https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/flow-cytometry-data-gating-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Diagnostics & Laboratory Technologies

Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patents

36 patent families and 97 records cover flow cytometry gating algorithms, led by Cytek Biosciences with a long tail of smaller filers.

97
Published Records
36
Simple Patent Families
34%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

97 published records collapse into 36 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 33 of 97 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 36 simple patent families and 97 published records make up this search spanning records filed from as early as 2011 through 2026, with the most recent years still filling in.
  • Cytek Biosciences holds the largest single share named on 7 of the 36 families (19.4%), with 23 of the 25 listed filers holding 2 or fewer families each.
  • G01N material analysis and testing covers most of the pool appearing on 24 of 36 families (66.7%), ahead of G16B bioinformatics at 11 families (30.6%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This page reports results for the search string TAC:(("flow cytometry" OR cytometr*) AND gating AND algorithm), which returned 97 published records collapsing to 36 simple patent families. No date limit was applied, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to carry; it is not bounded to a fixed window. The filing-trend chart below shows a recent slice only and should not be read as the full history.

At 36 families, this is a small pool. The figures here describe what this particular search returned, not the shape of a field or an industry, treat the page as a starting point for a closer search rather than a finished map.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. CYTEK BIOSCI7
  2. BECTON DICKINSON & CO5
  3. NEOGENOMICS LAB2
  4. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIV2
  5. FLOWJO LLC1
  6. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENT1
  7. UNIV OF LIVERPOOL1
  8. NANOSTICS INC1
  9. BEIJING SHEN MINDRAY MEDICAL ELECTRONICS TECH RES INST CO LTD1
  10. SHANDONG FIRST MEDICAL UNIV & SHANDONG ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCI1

Counted over all 97 published records, including filings from before 2011; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 87 records from 2011 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. 2 rows in this table share the name MINDRAY (SHENZHEN MINDRAY BIO MEDICAL ELECTRONICS CO LTD, BEIJING SHEN MINDRAY MEDICAL ELECTRONICS TECH RES INST CO LTD). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 25 of the 25 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 25 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
The numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 36-family dataset: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (87 of 97 published records)

Published records by earliest filing year run from 1 in 2011 to a peak of 14, reached in both 2019 and 2023, with 2 recorded in 2026. Records filed from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, so the most recent years understate their eventual totals, this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in filing.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (87 of 97 published records)0481115120112013201520171420192021142023202522022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two. This chart covers 2011-2026 (87 records); the 97 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 36 families)

G01N (material analysis & testing) appears on 24 of 36 families (66.7%), the highest share in the set. G16B (bioinformatics) follows at 11 families (30.6%), then G06F (electric digital data processing) at 9 families (25.0%), G06N (AI-based computing) at 7 families (19.4%) and G06V (image/video recognition) at 6 families (16.7%). Families can carry more than one subclass, so these shares add to more than 100%.

IPC subclass composition (share of 36 families)G01N · Material analysis & testing2466.7%G16B · Bioinformatics1130.6%G06F · Electric digital data processi…925.0%G06N · Computing based on AI models719.4%G06V · Image/video recognition616.7%G06K · Data recognition & presentation513.9%G16H · Healthcare informatics38.3%A61K · Medicinal preparations25.6%Other1130.6%

Shares are the percentage of the 36 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about flow cytometry data gating algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Example record

A record from the result set

First record returned
US20160169786A12016-06-16

Automated flow cytometry analysis method and system

NEOGENOMICS LABORATORIES, INC.

An automated method and system are provided for receiving an input of flow cytometry data and analyzing the data using a hierarchical arrangement of analytical elements, each of which utilizes a support vector machine to automatically classify the data into different subpopulations to recognize a pattern within the data. The pattern may be used to generate a diagnostic prediction for a patient or to identify patterns within samples collected from multiple subjects.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this dataset actually claims, not as representative of the field.

US20160169786A1, patent drawing 1US20160169786A1, patent drawing 2
View full record

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move 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 →
Reading the data

What the figures show

Three figures worth sitting with before treating any single number as the whole picture.

Largest filer
7 of 36 families
Cytek Biosciences

One row holds 19.4% of the families in scope

Cytek Biosciences is named on 7 of the 36 simple patent families in this dataset (19.4%). This is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope, validity or commercial reach.

Source: filer table, 25 listed filers
Long tail
23 of 25
filers at 2 families or fewer

Most listed filers hold 1 or 2 families each

23 of the 25 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows sum to more than 36 because a family can name more than one filer, so the rows cannot be added into a combined share.

Source: filer table, 25 listed filers
Technology mix
66.7%
families carrying G01N

G01N appears on two-thirds of the families

G01N (material analysis & testing) is present on 24 of 36 families (66.7%), the highest of any subclass shown. G16B (bioinformatics, 30.6%) and G06F (electric digital data processing, 25.0%) follow; families can carry several subclasses, so shares add past 100%.

Source: IPC composition, 36 families
Legal status
34%
in force at retrieval

33 of 97 records were granted and in force

At the 2026-10-27 retrieval date, 33 of the 97 published records (34%) were granted and still in force. This is a status snapshot that changes continuously; it is not a measure of the quality of any filing.

Source: legal status, 97 records
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 flow cytometry data gating algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Where to go from here

Taking this further

This page is a starting point built from one search string. A closer read benefits from narrowing or widening that string and checking claim language directly.

Pull the granted claims

Family and subclass counts cannot establish what any single patent covers. Reading the granted claims of records that matter to a specific design is the only way to assess scope.

Explore in Eureka

Refine the search string

A broad term like 'gating' or 'cytometr*' can pull in records from adjacent fields. Narrowing or expanding the string in Eureka can test how much of this 36-family pool holds up.

Run a refined search
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Flow Cytometry Data Gating Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole flow cytometry data gating algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("flow cytometry" OR cytometr*) AND gating AND algorithm)

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G01N) carries 66.7% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 97 records and 36 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list. Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 25 of the 25 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 25 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (33 of 97). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

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 limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. 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, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records 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.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

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.