TDM Mass Spectrometry Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- 45.3% concentration. The top 5 of 100 ranked assignees hold 189 of 417 records in scope — filing here is dominated by a small group, not a long open field.
- Filing peaked in 2019. 31 records that year, then a documented -32% slide from 19 filings in 2021 to 13 in 2024 — the most recent complete comparison the data supports.
- G01N dominates the claim space. 69.8% of records sit in material analysis and testing (G01N), while separation processes (B01D) cover just 5.5% — a narrow branch worth a second look.
Filing growth compares 2021 (19 records) with 2024 (13) — 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 417 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This dataset tracks 417 patent records published between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine therapeutic drug monitoring or immunosuppressant assay claims with technical elements such as whole blood extraction, metabolite interference, assay harmonization, turnaround time or reference-range determination. It captures the intersection of clinical diagnostics and analytical chemistry rather than mass spectrometry instrumentation in general, so the scope is the assay and workflow layer, not the hardware layer.
Filing activity is concentrated: a handful of assignees account for the bulk of records, and the technology composition leans heavily toward material analysis and testing claims. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the last one to two years in any trend chart will always look thinner than the underlying filing activity actually was.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 417 records: the year-by-year filing count, and the IPC subclasses those filings claim against. Both are read against the full record count, not against each other.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose to a peak of 31 in 2019, then declined; the comparable complete-year window shows 19 filings in 2021 falling to 13 in 2024, a -32% change. 2025 and 2026 figures are still incomplete because of publication lag and should not be read as a continued drop.
IPC subclass composition
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears in 69.8% of the 417 records, far ahead of C12Q (27.8%) and A61K (23.7%). Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should each be read against the 417-record total, not against each other.
Shares are the percentage of the 417 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Therapeutic Drug Monitoring by Mass Spectrometry with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about therapeutic drug monitoring by mass spectrometry and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art and a representative filing
WO2008111736A1 — Drug monitoring order system and method thereof
Discloses a computerized system for monitoring a drug level in the blood and for ordering therapeutic drug monitoring, built on the principle that suitably dosed and timed drug administration produces a repeatable blood concentration pattern with a predictable reference-range value at a given time point, letting a physician compare a measured concentration against that expected pattern before prescribing.Filed by the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, The Catholic University of Korea, 2008-09-18.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20020026111A1 | Methods of monitoring glucose levels in a subject and uses thereof | 632 |
| 2 | US5769074A | Computer assisted methods for diagnosing diseases | 629 |
| 3 | US6248063B1 | Computer assisted methods for diagnosing diseases | 396 |
| 4 | US6862466B2 | Methods of monitoring glucose levels in a subject and uses thereof | 363 |
| 5 | US7228163B2 | Methods of monitoring glucose levels in a subject and uses thereof | 269 |
| 6 | US6306087B1 | Computer assisted methods for diagnosing diseases | 201 |
| 7 | US20030208114A1 | Methods of monitoring glucose levels in a subject and uses thereof | 128 |
| 8 | US20130295597A1 | Automated system for sample preparation and analysis | 105 |
| 9 | US20120164644A1 | NMR systems and methods for the rapid detection of analytes | 101 |
| 10 | WO1997005553A1 | Computer assisted methods for diagnosing diseases | 89 |
Citation counts reward older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside the searched corpus; treat this table as a map of influential prior art, not a ranking of current technical importance.
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 concentration and composition mean for filing strategy
The numbers point to a field where a small set of assignees hold most of the claim space in one IPC subclass, while several adjacent branches remain thin.
Filing is top-heavy, not fragmented
The top 5 assignees combine for 189 of 417 records, and the top 10 climb to 82.7% of the field. A new entrant is not filing into open space at the top of the ranking; freedom-to-operate work needs to start with those leaders' claim scope, not with the long tail below them.
Peak activity has passed, at least through 2024
Filings peaked at 31 in 2019 and the last complete comparison shows a fall from 19 in 2021 to 13 in 2024. Because publication lag understates 2025-2026, this should be read as a real slowdown through the last complete year rather than a claim about the present.
One subclass carries most of the claim density
G01N appears in more than two-thirds of records, well ahead of C12Q (27.8%) and A61K (23.7%). Separation processes under B01D sit at just 5.5%, suggesting extraction and clean-up methods are comparatively under-claimed relative to the detection and measurement side.
US and PCT routes dominate filing strategy
The United States leads with 133 filings, ahead of WIPO/PCT at 82 and the EPO at 68; Australia, Canada and Israel each carry a smaller but non-trivial share. That pattern suggests most applicants are building a US-anchored portfolio with PCT as the international entry point rather than filing EPO-first.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to therapeutic drug monitoring by mass spectrometry, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claims, and where they are not filing
The ranked leaders account for most of the field's volume, but recent-year momentum has cooled across the assignees with the strongest filing history — none of the top movers show fresh activity in the latest year.
A single assignee holds the largest share
The top-ranked assignee accounts for 46 of 417 records, ahead of the fifth-ranked entrant at 34 and the tenth at 28. That gap between first and fifth place is a useful proxy for how defensible the leading position actually is.
A tight cluster of co-filed records
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the data, with the strongest pairings each sharing 34 records around the same small group of individual inventors. That pattern points to a compact filing team rather than a broad industry consortium.
The most active historical filers have gone quiet
Every assignee shown in the recent-year momentum data, including the strongest historical filers, recorded zero filings in the latest year, with one showing a -100% year-on-year change. Read this against the publication-lag caveat rather than as evidence the technology is abandoned.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| T2 Biosystems, Inc. | 0 | — |
| VERAVAS INC | 0 | -100% |
| PARAMITHIOTIS EUSTACHE | 0 | — |
| LANOIX JOEL | 0 | — |
| HUGO PATRICE | 0 | — |
| HAMAIDI LYES | 0 | — |
| KONDEJEWSKI LESLIE H | 0 | — |
| CHELSKY DANIEL | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the reader is scoping freedom-to-operate, planning a filing, or tracking competitors.
Run a freedom-to-operate check against the top 5
With 45.3% of records held by five assignees, any new filing in the G01N-heavy core of this field should be checked against those five portfolios before drafting claims.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaDraft into the under-claimed branches
Separation processes and metabolite-interference correction show materially lower filing density than the G01N core; a claim built around those workflows faces less crowded prior art.
Map white space in EurekaWatch for renewed filing activity
Momentum has cooled through the last complete year across the leading assignees; a resumption in 2025-2026 filings, once publication catches up, would be an early signal worth monitoring.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
It is fairly concentrated. Of the 417 records in scope, the top 5 of 100 ranked assignees account for 189 records, or 45.3% of the total, and the top 10 climb to 82.7%. That means a new entrant evaluating freedom-to-operate should prioritise reviewing the leading handful of portfolios before looking at the long tail of single-record filers.
No, not through the last complete year of data. Filings peaked at 31 in 2019, and the clean year-over-year comparison shows a drop from 19 filings in 2021 to 13 in 2024, a -32% change. The 2025 and 2026 figures look lower still, but that is largely because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so those years are not yet fully reported and should not be read as confirmation of a continued decline.
G01N, material analysis and testing, appears in 291 of the 417 records, or 69.8% of the total, making it by far the dominant classification. C12Q (measuring and testing involving enzymes or DNA) and A61K (medicinal preparations) follow at 27.8% and 23.7% respectively. Because a single record can carry several IPC codes, these percentages add up to more than 100% and each should be read against the full 417-record base rather than against each other.
Based on IPC composition, separation processes under B01D cover only 5.5% of the 417 records, and electric digital data processing (G06F) covers 6.5%, both well below the 69.8% share held by the core G01N cluster. That gap suggests extraction and clean-up methods, along with data-processing layers built around drug-level assays, carry comparatively less filing density than the core detection and measurement claims, though a full freedom-to-operate search is still necessary before relying on that gap.
WO2008111736A1 describes a computerized drug monitoring and ordering system that compares a measured blood drug concentration against an expected reference-range pattern to guide prescribing decisions, filed by the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation at The Catholic University of Korea in 2008. It is a system-and-workflow claim rather than an assay-chemistry claim, so it is most relevant to anyone building software that automates dosing decisions from drug-level results, and less directly relevant to extraction, separation or mass-spectrometry detection methods themselves. Anyone working on a similar ordering or decision-support layer should review its claim scope closely rather than assume it only affects glucose or single-analyte monitoring.
Research Therapeutic Drug Monitoring by Mass Spectrometry in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole therapeutic drug monitoring by mass spectrometry 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.