https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/viral-inactivation-methods-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-07-31 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Viral Clearance & Filtration
Viral inactivation patents: mapping who holds the claims and what is still open
  • Concentrated at the top. Five assignees hold 33.8% of all 770 records in scope, and ten hold 53.8% — most of the field's claim space sits with a small group.
  • Filings have pulled back sharply. Annual filings fell from 71 in 2021 to 10 in 2024, an 86% drop over that three-year span, though 2025-26 counts are still filling in as publication catches up with filing.
  • Blood-contaminant inactivation methods dominate citations. The most-cited records in the corpus are decades-old solvent/detergent and blood-product inactivation patents, a sign of foundational influence rather than current filing activity.
Get a prior-art report on your approach
770
Published Records
34%
Top-5 Share of All Records
-86%
Filing Growth 2021→2024
US
Leading Jurisdiction

Filing growth compares 2021 (71 records) with 2024 (10) — 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 770 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.

Published byPatsnap Research··7 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this landscape covers

Viral inactivation methods sit at the intersection of process engineering and biologics safety: low pH holds, solvent-detergent treatment, and related inactivation kinetics used to clear viral contaminants from plasma-derived and recombinant products. This landscape covers 770 published records filed or published between 2015 and mid-2026, searched against terms spanning hold-time definition, scale-down validation, mixing homogeneity and detergent alternatives alongside the core inactivation methods themselves.

The scope pulls in both classic blood-product inactivation claims and newer continuous-processing and model-based control approaches, so the ranking reflects a field with a long filing history rather than a single emerging wave.

Filing activity and technology composition, 2017-2026
  1. 1TAKEDA PHARMA CO LTD100
  2. 2AMGEN INC57
  3. 3BAXTER INT INC35
  4. 4ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS INC34
  5. 5NAJIT TECHNOLOGIES INC34
  6. 6VI TECHNOLOGIES INC33
  7. 7BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC33
  8. 8EMD MILLIPORE CORP31
  9. 9MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP30
  10. 10CERUS CORP27
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from a Patsnap search on Viral Inactivation Methods 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

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
The data

Filing trends and technology composition

Two views of the same 770-record dataset: how filing volume has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claim density.

Filing trend, 2017-2026

Filings peaked at 97 in 2018 and have declined since, falling from 71 in 2021 to 10 in 2024 (-86%). Treat 2025 and 2026 counts as incomplete — publication typically lags filing by about 18 months, so the most recent years understate actual filing activity rather than confirming a continued fall.

Filing trend, 2017-20260255075100712017972018201920202021202220232024202512026Most recent year is partial — publication lag means later filings are not yet visible.

Technology composition by IPC subclass

Medicinal preparations (A61K, 45.3% of records) and microorganism/genetic engineering claims (C12N, 38.3%) lead the composition, with peptide and protein chemistry (C07K, 37.4%) and sterilising/disinfecting methods (A61L, 35.8%) close behind. Because records carry multiple IPC codes, these shares sum to well over 100% and should be read against the 770-record total, not against each other.

Technology composition by IPC subclassA61K · Medicinal preparations34945.3%C12N · Microorganisms & genetic engin…29538.3%C07K · Peptides & proteins28837.4%A61L · Sterilising & disinfecting27635.8%A61P · Therapeutic activity of compou…8010.4%B01D · Separation processes (filtrati…759.7%C07D · Heterocyclic compounds557.1%C07H · Sugars & nucleic acids405.2%Other36146.9%

Shares are the percentage of the 770 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 Viral Inactivation Methods covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Viral Inactivation Methods with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about viral inactivation methods and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Key patents

Most-cited and representative records

Representative filing
US20230167417A12023-06-01

Model-based control for column-based continuous viral inactivation of biopharmaceuticals (US20230167417A1)

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Provided herein is a column-based continuous viral inactivation system, comprising one or both of a pH feedback controller to adjust feed flow rates and a minimum residence time (MRT) feedback controller to adjust feed flow rates. Methods of viral inactivation with the system are also provided.Filed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published 2023-06-01 — representative of a shift toward continuous, feedback-controlled inactivation rather than static batch holds.

US20230167417A1 — patent drawing 1US20230167417A1 — patent drawing 2
View full record
Most-cited records in scope
#Publication no.Patent titleCitations
1US5418130AMethod of inactivation of viral and bacterial blood contaminants239
2US6187572B1Method of inactivation of viral and bacterial blood contaminants123
3US20120234694A1Electrochemical carbon nanotube filter and method109
4US5587490AMethod of inactivation of viral and bacterial blood contaminants109
5US5891705AMethod for inactivating a virus107
6US5559250ATreating red blood cell solutions with anti-viral agents107
7US5691132AMethod for inactivating pathogens in red cell compositions using quinacrine mustard106
8US6136586AMethods for the selective modification of viral nucleic acids102
9US6235508B1Method of inactivation of viral and bacterial blood contaminants97
10WO1996039818A1Treating red blood cell solutions with Anti-viral agents86

Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate citations within the searched corpus — read them as a signal of foundational influence, not of present-day importance.

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 Viral Inactivation Methods 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
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 →
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 read-throughs from the concentration, trend and citation data above.

Concentration
33.8% of 770 records
held by top 5 assignees

Claim space is crowded at the top

The top five assignees account for 33.8% of all 770 records in scope, and the top ten for 53.8%. That leaves a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants working around a small set of dominant claim holders, particularly on blood-product and plasma-derived inactivation methods.

Ranking covers 100 assignees, the full set the data endpoint returns.
Momentum
-86% (2021 to 2024)
filings, three-year span

Filing volume has pulled back from its peak

Filings peaked at 97 in 2018 and dropped from 71 in 2021 to 10 in 2024. The leading assignees by cumulative volume show zero filings in the latest tracked year, consistent with a field that has moved past its initial filing wave rather than one still accelerating.

2025-26 figures are still incomplete due to publication lag.
Citation influence
239 citations
on the top-cited record

Influence sits with older blood-safety patents

The most-cited records in the corpus are solvent/detergent and blood-contaminant inactivation patents filed well before the current filing window. Their citation counts reflect decades of accumulated influence within the corpus, not current filing activity or unclaimed territory.

Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older records by design.
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 viral inactivation methods, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Co-assignee relationships and derived observations. Derived from a Patsnap search on Viral Inactivation Methods 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 gate sits

A small group of pharmaceutical and blood-product companies dominate cumulative filings, but the newest activity — where it exists — clusters around process-control and continuous-processing claims rather than the classic solvent-detergent or low-pH hold chemistry.

Leader
100 records
leading assignee

One filer sits well ahead of the field

The leading assignee holds 100 of the 770 records in scope, well ahead of the fifth-place assignee at 34 and tenth place at 27 — a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one.

Based on the full 100-company ranking.
Co-filing
10 co-assignee pairs
strongest pair: 57 shared records

Filing is often a joint effort between affiliated entities

The strongest co-assignee pairing shares 57 records, consistent with parent-subsidiary or joint R&D filing rather than arm's-length competition. This pattern repeats across several of the top pairs, suggesting consolidated corporate portfolios rather than fragmented ownership.

Ten co-assignee pairs are tracked in this dataset.
Recent momentum
0 in latest year
across all top momentum-tracked assignees

Cumulative leaders show no recent filings

Every assignee tracked for recent-year momentum, including the top cumulative filer, recorded zero filings in the latest tracked year. That is consistent with the broader -86% (2021-2024) filing decline, though publication lag means very recent activity may not yet be visible.

Momentum reflects publication-lag-affected recent years.
🔍
Under-claimed sub-areas
Branches with comparatively thin claim density relative to the core inactivation chemistries.
Continuous-flow inactivation controlDetergent-free/alternative viral clearanceScale-down model validation methodsMixing homogeneity sensors for hold tanksReal-time inactivation kinetics monitoring
Rank all filers by momentum →
Recent-year filing momentum by assignee
AssigneeRecent yearYoY
Baxalta Incorporated0—
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited0—
Baxalta US Inc.0—
Amgen Inc.0-100%
Baxter International Inc.0—
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.0—
Baxter Healthcare Corporation0—
NAJIT TECHNOLOGIES INC0—
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee-level momentum. Derived from a Patsnap search on Viral Inactivation Methods 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

The dataset points to a mature core with narrow openings around process control and validation.

Map the continuous-processing gap in detail

Feedback-controlled and column-based continuous inactivation, as represented by the MIT filing, sits apart from the batch-hold chemistry that dominates the top assignees' portfolios. This is worth a focused freedom-to-operate check before committing engineering resources.

Explore continuous inactivation claims

Check co-assignee structures before partnering

Several of the top filers file jointly with affiliated entities. Understanding which entity actually holds enforceable rights matters before entering a licensing or supply discussion.

Review assignee relationships

Watch the validation and monitoring branches

Scale-down validation and mixing homogeneity claims are comparatively thin relative to the core inactivation methods, and may offer more open claim space for process-analytics vendors.

Run a white space search in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Forward-looking reading of the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Viral Inactivation Methods 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 viral inactivation patents

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from a Patsnap search on Viral Inactivation Methods 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 Viral Inactivation Methods in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole viral inactivation methods corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka

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.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.