizable biodegradable hydrogels as tissue contacting materials and controlled-release carriers1,887
2US20090177226A1Bioabsorbable Surgical Compositions1,366
3US20100100124A1Bioabsorbable surgical composition1,362
4US20030190584A1Rubber Dams With Operative Inserts Which Isolate Anatomical Structures by Effectively Resisting External Vect…1,091
5US20140163664A1Integrated system for the ballistic and nonballistic infixion and retrieval of implants with or without drug …965
6US20130041235A1Flexible and Stretchable Electronic Systems for Epidermal Electronics854
7US20100210745A1Molecular Healing of Polymeric Materials, Coatings, Plastics, Elastomers, Composites, Laminates, Adhesives, a…717
8US6372494B1Methods of making conditioned cell culture medium compositions527
9US6428576B1System for repairing inter-vertebral discs475
10US5626863APhotopolymerizable biodegradable hydrogels as tissue contacting materials and controlled-release carriers473

Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings — read these as signals of influence on later filers, not as a measure of current commercial relevance.

Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Citation counts and representative records. Derived from a Patsnap search on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis

 
Where to run it
Fastest

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 →
For builders

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 →
Signals

What the numbers say about the field's shape

Four readings of the same dataset, each pointing at a different decision a filer or licensor needs to make.

Concentration
14.2%
of 4,968 records held by the top 5 assignees

A real lead, not a dominant position

The five leading assignees combine for 704 of 4,968 records, and the top ten add up to 24.5%. That is enough to matter in a freedom-to-operate search, but it leaves roughly three-quarters of the field held by assignees outside the top ten — a long tail rather than a controlled bottleneck.

Ranking covers 100 assignees, counted in records.
Filing momentum
-41%
2021 (190) to 2024 (113)

Volume has pulled back from its 2017 peak

Filing peaked at 281 records in 2017 and, across the last three-year span with complete data, dropped 41% by 2024. That is a genuine cooling in filing volume rather than a data artefact, though the very latest years will still revise upward as publications land.

2025–2026 figures are provisional due to publication lag.
Claim distribution
43.4%
of records classed under A61K

Most claims protect chemistry, not bonding

A61K (medicinal preparations) and A61L (sterilising & disinfecting) between them touch the majority of records, while C09J (adhesives proper) reaches only 14.4%. Filers are more often staking out the biocompatible chemistry and sterility profile of a formulation than the adhesive mechanism itself.

Classes overlap; shares are against the 4,968-record total.
Filing geography
1,380
records with a US receiving office

US and EPO carry the bulk of filings

The United States leads receiving offices at 1,380 records, ahead of the EPO at 840 and WIPO/PCT at 737. Australia and Canada trail well behind, suggesting most applicants treat US and European coverage as the baseline and file more selectively elsewhere.

Counts are by receiving office, not by applicant nationality.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to synthetic tissue adhesives, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Who's Filing

Assignee landscape and where claim space is still open

The ranked leaders span large medical device and pharma names alongside academic and research-institute assignees — a mix that reflects how tissue adhesive work spans surgical products, drug-device combinations, and basic materials research.

Leader
176
records

A clear top position, not a runaway lead

The leading assignee holds 176 records against a fifth-place figure of 106 and a tenth-place figure of 101 — a gradual taper rather than a cliff, which means displacement further down the ranking is plausible for a well-targeted filing programme.

Based on the 100-assignee ranking.
Co-filing
10
documented co-assignee pairs

Collaboration is concentrated among a few institutions

The strongest co-assignee pairs recur around the same handful of research institutions, with one pairing appearing at 94 shared records and two others at 79 each — evidence of sustained joint filing programmes rather than one-off co-invention.

Counts reflect records naming both parties as assignee.
Momentum
0
latest-year filings across several tracked assignees

Several established filers show no recent activity

A number of assignees that built meaningful portfolios show zero filings in the latest tracked year, some with a -100% year-on-year change. Given publication lag, this understates true recent activity, but a sustained drop-off across several institutions at once is still a signal worth checking against internal roadmaps before assuming continued output.

Momentum figures are provisional for the most recent year.
🔍
Under-claimed branches worth a closer look
Sub-areas where filing density is comparatively thin relative to the core chemistry and sterilisation classes.
wet-field haemostatic bondingcure exotherm control at body-contact sitespost-cure flexibility retentioncytotoxicity-screened crosslinkersshelf-stable single-component formulations
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Melinta Subsidiary Corp0
Melinta Therapeutics Inc0
Massachusetts Institute of Technology0-100%
Cytrellis Biosystems0-100%
Medical Logic Integrated Corp0
Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats (ICREA)0
Fundacio Privada Institut d'Investigacio Oncologica de Vall d'Hebron (VHIO)0
Ethicon Inc0
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this analysis

The figures here describe the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or licensing decision means drilling into specific claims and specific assignees.

Run a freedom-to-operate check on a specific formulation

Concentration at the top ten (24.5% of records) does not mean the rest of the field is open — it means the remaining claims are dispersed across many smaller filers, which takes targeted searching to map.

Explore this dataset in Patsnap Eureka

Track momentum, not just headline counts

Several assignees with strong historical portfolios show no filings in the latest tracked year. Confirm whether that reflects publication lag or an actual shift before treating it as white space.

Set up assignee tracking in Patsnap Eureka

Compare claim scope on the adhesives-specific subclass

C09J covers only 14.4% of records, far behind the chemistry-heavy classes. A close read of those claims specifically is more useful than a broad read across the whole corpus.

Pull the C09J subset in Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions on synthetic tissue adhesive patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Synthetic Tissue Adhesives covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Synthetic Tissue Adhesives in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole synthetic tissue adhesives corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.