Vertebral Augmentation Patents: Who Leads, Where Gaps Are 2026
- 26.9% held by five. The top five assignees combined account for 609 of the 2,262 records in scope, or 26.9% — a concentrated core rather than a fragmented field.
- Filing peaked in 2017. Filings hit 69 that year; from 2021 (50) to 2024 (37), the last complete year, the count fell 26%, though publication lag means 2025-26 figures are still filling in.
- Delivery and sterilisation dominate. A61B (diagnosis & surgery) touches 68.2% of records and A61F (implants) 35.5%, while A61C (dentistry-adjacent cement chemistry) sits at just 2.1%.
Filing growth compares 2021 (50 records) with 2024 (37) — 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 2,262 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the vertebral augmentation patent record shows
Vertebral augmentation covers the devices and materials used to stabilise fractured vertebrae by injecting bone cement, typically after balloon tamp expansion restores vertebral height. The patent record in scope spans 2,262 published families filed between 2015 and mid-2026, capturing claims across delivery cannulas, cement formulations, balloon and encapsulation systems, and the surgical instruments used to place them. Search terms anchor on the clinical vocabulary practitioners use daily — cement leakage, height restoration, adjacent fracture, cement viscosity — rather than only the device category names.
The dataset draws from filings at the United States, EPO, WIPO/PCT, Australian, Canadian and Austrian offices, giving a cross-jurisdictional view of where applicants seek protection rather than a single-market snapshot.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 2,262-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.
Filing activity, 2015-2026
Filings peaked at 69 in 2017. The most recent complete comparison — 2021's 50 filings against 2024's 37 — shows a 26% decline over three years; 2025 and 2026 are omitted from that read because publication lag of roughly 18 months means recent-year counts are still incomplete.
IPC subclass composition
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears in 68.2% of the 2,262 records and A61F (implants & prostheses) in 35.5%; sterilising methods (A61L) reach 25.1%, and both medicinal preparations (A61K) and body-fluid devices (A61M) sit near 14%. Because records can carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 2,262 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Vertebral Augmentation with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about vertebral augmentation and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited records and a recent representative filing
US20250127544A1 — System and device for performing vertebral augmentation
A system for performing a vertebral augmentation procedure is provided. The system may comprise a delivery device and an encapsulation balloon. The delivery device may include an inflation tube, a push tube provided over a proximal portion of the inflation tube, and a push handle. The inflation tube may have a delivery cannula and an injection port, wherein bone cement can flow through the delivery cannula and out of the injection port. The encapsulation balloon is configured for receiving cement and may be provided over a distal portion of the inflation tube such that the port is provided within the encapsulation balloon.Filed by EncapsuleMed, Inc.; published 2025-04-24.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6595998B2 | Tissue distraction device | 912 |
| 2 | US20060036323A1 | Facet device and method | 715 |
| 3 | US20060036324A1 | Adjustable spinal implant device and method | 701 |
| 4 | US8409211B2 | Integrated cement delivery system for bone augmentation procedures and methods | 682 |
| 5 | US6726691B2 | Methods for treating fractured and/or diseased bone | 642 |
| 6 | US20060036259A1 | Spine treatment devices and methods | 633 |
| 7 | US20040009459A1 | Simulation system for medical procedures | 552 |
| 8 | US20060100706A1 | Stent systems and methods for spine treatment | 545 |
| 9 | US20060058790A1 | Spinous process reinforcement device and method | 520 |
| 10 | US7166570B2 | Medical implants and fibrosis-inducing agents | 500 |
Citation counts favour older records simply because they have had more time to accumulate citations within this searched corpus — read them as a signal of influence on later filings, not as a measure 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 data means for filing strategy
Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend and citation figures above.
The core claim space is occupied, not fragmented
Five assignees combined account for 609 of the 2,262 records in scope. That is a meaningful share for a single technology area, and it means core delivery-cannula and balloon-tamp claims are already dense with prior art from established spine-device manufacturers.
Activity has cooled from its 2017 peak
Filings peaked at 69 in 2017 and have since eased; the last fully comparable window, 2021 to 2024, shows a 26% decline. Publication lag means 2025-26 counts will rise as pending applications post, so this is a directional read, not a forecast.
Surgical procedure claims outweigh material claims
A61B (diagnosis & surgery) appears far more often than cement-chemistry-adjacent classes like A61C (2.1%) or A61P (3.1%). Delivery mechanics and procedural steps are the crowded ground; formulation and adjunct-material claims are comparatively thin.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to vertebral augmentation, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the ground, and where filing has gone quiet
The ranked leaders in this dataset span 100 companies; several long-standing filers show no activity in the latest year, which is consistent with a maturing core technology rather than exit from the field given publication lag.
A single filer sets the pace
The top-ranked assignee holds 179 records, well ahead of fifth place at 97 and tenth place at 50 — a steep drop-off that signals a genuine leader rather than a crowded plateau.
The next tier is where activity broadens
Beyond the leader, filings spread across a wider set of spine-device and orthopaedic manufacturers, together holding 954 records, or 42.2% of the field. This is the tier most likely to produce licensing or acquisition activity.
Several established names show no recent filings
Multiple assignees that built substantial portfolios earlier in the dataset — including some in the top ranks — show zero filings in the latest year. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely understates true recent activity rather than confirming withdrawal.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| DFINE, Inc. | 0 | — |
| IlluminOss Medical, Inc. | 0 | — |
| Kyphon SARL | 0 | — |
| DEPUY SPINE INC | 0 | — |
| Synthes GmbH | 0 | — |
| SPINE WAVE INC | 0 | — |
| DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. | 0 | — |
| BENVENUE MEDICAL INC | 0 | — |
Where to take this analysis
The figures above frame the field; the next step is testing a specific claim or design-around against the full record set.
Check freedom-to-operate on a specific mechanism
Run a targeted search against the delivery-cannula and encapsulation-balloon claim language in the highest-cited records before committing engineering resources to a similar mechanism.
Explore in Patsnap EurekaTrack the quiet leaders
Several top-ranked assignees show no latest-year filings; confirm whether that reflects publication lag, a strategic pause, or a genuine shift in R&D focus before assuming the space is open.
Set up assignee monitoring in Patsnap EurekaProbe the under-claimed branches
Cement viscosity control and dental-adjacent cement chemistry show thin filing density relative to the procedural core — worth a deeper novelty check before assuming the ground is truly open.
Run a white space search in Patsnap EurekaCommon questions on vertebral augmentation patents
The dataset's ranked leader holds 179 of the 2,262 records in scope, noticeably ahead of the fifth-ranked assignee at 97 and the tenth-ranked at 50. The top five assignees combined account for 26.9% of all records, and the top ten reach 42.2%. This points to a field with a clear leader and a broader competitive tier below it, rather than even fragmentation across many small filers.
Filing activity peaked in 2017 at 69 records and has eased since; comparing 2021 (50 filings) to 2024 (37 filings), the last year treatable as complete, shows a 26% decline. Because patent publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the 2025 and 2026 figures in any dataset will understate true recent activity and should not be read as confirming a continued drop. A fair read is that the field has cooled from its 2017 peak but current-year trajectory is not yet visible.
Surgical procedure and delivery-device claims, classified under IPC A61B, appear in 68.2% of the 2,262 records in scope, making it the densest single class. Implant and prosthesis claims (A61F) follow at 35.5%, with sterilisation methods (A61L) at 25.1%. Cement formulation-adjacent classes such as A61C (dentistry, 2.1%) and A61P (therapeutic activity, 3.1%) are comparatively thin, suggesting procedural mechanics are more heavily claimed than material chemistry.
Relative to the crowded A61B and A61F classes, cement viscosity control, encapsulation-balloon containment mechanisms, and dental-adjacent cement chemistry show materially lower filing density in this dataset. That does not guarantee an area is unclaimed — it means fewer families carry that specific IPC signature within the searched scope. A targeted novelty search against the highest-cited records in each candidate area is the necessary next step before treating any of these as genuinely open.
US20250127544A1, filed by EncapsuleMed, Inc. and published 2025-04-24, describes a delivery device paired with an encapsulation balloon: an inflation tube with a delivery cannula and injection port, a push tube and handle, and a balloon positioned to receive cement so the injection port sits within the balloon during delivery. It illustrates a current design direction — containing cement within a balloon envelope rather than relying solely on cannula placement — that engineers should check against before designing a similar containment approach.
Research Vertebral Augmentation in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole vertebral augmentation 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.