Molecular Glue Degrader Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
A patent landscape review of molecular glue degrader technology: filing trends since 2015, the leading assignees, IPC composition, and where claim space remains open for targeted protein degradation R&D.
What the molecular glue degrader patent record shows
Molecular glue degraders recruit an E3 ligase to a target protein without the two-headed linker architecture of a PROTAC, and the patent record for this narrower mechanism is still young. The dataset in scope covers 94 published families filed between 2015 and 2026, with essentially no activity before the mechanism gained traction and a marked build-up in the most recent complete years. Because publication lags filing by roughly eighteen months, the 2026 count understates real filing activity for that year.
Filing is concentrated in medicinal-preparation and therapeutic-activity classes, consistent with degrader compounds being claimed primarily as drug substances and their disease indications, rather than as manufacturing processes or diagnostic tools. Heterocyclic chemistry, peptide/protein claims and genetic-engineering claims each cover a meaningfully smaller share of the same 94 records, which is where composition-of-matter differentiation and combination-therapy claims tend to sit.
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
The two views below use the same 94-record denominator: one tracks when families were filed, the other tracks which IPC subclasses those families carry.
Filing trend, 2015-2026
Annual filings stayed at zero in the earliest years tracked, then rose to a peak so far of 35 families in 2024. The 2026 figure of 4 is partial and will rise as later-filed applications publish.
IPC subclass composition
A61K medicinal preparations appears on 91.5% of the 94 records and A61P therapeutic activity on 63.8%, confirming that most families are drafted as drug-substance and indication claims. C07D heterocyclic compounds (24.5%), C07K peptides and proteins (14.9%) and C12N microorganisms and genetic engineering (14.9%) are the next-heaviest classes; C07F organo-metallic chemistry, C12Q enzyme/DNA assays and A01K animal husbandry each sit at 3.2% or below, since a record can carry more than one class these shares sum to over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 94 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Targeted Protein Degradation: Molecular Glue Degrader Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about targeted protein degradation: molecular glue degrader patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records in the dataset
Method of enhancing the efficacy of a targeted protein degrader and its derivative therapeutics
The filing claims an mTOR inhibitor combination that enhances degradation of substrates by targeted protein degraders including molecular glue degraders and PROTACs. It is positioned specifically for myeloma patients who have developed resistance to immunomodulatory drugs, a class of molecular glue degrader whose continuous use is associated with reduced efficacy and relapse.Filed by ShanghaiTech University, published 2026-06-18 as US20260166038A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2022152822A1 | Treatment of MYC-driven cancers with GSPT1 degraders | 20 |
| 2 | WO2024086361A1 | Molecular GLUE degrader compounds and uses thereof | 5 |
| 3 | US20240261274A1 | Treatment of MYC-driven cancers with GSPT1 degraders | 2 |
| 4 | WO2021119834A1 | Modulators of cullin 3 adaptor kbtbd4 as Anti-cancer compounds | 2 |
| 5 | WO2025078667A1 | GSPT1 molecular GLUE degrader MRT-2359 for use in the treatment of a MYC-driven cancer | 1 |
| 6 | WO2025029860A1 | Drug conjugates and methods of preparing and using the same | 1 |
| 7 | US20240075140A1 | Engineered NK cells and methods of treating cancer | 1 |
Citation counts inside this corpus favour earlier-published families and should be read as a signal of influence at the time of filing, not of current commercial importance.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (7 of 7 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
Three patterns stand out once the ranking, the trend and the class composition are read together.
A contested lead, not a dominated field
The top-ranked assignee holds 14 families, but fifth place already holds 12 and tenth place 11. That is a shallow drop-off across the ranked leaders, not a single company pulling away from a long tail.
The mechanism is recent, and still rising
Filings were negligible through the mid-2010s and built up to a peak of 35 families in 2024. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, 2025 and 2026 activity is almost certainly higher than the current counts show.
Drug-substance claims dominate the record
A61K medicinal-preparation claims sit on the large majority of records, with A61P therapeutic-activity claims close behind. That leaves comparatively little claimed ground in manufacturing routes, assay methods or organo-metallic chemistry.
Filing partnerships cluster around a small group
The strongest co-assignee links in the dataset repeat the same small set of research institutions and a biotech partner, each pairing appearing together on 12 records. That suggests a small number of academic-industry alliances rather than broad cross-licensing across the field.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to targeted protein degradation: molecular glue degrader patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this next
The dataset points to where claim space is thin and where it is already crowded; the next step is testing a specific compound, indication or combination against it.
Map a candidate compound against the ranked leaders
Run a specific molecular glue chemotype or target protein against the assignees holding the closest family counts to see which claims a new filing would sit next to.
Explore assignee positions in EurekaCheck the thin classes before drafting
C07F organo-metallic and C12Q assay claims cover only 3.2% of records each — worth a freedom-to-operate check before assuming that ground is occupied.
Run a white space search in EurekaWatch the 2024-2026 filing build-up
With filings still rising into the most recent complete year and a partial 2026 count, tracking new publications as they land will matter more here than in a mature field.
Set up monitoring in EurekaCommon questions on molecular glue degrader patents
The dataset in scope contains 94 published patent families filed between 2015 and 2026. This count is based on a search combining title terms for molecular glue degraders with claim-level terms covering targeted protein degradation and PROTAC technology, so it captures both dedicated molecular glue filings and broader degrader filings that claim the mechanism. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true count for 2025 and 2026 is higher than currently visible and will keep rising as pending applications publish.
The ranking returned by this dataset covers 41 companies and research institutions counted by family, with the leader holding 14 families and the fifth- and tenth-ranked holders close behind at 12 and 11 respectively. That shallow gap between the leader and the rest of the ranked field indicates a contested area rather than one dominated by a single filer. Academic and research institutes appear prominently alongside biotech companies, and several of the strongest filing partnerships are between a biotech and one or more university or public research bodies.
Almost all records, 91.5% of the 94 in scope, carry an A61K medicinal-preparations classification, and 63.8% also carry A61P for therapeutic activity of compounds, reflecting that most filings claim the degrader as a drug substance tied to a disease indication. Heterocyclic chemistry (C07D) appears on 24.5% of records, while peptide and protein claims (C07K) and genetic-engineering claims (C12N) each appear on 14.9%. Organo-metallic chemistry (C07F) and enzyme or DNA assay methods (C12Q) are the thinnest classes at 3.2% each, since a single record can carry multiple classes these shares add up to more than 100%.
Filing activity rose from effectively zero in the earlier years covered to a peak so far of 35 families in 2024, the highest single year in the dataset. There are not yet four complete years of data once the roughly 18-month publication lag is accounted for, so a reliable growth rate cannot be stated from this evidence. What can be said is that the 2026 count of 4 is partial and understates actual filing for that year.
The classes with the lowest record share in this dataset, C07F organo-metallic chemistry and C12Q enzyme or DNA assay methods, each cover only 3.2% of the 94 records, and A01K animal husbandry and fishing claims cover just 1.1%. These low shares do not prove the underlying chemistry or methods are unexplored, but they do mean far fewer granted claims currently sit in that ground compared with the heavily claimed A61K and A61P space. Anyone drafting in those thinner classes should still run a dedicated freedom-to-operate search rather than relying on the aggregate share alone.
Research Targeted Protein Degradation: Molecular Glue Degrader Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole targeted protein degradation: molecular glue degrader 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.