Transcatheter Valve Delivery Systems Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees hold 592 of 1,851 records in scope (32.0%), and the leading ten hold 918 (49.6%) — roughly half the field sits with ten companies.
- Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak. Annual filings ran from 136 in 2019 down to 32 in 2024, a -50% move between 2021 (64) and 2024 (the last complete filing year).
- Delivery-specific claims outnumber the implant itself in some subclasses. A61B diagnosis and surgery claims sit in 43.4% of the 1,851 records — nearly as dense as A61F implant claims at 57.2%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (64 records) with 2024 (32) — 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 1,851 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Transcatheter valve delivery systems sit at the intersection of implant design and catheter engineering: sheath sizing, flex articulation, deployment control, repositionability and the mechanics of avoiding vascular complication or crimping damage during advancement. This landscape covers 1,851 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, searched across both the delivery mechanism claims and the failure modes practitioners actually worry about in the cath lab.
Records are drawn from filings at the United States, European, WIPO/PCT, Australian, Canadian and German receiving offices, giving a cross-jurisdictional view of where applicants are seeking protection rather than just where they are headquartered. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend chart will always understate real filing activity.
Filing trends and technology composition
Two views of the same 1,851-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the underlying technology splits across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Annual filings climbed to a peak of 136 in 2019, then eased. The tracked decline from 64 filings in 2021 to 32 in 2024 (-50%) covers the last span where the data can be treated as reasonably complete; 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in as publications catch up to filing dates.
IPC subclass composition
A61F (implants and prostheses) appears on 57.2% of the 1,851 records and A61B (diagnosis and surgery) on 43.4%, reflecting how tightly delivery-system claims are drafted alongside the valve implant itself. A61M (devices for body fluids) reaches 23.5%, while A61N, A61L and A61K sit in single digits. Because records commonly carry more than one class, these shares add up to well over 100% and should not be read as a partition of the field.
Shares are the percentage of the 1,851 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Transcatheter Valve Delivery Systems with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about transcatheter valve delivery systems and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art and a recent representative filing
US20250228665A1 — Systems and methods for heart valve therapy
Prosthetic heart valves described herein can be deployed using a transcatheter delivery system and technique to interface and anchor in cooperation with the anatomical structures of a native heart valve. Some embodiments of prosthetic mitral valves described herein include an anchor portion that couples the prosthetic mitral valve to the anatomy near the native mitral valve, and a valve portion that is mateable with the anchor portion. Some embodiments of the transcatheter delivery system can include systems and techniques for retrieval of the anchor portions and the valve portion.Filed by Caisson Interventional, published 2025-07-17 — illustrative of current claim drafting around separable anchor and valve portions with retrieval capability.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US7534259B2 | Nonstented heart valves with formed in situ support | 1,455 |
| 2 | US20030040772A1 | Delivery devices | 1,279 |
| 3 | US20030040771A1 | Methods for creating woven devices | 933 |
| 4 | US7320704B2 | Nonstented temporary valve for cardiovascular therapy | 826 |
| 5 | US20060020327A1 | Nonstented heart valves with formed in situ support | 825 |
| 6 | US20110319989A1 | Transcatheter mitral valve prosthesis | 782 |
| 7 | US7018401B1 | Woven intravascular devices and methods for making the same and apparatus for delivery of the same | 722 |
| 8 | US6792979B2 | Methods for creating woven devices | 665 |
| 9 | US20070265656A1 | Multi-layer braided structures for occluding vascular defects | 658 |
| 10 | US20090171456A1 | Percutaneous heart valve, system, and method | 657 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had longer to accumulate citations inside this corpus — treat them as a measure of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
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 signals worth weighing before drafting into this space: how concentrated the field already is, how the technology composition splits, and what the citation record says about foundational claims.
Half the field sits with ten filers
The five leading assignees account for 592 of the 1,851 records in scope, and the leading ten account for 918. That leaves a long tail of the remaining 90 ranked companies plus unranked entrants splitting the other half, which is where most freedom-to-operate work will actually happen.
Volume has eased from its 2019 peak
Filings peaked at 136 in 2019 and have since declined, with the 2021-to-2024 span showing a -50% drop. 2024 is the last year in this dataset that can be treated as filing-complete; 2025 and 2026 counts will rise as publications catch up.
Delivery-mechanism claims run nearly as dense as implant claims
A61F implant and prosthesis claims cover 57.2% of the 1,851 records, but A61B diagnosis and surgery claims are close behind at 43.4%, and A61M body-fluid device claims sit at 23.5%. That overlap signals delivery mechanics are claimed almost as heavily as the valve hardware itself.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to transcatheter valve delivery systems, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the activity is thinning
The leading assignees combine large device makers with smaller specialist entrants; several of the most active names show flat or declining recent-year filing counts, consistent with the overall cooldown from the 2019 peak.
A single filer well ahead of the field
The leading assignee holds 172 records, well above the fifth-place company at 80 and the tenth-place company at 58. That gap suggests the leader has built a broad claim footprint across multiple delivery-system variants rather than a single narrow position.
A moderate drop-off after the top five
Filing counts fall from 80 records at fifth place to 58 at tenth place, a narrower gap than between the leader and fifth place. This suggests a reasonably competitive second tier rather than a sharp cliff after the top handful of filers.
Several established filers show little to no recent activity
Among the assignees tracked for recent-year momentum, most show either zero filings in the latest year or year-over-year declines, including one entrant down 100% YoY. This is consistent with the broader cooldown in filing volume rather than any single company's retreat.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Neovasc Tiara Inc | 1 | -50% |
| Caisson Interventional LLC | 1 | 0% |
| Cook Medical Technologies LLC | 0 | — |
| Route 92 Medical Inc | 0 | -100% |
| Direct Flow Medical Inc | 0 | — |
| Ulthera Inc | 0 | — |
| Board of Regents, The University of Texas System | 0 | — |
| Conformal Medical Inc | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this next
The dataset points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, licensing, or identifying a filing gap.
Map the leader's full claim footprint
With 172 records, the leading assignee's portfolio likely covers several delivery-system variants. A claim-by-claim review of its most-cited filings is the fastest way to find where its coverage actually ends.
Explore assignee portfolios in EurekaTest a claim in the under-claimed branches
Braiding, molding, sterilization-compatible materials and electrotherapy-integrated sensing all show comparatively thin filing density next to the core A61F and A61B classes. A prior-art search focused on those subclasses will show how open they really are.
Run a white-space search in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
Within this dataset of 1,851 records, one assignee leads with 172 records, well ahead of the fifth-place company at 80 and tenth-place company at 58. The top five assignees combined hold 592 records, or 32.0% of all records in scope, and the top ten hold 918, or 49.6%. That leaves roughly half the field distributed across a long tail of smaller filers, so a single leader does not equate to full control of the space.
Filing activity peaked at 136 records in 2019 and has since declined, with a tracked drop from 64 filings in 2021 to 32 in 2024, a fall of 50% over that span. 2024 is the most recent year in this dataset that can be treated as filing-complete. Figures for 2025 and 2026 appear lower only because publication typically lags actual filing by around 18 months, not because activity has stopped.
A61F, covering implants and prostheses, appears on 57.2% of the 1,851 records, making it the single most common classification. A61B, diagnosis and surgery, is close behind at 43.4%, and A61M, devices for handling body fluids, appears on 23.5%. Because a single record can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages overlap rather than sum to 100%, and the overlap itself shows how tightly delivery mechanics are claimed alongside the valve implant.
The comparatively low-density IPC subclasses in this dataset are D04C (braiding and lace, 1.2% of records), B29C (shaping of plastics, 1.1%), A61K (medicinal preparations, 2.2%) and A61L (sterilising and disinfecting, 5.2%). These lower shares suggest less-crowded claim space around braided sheath construction, molded delivery components, drug-eluting coatings and sterilization-compatible materials, relative to the dense core of implant and delivery-mechanism claims. Low density is not proof of an easy filing, but it is a reasonable starting point for a freedom-to-operate search.
US20250228665A1, published 2025-07-17 and assigned to Caisson Interventional, LLC, describes a transcatheter delivery system for prosthetic heart valves with a separable anchor portion and valve portion that can be mated together and, in some embodiments, retrieved after deployment. It is representative of current claim drafting in the field rather than the oldest or most-cited filing. Anyone designing a delivery system with a comparable anchor-and-retrieval mechanism should review its specific claim language before proceeding.
Research Transcatheter Valve Delivery Systems in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole transcatheter valve delivery systems 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.