Total-Body PET Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- 54.8% concentration. The top five assignees account for 383 of the 699 records in scope — filing here is not evenly spread, it clusters hard at the top.
- Filing down 63% since the peak. Activity fell from 57 records in 2021 to 21 in 2024, the last year that can be read as complete; 2025-2026 figures are still filling in under publication lag.
- Imaging classes trail chemistry classes. G06T image processing appears in just 9.3% of records versus 55.8% for A61K medicinal preparations — the reconstruction and workflow side of long axial PET is comparatively lightly claimed.
Filing growth compares 2021 (57 records) with 2024 (21) — 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 699 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What total-body and long axial PET patenting actually covers
Total-body and long axial field-of-view PET systems extend detector coverage so a single pass captures far more of the body than a conventional scanner, which changes the sensitivity, dose and scan-duration trade-offs that downstream claims build on. The search underpinning this page pairs those hardware and protocol terms with claims language around sensitivity gain, dose reduction, data volume and reconstruction load — the operational consequences of a longer detector, not just the detector itself. That framing pulls in a large share of radiopharmaceutical and biomarker filings alongside the imaging-hardware side, because a longer axial field of view changes what tracer dose and chemistry are viable in clinical protocols.
699 records sit in scope across the 2015-01-01 to 2026-07-31 window, ranked across 100 assignees. Filing is concentrated: the leading assignee alone accounts for 172 records, well ahead of the field, and the top ten combined hold 74.2% of all records in scope.
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 trend line and the IPC breakdown below are drawn from the same 699-record scope described above; publication lag means the most recent one to two years always look thinner than they will once filings catch up.
Filing rose to a 2022 peak, then pulled back
Annual filings ran from 54 records in 2017 to a peak of 58 in 2022, then declined; the clearest complete-year comparison is 2021's 57 records against 2024's 21, a -63% move. Treat 2025 and 2026 as undercounted rather than as evidence the field has stopped.
Chemistry and biology classes dominate the IPC mix
A61K (medicinal preparations) touches 55.8% of the 699 records and C07K (peptides and proteins) 23.9%, reflecting how many filings are tracer or biomarker claims rather than scanner hardware. G01T (radiation measurement) sits at 11.6% and G06T (image data processing) at 9.3%, the two classes closest to the detector and reconstruction side of long axial PET — both are thinner than the chemistry side, which is where the composition data points to open claim space.
Shares are the percentage of the 699 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Total-Body and Long Axial PET with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about total-body and long axial pet and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art and a recent representative filing
Dual dose reduction attenuation correction method and system for PET/CT system
The filing describes attenuation correction that runs from low-dose CT and non-attenuation-corrected PET inputs, extracting multi-scale feature maps from each before combining them — an approach aimed at cutting dose on both the CT and PET sides of a combined scan without giving up correction quality.Filed by Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences; published 2025-11-13.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20070061393A1 | Management of health care data | 1,131 |
| 2 | US20080040151A1 | Uses of managed health care data | 788 |
| 3 | US20110044524A1 | Tool for accurate quantification in molecular MRI | 551 |
| 4 | US20070168461A1 | Syndicating surgical data in a healthcare environment | 549 |
| 5 | US20070106754A1 | Security facility for maintaining health care data pools | 472 |
| 6 | US6490476B1 | Combined PET and X-ray CT tomograph and method for using same | 463 |
| 7 | US20160004820A1 | Security facility for maintaining health care data pools | 417 |
| 8 | US20140099254A1 | Combination therapy for inducing immune response to disease | 381 |
| 9 | US20070106536A1 | OPML-based patient records | 348 |
| 10 | US20030128801A1 | Multi-modality apparatus for dynamic anatomical, physiological and molecular imaging | 345 |
Citation counts favour older filings simply because they have had longer to accumulate them; read this table as a map of influential prior art, not of current filing activity.
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 a filing decision
Three patterns in the data matter more than any single ranking: where filing concentrates, where it has genuinely dropped, and where the claim map is thin relative to the clinical interest in the topic.
A small group holds most of the claim space
The top five assignees combine for 383 of the 699 records in scope, and the leading single assignee holds 172 on its own. A newcomer filing broad claims in the core tracer or protocol space is filing directly against dense, well-established prior art.
Filing has genuinely thinned, not just gone quiet in the data
Because 2024 is the last year that can be treated as complete, the -63% move from 2021 to 2024 is a real decline rather than a publication-lag artefact. Whether that reflects consolidation around existing claims or a shift toward trade secrecy in reconstruction software is not visible in the filing count alone.
Reconstruction and workflow claims are comparatively sparse
G06T (image data processing) appears in only 9.3% of records and G01T (radiation measurement) in 11.6%, well below the 55.8% carried by A61K medicinal preparations. Given how central reconstruction speed and data volume are to long axial PET's clinical value, this gap is where a well-drafted claim has more room to stand.
Filing is US-led with a meaningful PCT and EPO tail
The United States receives 262 records, ahead of Europe's 101 and the 72 filed through WIPO's PCT route; Australia, Israel and Canada each sit in the 30-46 range. A clearance search limited to the US misses a non-trivial share of the family activity sitting in the PCT and EPO pools.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to total-body and long axial pet, with the prior art for and against each one.
Assignee concentration and where new filers might still find room
The ranking below covers the 100 assignees the data endpoint returns for this scope, not a curated top-50 or top-100 — read it as the whole distribution the search produced. Momentum in the most recent year is flat to negative across the leading assignees, consistent with the broader 2021-2024 pullback.
One assignee holds a clear lead
The top-ranked assignee's 172 records sit well ahead of fifth place at 39 and tenth place at 20, a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one. That gap suggests the leader's portfolio anchors a meaningful share of the core tracer and protocol claims in scope.
Academic-industry pairing anchors the densest collaboration
Ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset; the strongest links a research university with a cancer research institute at 51 shared records, well ahead of the next pairing at 13. That pattern points to a long-running joint filing programme rather than one-off collaboration.
Leading assignees show no latest-year filings
Several of the most active historical assignees show zero records in the latest year, with year-over-year drops of -100% where a prior-year baseline exists. Given publication lag, this likely overstates the slowdown for the most recent cohort, but it is consistent across enough leaders to be a real signal.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Immunomedics, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Cornell University | 0 | — |
| Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research | 0 | — |
| IBC Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Genentech, Inc. | 0 | -100% |
| Shanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co., Ltd. | 0 | — |
| Koninklijke Philips N.V. | 0 | — |
Where to take this next
The numbers above answer where filing concentrates and where it has thinned; the next step is usually a claim-level read of the specific families that sit closest to whatever is being designed or filed.
Map a specific claim against the leader's portfolio
With 172 records held by a single assignee, a freedom-to-operate check for any tracer, dose-reduction or attenuation-correction concept should start there before looking at the long tail.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaWatch the reconstruction and workflow classes
G06T and G01T sit well below the chemistry classes in filing share; if reconstruction speed or data-volume handling is part of the product, this is the thinner part of the map to search first.
Run a white-space search in EurekaCommon questions about total-body and long axial PET patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 172 of the 699 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 39 and tenth place at 20. The top five assignees combined hold 383 records, or 54.8% of all records in scope, so the field is concentrated rather than evenly spread. A clearance or licensing review should treat that leader's portfolio as the first stop, not one option among many.
Filing fell from 57 records in 2021 to 21 in 2024, a decline of 63% between the two most recent years that can be read as complete. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still lower, but publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, so those most recent years understate true activity and should not be read as continued decline. The honest read is that filing peaked in 2022 at 58 records and has genuinely pulled back since, not that it has stopped.
Medicinal preparations (A61K) appear in 55.8% of the 699 records in scope, and peptide or protein claims (C07K) in 23.9%, reflecting how much of this filing activity is tracer and biomarker chemistry rather than scanner hardware. Diagnosis and surgery claims (A61B) sit at 21.6%, radiation measurement (G01T) at 11.6%, and image data processing (G06T) at only 9.3%. Because a single record can carry several classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should be read against the 699-record total, not against each other as a closed set.
The image-processing and radiation-measurement classes — G06T and G01T — carry noticeably lower filing shares (9.3% and 11.6% of 699 records) than the chemistry-heavy classes above them, which points to comparatively open claim space around reconstruction load, scan-duration control and cross-modality dose reduction. That is a reading of relative filing density, not a confirmed freedom-to-operate finding, so any specific claim still needs a targeted search against the leading assignees' portfolios. Narrow, technically specific claims in those thinner branches are more likely to clear than broad tracer or protocol claims, which sit on dense prior art.
US20250345010A1, filed by Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology (Chinese Academy of Sciences) and published 2025-11-13, describes a dual dose-reduction attenuation-correction method for PET/CT systems that extracts multi-scale feature maps from both a low-dose CT image and a low-dose non-attenuation-corrected PET image before combining them. It matters because it targets dose reduction on both modalities in a combined scan simultaneously, rather than treating CT and PET dose as separate problems, which is a narrower and more recent framing than most of the highly-cited older prior art in this space. Anyone working on joint dose-reduction or attenuation-correction pipelines should check claim scope against this filing specifically rather than relying on the older, more general prior art.
Research Total-Body and Long Axial PET in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole total-body and long axial pet 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.