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 →https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/total-laboratory-automation-tracks-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Clinical Chemistry · Patent LandscapeTotal Laboratory Automation Track Patents: Who Leads and Where Filing Concentrates
- 87.5% of all 64 records in scope sit with just five assignees, and 98.4% with ten — this is one of the more concentrated corners of clinical chemistry automation.
- Filing peaked in 2025 at 26 records after starting at 7 in 2017, though the 2026 count is partial and understated by publication lag.
- G01N material analysis and testing covers 40.6% of records while conveying and material handling (B65G) touches only 7.8% — the physical transport layer is comparatively lightly claimed.
64
Published Records
88%
Top-5 Share of All Records
US
Leading Jurisdiction
15
Active Filers Ranked
Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 64 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this landscape covers
Total laboratory automation tracks connect pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical stations with sample routing, middleware rules and instrument connectivity so a specimen moves through a lab with minimal manual handling. This landscape draws on 64 published records matched against total laboratory automation track and preanalytical module language, cross-referenced with sample routing, bottleneck analysis, instrument connectivity, middleware rules, downtime contingency and return-on-investment terms. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, capturing both the mechanical transport layer and the software logic that decides what a sample does next.
Because a single family can be filed in multiple jurisdictions or carry several continuations, raw document counts overstate how much distinct invention exists. The assignee ranking below is built on patent families for that reason, and the technology composition figures are read against the full 64-record base rather than against any subset.
Filing activity and assignee concentration, 2015 - 2026
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Total Laboratory Automation Tracks 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 Numbers
Filing trend and technology mix
Two views of the same 64 records: how filing has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filing activity, 2017-2026
Filings ran at 7 in 2017 and climbed to a peak of 26 in 2025; 2026 shows 0 because publication lag of roughly 18 months means the most recent filing year is always undercounted at the point of any data cut-off. Treat the 2025 peak as the most reliable recent signal, not the 2026 dip.
Technology composition by IPC subclass
G01N (material analysis and testing) appears in 40.6% of the 64 records, followed by G16B (bioinformatics) at 28.1% and a cluster of G06F, G16H and G06Q classes each in the 12-16% range. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read individually against the 64-record base, not against each other as parts of a whole.
Shares are the percentage of the 64 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 Total Laboratory Automation Tracks covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Total Laboratory Automation Tracks with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about total laboratory automation tracks and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaKey Patents
Most-cited records in this landscape
Representative Filing
WO2025255010A1 — AI-guided synthetic biology development platform, systems, and methods
X DEVELOPMENT LLC
An AI-guided synthetic biology development platform, systems, and methods substantially as shown and described.Filed by X Development LLC and published December 2025, this is one of the most recent records in scope and illustrates how automation-track claims are extending into AI-guided development platforms rather than staying confined to mechanical transport.
Highest-citation documents
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20090138415A1 | Automated research systems and methods for researching systems | 230 |
| 2 | US20160173816A1 | User Interface Tool Kit for Mobile Devices | 194 |
| 3 | WO2012158541A1 | System and method including laboratory product transport element | 126 |
| 4 | US20070184546A1 | Systems and methods for automated proteomics research | 116 |
| 5 | US10311442B1 | Business methods and systems for offering and obtaining research services | 97 |
| 6 | US10829913B1 | Hybrid potable water generator | 68 |
| 7 | US20100204973A1 | Methods For Diagnosis, Prognosis And Treatment | 65 |
| 8 | US20140202829A1 | System and method including laboratory product transport element | 64 |
| 9 | US9248982B2 | System and method including laboratory product transport element | 27 |
| 10 | US20130096948A1 | Methods for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment | 22 |
Citation counts are drawn from within this searched corpus and skew toward older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations — read them as a signal of influence on later filers, not as a ranking 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 Total Laboratory Automation Tracks 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
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 →Insights
What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three patterns stand out once the family-level data is laid against the IPC composition and the citation table.
Concentration
87.5% of 64 records
top 5 assignees
Five filers hold most of the claim space
With 56 of 64 records sitting behind five assignees and 63 of 64 behind ten, this is not a fragmented field with room for a dozen equal competitors. A new entrant is filing into a landscape where the leading assignee alone accounts for 26 records.
Read the assignee ranking as a small, dense set of incumbents rather than a long list of peers.
Technology skew
40.6% vs 7.8%
G01N vs B65G share
Analytical logic is claimed far more than physical transport
G01N material analysis and testing shows up in 40.6% of records while B65G conveying and material handling appears in only 7.8%. The gap suggests the routing and testing logic sitting on top of a track is more heavily claimed than the conveyor and rail hardware moving the sample itself.
Physical transport mechanisms may offer more freedom to operate than the software layer above them.
Timing
26 records in 2025
peak filing year
Momentum built steadily to a 2025 peak
Filings moved from 7 in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2025. Because publication lag runs about 18 months, the 2026 figure of 0 does not mean activity stopped — it means those filings have not published yet.
Expect the 2025 and 2026 figures to revise upward as later publications catch up.
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 total laboratory automation tracks, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Total Laboratory Automation Tracks 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
Players
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders span diagnostics majors, instrument makers and smaller specialist filers, with a steep drop after the top names.
Leader
26 records
top assignee
One filer sets the pace
The leading assignee holds 26 of the 64 records in scope, well ahead of fifth place at 2 and tenth place at 1. That gap is the clearest single fact in this dataset: the field has one dominant filer and a long tail below it.
Any competitive read of this space starts with what the leader has already claimed.
Long tail
1 record
tenth-ranked assignee
Most ranked filers hold a single record
Beyond the top few names, filing drops to one or two records per assignee. That pattern is typical of a field where a handful of large diagnostics and instrument companies set the direction and smaller entrants file opportunistically around specific mechanisms.
A single-filing assignee is not necessarily a weak position — it may reflect a narrow, defensible claim.
Co-filing
6 co-assignee pairs
named-inventor overlaps
A small cluster of named inventors files together repeatedly
Three inventor pairs each share three co-filed records, pointing to a compact team repeatedly filing around the same mechanism rather than a diffuse set of independent inventors.
Tracking named-inventor overlap can surface a working group before it shows up as a company-level trend.
Recent filing momentum by assignee
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| X Development LLC | 0 | -100% |
| Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc | 0 | — |
| Beckman Coulter Inc | 0 | — |
| DiscernDx Inc | 0 | — |
| WIESSNER SEBASTIAN | 0 | — |
| MUELLER MARTIN | 0 | — |
| LANCASTER JAMES JUSTIN | 0 | — |
| EBERHARDT MICHAEL | 0 | — |
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Total Laboratory Automation Tracks 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
What's Next
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a concentrated leadership position and a lightly claimed transport layer — both are starting points for deeper work, not conclusions on their own.
Map the leader's claim boundaries
With one assignee holding 26 of 64 records, a claim-by-claim read of that portfolio is the fastest way to find where it stops and where a design-around might start.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest the B65G white space
Conveying and material handling claims sit at 7.8% of records against a 40.6% analytical-claim base — worth checking whether that gap holds up under a full freedom-to-operate search.
Run a white space search in EurekaWatch the 2025-2026 publication window
Publication lag means the true 2025 and 2026 filing volumes are not yet final. Re-checking this trend in six to twelve months will sharpen the recent-momentum picture.
Set a filing alert in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Total Laboratory Automation Tracks 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 total laboratory automation track patents
One assignee leads with 26 of the 64 records in scope, far ahead of the next-ranked filers. The top five assignees together hold 87.5% of all 64 records, and the top ten hold 98.4%, so filing is concentrated among a small group rather than spread evenly. Anyone entering this space competitively should study that leading portfolio first, since it defines most of the occupied claim space.
This landscape identifies 64 published records, all of which are also counted as distinct patent families in the assignee ranking. That is a modest but focused dataset built from a targeted search string combining automation-track and preanalytical-module language with routing, connectivity and ROI terms. It should be read as a specific technical slice of clinical chemistry automation rather than the entire laboratory automation field.
Filing volume rose from 7 records in 2017 to a peak of 26 records in 2025. The 2026 figure shows 0, but that reflects publication lag of roughly 18 months rather than an actual stop in filing activity. The 2025 peak is the most reliable recent data point until later 2026 publications catch up.
G01N, material analysis and testing, appears in 40.6% of the 64 records and is the single most common classification. G16B bioinformatics follows at 28.1%, with G06F, G16H and G06Q each appearing in 12-16% of records. Because a record can carry multiple IPC codes, these percentages overlap rather than sum to a whole, and each should be read against the full 64-record base individually.
The physical transport and conveying layer, IPC class B65G, appears in only 7.8% of the 64 records despite the analytical logic layer above it being far more heavily claimed. Sub-areas like conveyor-track downtime contingency logic, cross-vendor middleware interoperability, and gyroscopic sample-carrier navigation show low filing density in this dataset. These are reasonable starting points for a freedom-to-operate search, though they warrant independent verification before any filing decision.
The steady rise from 7 records in 2017 to a peak of 26 in 2025 suggests sustained, growing interest rather than a field winding down. At the same time, high filing density in the core analytical classes does not mean the technology itself is mature, only that claim space there is occupied. Adjacent areas with lower filing density, such as physical transport mechanisms, remain comparatively open.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Total Laboratory Automation Tracks 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 Total Laboratory Automation Tracks in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole total laboratory automation tracks 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.