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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/genomic-sequencing-data-compression-reference-based-encoding-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-16 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Genomics & BioinformaticsGenomic Sequencing Data Compression: Reference-Based Encoding Patents
53 patent families and 268 records on reference-based genomic data compression, led by GenomSys SA with 7 families.
268
Published Records
53
Simple Patent Families
55%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
268 published records collapse into 53 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 147 of 268 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 53 simple patent families and 268 published records make up this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
- GenomSys SA is named on 7 of the 53 families (13.2%), the highest share held by any single listed row.
- 35 of 40 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, the long tail in this set.
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this dataset covers
This search combines sequencing data or genomic data with compression and either reference-based encoding terms, covering 268 published records that de-duplicate down to 53 simple patent families. The search string carries no date limit, so the set spans whatever years the matching records happen to fall in; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that range, not the full scope of the search.
53 families is a small pool. The figures here are a starting point for a targeted search, not a map of the field, and gaps in the data are as likely to reflect the search terms as they are to reflect an absence of filing activity.
Families and records in scope
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 start with the same name (SAMSUNG R & D INST INDIA BANGALORE, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 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 (1 here); 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 30 of the 40 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 40 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 Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing activity and technology split
These figures are drawn directly from the search result set: a filing-trend chart counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend by earliest filing year
Records run from an earliest filing year of 2007 through 2026, counted by publication, with a peak so far of 71 records in 2017. The chart's most recent years, from 2022 onward, are still filling in because of publication lag and should not be read as a decline.
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.
IPC subclass composition
G16B (bioinformatics) appears on 54.7% of the 53 families, G06F (electric digital data processing) on 39.6%, and H03M (coding and code conversion) on 28.3%. Because a family can carry more than one classification, these shares add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 53 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 Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about genomic sequencing data compression reference-based encoding patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
One record from the result set
As returned by the search
Compression techniques for genomic data
ILLUMINA, INC.
Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer-storage media, for compressing genomic data. One of the methods includes obtaining a genomic data read; mapping the read to a plurality of different candidate reference genomes; selecting one of the candidate reference genomes based on the mapping; performing reference-based compression of the read using the selected reference genome; and storing the compressed genomic data read.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, grant date or scope. It is shown to illustrate what a record in this set looks like, not as representative of the field.
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 Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. 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
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
Reading the filer and classification data
Three figures worth sitting with before drawing any conclusion from this set.
Largest single filer
7 of 53 families
GenomSys SA
13.2% share, one row only
GenomSys SA is named on 7 of the 53 simple patent families in scope, a 13.2% share. This is a single-row figure; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be summed across rows, so this share belongs to this name only.
Largest listed filer by family count
Long tail
35 of 40
listed filers
Most listed filers hold 2 families or fewer
Of the 40 filers the search endpoint returned, 35 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. This describes how volume is spread across the listed rows; it is not a measure of how crowded or open the underlying field is.
Counted in simple patent families
Legal status
147 of 268
records in force
55% of records were granted and in force at retrieval
147 of the 268 published records were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-16 retrieval date. The remainder cover pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and undeterminable statuses, which are not broken out separately here.
Status as of retrieval date
Technology split
54.7% / 39.6% / 28.3%
G16B / G06F / H03M
Three IPC subclasses cover more than a quarter of families each
G16B appears on 54.7% of the 53 families, G06F on 39.6%, and H03M on 28.3%. Because one family can carry several classifications, these three shares overlap and add up to more than 100% of the set.
Counted in simple patent families
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 genomic sequencing data compression reference-based encoding patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
What's next
Where to take this from here
The figures on this page are a starting point. Narrowing the search, pulling granted claims, or tracking specific filers are the logical next steps.
Read the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent's claims actually cover. Before making a design or filing decision, pull the granted claim set for any record that looks relevant.
Explore claim data in EurekaNarrow or widen the search string
This set of 53 families came from one specific combination of search terms. Adjusting the terms would change which records and filers appear.
Run a new search in EurekaTrack specific filers over time
GenomSys SA and the other listed rows can be followed individually as new records publish, rather than read as a single combined trend.
Set up filer tracking in EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Common questions about this dataset
This search returned 268 published records, which de-duplicate to 53 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is counted once. The search string has no date limit, so this reflects whatever years the matching records happen to fall in rather than a fixed period. Because the underlying terms (sequencing data, genomic data, compression, reference-based, encoding) are broad, this count should be read as one search's result set rather than an exhaustive count of every relevant filing worldwide.
GenomSys SA is named on 7 of the 53 simple patent families in scope, a 13.2% share, the highest of any single listed row in this dataset. Of the 40 filers the search returned, 35 hold 2 or fewer families each, so the volume is spread thinly outside the top rows. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate parent, so related-looking names such as the two Samsung entries in this list are counted and reported separately, never combined.
G16B covers bioinformatics and appears on 54.7% of the 53 families in this dataset, the highest share of any subclass shown. G06F (electric digital data processing) follows at 39.6% and H03M (coding and code conversion) at 28.3%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC classification, these percentages overlap rather than summing to a whole, so a family counted under G16B may also appear under G06F or H03M.
147 of the 268 published records, or 55%, were recorded as granted and in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-16. The remaining records cover a mix of pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed and undeterminable statuses that are not broken out individually in this dataset. In-force status changes continuously and reflects legal standing at one point in time, not an indicator of a record's technical or commercial value.
No. This page reflects one search string run against the available data, returning 53 simple patent families and 268 records, and the filer list itself is capped at the top entities the data endpoint returns rather than every organisation that filed. A 53-family pool is small enough that gaps in coverage are as likely to reflect the search terms used as any actual absence of filing activity in adjacent areas. Treat the figures here as a starting point for a more targeted search rather than a definitive map of the field.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-16. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Genomic Sequencing Data Compression Reference-Based Encoding Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole genomic sequencing data compression reference-based encoding patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("sequencing data" OR "genomic data") AND compression AND ("reference-based" OR "reference based" OR encoding))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.
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 268 records and 53 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 (1 of them here). 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 30 of the 40 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 40 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 2026-10-16.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (147 of 268). 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.
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.