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 →A data-backed look at genome assembly algorithm patents built on overlap, de Bruijn and assembly graph methods: who holds the claims, how filings have moved
This landscape tracks patent families describing genome assembly algorithms built on overlap graph, de Bruijn graph or assembly graph construction, the computational core of reconstructing a genome from short or long sequencing reads. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, though publication lag means the most recent one to two years are still filling in. 34 published records sit inside this search, concentrated overwhelmingly in bioinformatics classifications with smaller footprints in enzymatic synthesis, digital data processing and DNA measurement techniques.
The dataset is small enough that individual filing decisions move the picture noticeably, a single applicant's continuation strategy can shift the yearly trend line more than any market-wide shift in sequencing technology. Read the ranking and the trend together: a leader with 14 records inside a field of only 34 total families says more about claim breadth than about market size.
Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in published records, so one invention filed in several countries counts more than 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. 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 10 of the 10 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 is not the complete set of filers. A single record can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Two views of the same 34-record dataset: how filing activity has moved year over year, and which IPC subclasses the claims actually sit in.
Filings opened this window at 2 in 2014, climbed to a peak of 16 in 2016, and fell to 0 completed filings by 2024, a -100% move from the 5 filings recorded in 2021. Treat 2025 and 2026 as undercounted rather than as a continuation of that decline, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
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.
G16B bioinformatics classifications appear on 91.2% of the 34 records in scope, confirming this is fundamentally a computational-methods field rather than a wet-lab one. Below that, C12P enzymatic synthesis (26.5%), G06F digital data processing (23.5%) and G01N material analysis (17.6%) each mark a smaller adjacent claim surface, with C04B, C12Q and C40B tied at 14.7% apiece, each a narrower niche worth checking individually before assuming it is open.
Shares are the percentage of the 34 published records in scope. One published record can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about genome assembly algorithm using overlap graph construction patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe filing describes generating a fused assembly graph from reads of both haplotypes, building haplotype-specific assembly graphs from phased reads, merging them into a single haplotype-resolved graph, and removing cross-phasing edges to reconstruct haplotype-resolved sequence, a diploid-aware approach to the overlap/assembly-graph problem.Filed by Pacific Biosciences of California, published 2016-12-01.


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.
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 →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 →Four read-throughs of the filing and classification data that matter for anyone deciding where to file or whom to watch.
The top-ranked assignee holds 14 of the records inside a ranked field of only 10 companies; fifth place holds just 2 and tenth place holds 1. That gap suggests one applicant built a genuinely broad claim position early, rather than the field being evenly contested.
Filings hit a peak of 16 in 2016 and the 2021-to-2024 span shows a full -100% drop to zero completed filings. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, 2025 and 2026 figures are not yet reliable evidence of continued decline.
G16B covers 91.2% of the 34 records in scope, meaning nearly every filing routes through bioinformatics classification regardless of its underlying wet-lab or hardware content. Secondary classes like C12P, G06F and G01N mark where sequencing chemistry and data processing intersect with the algorithm claims.
The United States and the European Patent Office lead as receiving offices at 10 and 9 records respectively, with WIPO/PCT filings at 5 and China at 4. That spread points to applicants seeking protection across both major sequencing markets rather than concentrating in one jurisdiction.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to genome assembly algorithm using overlap graph construction patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The dataset points to a narrow, top-heavy field with a specific technical core. These are reasonable next moves for a team acting on it.
With 14 of 34 records held by a single applicant, the practical question is not whether that applicant is active but exactly which graph-construction steps its claims cover and where they stop.
Explore claim scope in EurekaC04B, C12Q and C40B each sit at 14.7% of records, thin enough to look like white space, but each needs individual review rather than a blanket assumption of low density.
Run a branch-level search in EurekaAny internal trend analysis built on this data should note the roughly 18-month publication lag rather than reading the most recent years as a real slowdown.
Track filings as they update in EurekaOne applicant leads with 14 records inside a ranked field of 10 companies, ahead of the rest of the table, fifth place holds only 2 and tenth place holds 1. This is a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one, which typically signals an early, broad filer rather than a crowded competitive field. Anyone evaluating freedom to operate here should start by mapping that leader's specific claim language rather than assuming the field is evenly split.
Filings peaked at 16 in 2016 and the most recent complete comparison shows a -100% move from 5 filings in 2021 down to 0 in 2024. That looks like a real slowdown in completed filings through 2024, but publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 and 2026 counts are still filling in and should not be read as confirmation of continued decline. The safest reading is that documented activity cooled after its mid-2010s peak, with the very latest years still undetermined.
G16B, the bioinformatics subclass, covers 91.2% of the 34 records in this dataset, making it the most common classification. Secondary classes include C12P (fermentation and enzymatic synthesis, 26.5%), G06F (digital data processing, 23.5%) and G01N (material analysis and testing, 17.6%), reflecting how assembly algorithms get filed alongside the sequencing chemistry or hardware they support. Because a single record can carry multiple classes, these shares add up to more than 100% and should not be treated as mutually exclusive categories.
The smaller IPC branches, C04B, C12Q and C40B, each covering 14.7% of the 34 records, carry far less filing density than the most common G16B bioinformatics class, but that does not automatically mean they are unclaimed. A practical approach is to check the specific claims within those branches against the intended technical approach, since low density in a 34-record dataset can also just reflect the narrowness of the category itself rather than genuine white space. Overlap graph, de Bruijn graph, and assembly graph techniques should each be checked separately, since the most common applicant's claims may not extend evenly across all three approaches.
The United States leads as a receiving office with 10 records, followed closely by the European Patent Office at 9, then WIPO/PCT filings at 5 and China at 4. Canada and Singapore each show 2 records, rounding out a filing pattern concentrated in the US and Europe with international routing through PCT. This distribution suggests applicants are prioritising the two largest sequencing-technology markets rather than filing narrowly in a single country.
Go past this page: query the whole genome assembly algorithm using overlap graph construction patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:
TAC:(("genome assembly" OR "de novo assembly") AND ("overlap graph" OR "de Bruijn graph" OR "assembly graph"))
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 (G16B) carries 91.2% of the published records, 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. 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 10 of the 10 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 is not every filer. One published record 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 shortly before the publication date shown above.
Legal status. Legal status was not available for this search, so no in-force figure is shown. 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.
This page