Valve Frame Materials and Crimping Patents: Who Leads, Gaps 2026
Valve Frame Materials and Crimping Patents: Where Filing Concentrates and Where It Doesn't
51.2% of all 3,471 records sit with just five assignees, with one leader alone holding 1,237 records — this is a field with an entrenched core, not an open race. Annual publications climbed from 254 in 2017 to a peak of 295 in 2020. The only clean multi-year comparison available, 2021 to 2024, shows a -35% move from 243 to 157 records — the most recent complete read on direction; 2025 and 2026 are still filling in and should not be read as a continued decline.
- 1EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP35.6%
- 2MEDTRONIC INC7.4%
- 3WAVE LTD V2.9%
- 4COOK MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC2.7%
- 5EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CARDIAQ LLC2.6%
See the full valve frame materials and crimping analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Questions practitioners ask about this field
Who holds the most patents on valve frame materials and crimping?
One assignee leads the ranked field with 1,237 records out of 3,471 in scope, well ahead of the next four competitors combined, who together with the leader make up 51.2% of all records. The remaining ranked companies form a long tail, with tenth place holding only 58 records. This concentration means most new filings in frame geometry or crimping mechanics will need to be checked against that leader’s portfolio first.
Is patent filing in this space still growing?
Filings rose from 254 in 2017 to a peak of 295 in 2020, then eased; the cleanest year-over-year comparison available, 2021 to 2024, shows a -35% move from 243 to 157 records. Because patent publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset are understated and should not be read as evidence of continued decline. Treat 2024 as the most recent complete year.
What’s the difference between claiming a nitinol frame’s material versus its geometry?
Most records in this field claim the frame at the device-structure level — 86.7% carry an A61F (implants & prostheses) classification, describing strut layout, cell size or delivery mechanics. Far fewer claim the underlying metallurgy directly: only 0.8% of records fall under C22C, the alloys classification. That gap means claims narrowly drawn around alloy composition or crystalline structure face less direct prior art than claims on frame shape.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Valve Frame Materials and Crimping covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.