https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/insulin-pump-closed-loop-dosing-control-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-26 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Medical Devices & Implants

Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patents

136 patent families and 543 records cover insulin pump closed-loop dosing control algorithms, with two filers tied for the most filings.

543
Published Records
136
Simple Patent Families
7%
Families Naming the Largest Filer
39%
In Force at Cut-off

543 published records collapse into 136 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC is named on 9 of the 136 patent families in scope. One patent family can name several filers, so these figures are not slices of a divided whole and do not add up. In force = 214 of 543 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • No single filer leads this set. Abbott Diabetes Care and the University of Virginia Patent Foundation are tied at 9 simple patent families each, out of 136 in scope.
  • Filing is spread thin across the field. 77 of the 87 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each.
  • Devices for body fluids are the most common in the IPC mix numerically. A61M appears on 64.7% of the 136 simple patent families, ahead of A61B at 55.9% and G16H at 44.1%.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This landscape is built from a search for "insulin pump" or "insulin delivery device" combined with "closed loop" and an algorithm or control term appearing in the title or abstract. The search carries no date limit, so the 136 simple patent families and 543 published records in scope span whatever filing years the matching text happens to cover, not a fixed window chosen for this page.

Readers should treat the IPC composition and filer counts below as a description of what this search string caught, not as a scoped market map. A different phrasing of the same technology area would return a different mix of records.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC9
  2. UNIV OF VIRGINIA PATENT FOUND9
  3. DEXCOM INC8
  4. INSULET CORP8
  5. MEDTRONIC MINIMED INC7
  6. GUANGDONG FOOD & DRUG VOCATIONAL COLLEGE6
  7. DIABELOOP4
  8. HALOZYME INC4
  9. ANIMAS CORP4
  10. PEKING UNIV3

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 (MEDTRONIC MINIMED INC, MEDTRONIC INC). 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 (13 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 87 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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 Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move 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 Numbers

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 136 families: how the published record count has moved by earliest filing year, and which IPC subclasses carry the claims.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)

Published records by earliest filing year ran from 28 in 2008 to a peak of 53 in 2010, and showed a -24% change from 2018 (41) to 2021 (31). 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings continue to publish, so that stretch is not a measure of slowing activity.

Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year)01530456028200853201020122014201620182020202220241420262022 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 2008-2026 (534 records); the 543 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition (share of 136 simple patent families)

A61M (Devices for body fluids) appears on 64.7% of the 136 families, A61B (Diagnosis & surgery) on 55.9%, and G16H (Healthcare informatics) on 44.1%. Because a single family can carry more than one IPC class, these shares add to more than 100% and are not mutually exclusive groupings.

IPC subclass composition (share of 136 simple patent families)A61M · Devices for body fluids8864.7%A61B · Diagnosis & surgery7655.9%G16H · Healthcare informatics6044.1%G06F · Electric digital data processi…1511.0%A61K · Medicinal preparations107.4%G05B · Control & regulating systems64.4%G01N · Material analysis & testing53.7%G06N · Computing based on AI models42.9%Other2518.4%

Shares are the percentage of the 136 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 Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about insulin pump closed-loop dosing control 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
US11621073B22023-04-04

Closed loop control system interface and methods

ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC.

The abstract describes a method for treating a medical condition in which a control unit stores several closed loop control algorithms in memory, receives analyte data from an analyte sensor, and controls a medication delivery device according to a first algorithm selected from that set. The control unit can then switch the medication delivery device to operate under a second closed loop control algorithm in place of the first, based on the analyte data received.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Its abstract is described here as written; what its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, not inferred from this summary.

US11621073B2, patent drawing 1US11621073B2, 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 Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. 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 →
Patterns In The Data

What the filer and technology counts show

Three figures worth sitting with before reading any ranking table on this page.

Filer concentration
9 families
top family count, tied

Two filers share the top count

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc and University of Virginia Patent Foundation are each named on 9 of the 136 simple patent families in scope. Neither sits ahead of the other on this count, and no third filer reaches that figure.

Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
77 of 87
filers at 2 families or fewer

Most listed filers hold very few families

Of the 87 organisations the search returned, 77 are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The remaining ten rows, including the two tied at 9, carry the rest of the filer list's family counts.

Filer rows overlap where a family names more than one filer, so rows are not summed.
Legal status
214 of 543
records granted and in force

39% of records are in force at retrieval

214 of the 543 published records were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-26 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not a measure of how many filings in this set eventually succeed.

Status changes continuously; remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and are not broken out further.
Technology mix
64.7%
A61M share of 136 families

A61M carries the largest share of the IPC mix

A61M (devices for body fluids) appears on 64.7% of the 136 families, ahead of A61B at 55.9% and G16H at 44.1%. Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes, these three shares add to well over 100% between them.

Share denominator is 136 simple patent families throughout.
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 insulin pump closed-loop dosing control 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 Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Where To Go From Here

Reading further into this set

The counts on this page describe what a single search string returned. Narrower questions need a narrower look.

Pull the granted claims directly

Family and record counts cannot establish what any single patent covers. Reading the actual claim set of a specific filing, such as the example record above, is the only way to see what it requires.

Open Patsnap Eureka

Re-run the search with tighter terms

Because this string has no date limit and catches several IPC branches below the ones discussed here, adjusting the search terms will change both the family count and the technology split.

Open Patsnap Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions practitioners ask about this landscape

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-26. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Insulin Pump Closed-Loop Dosing Control Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole insulin pump closed-loop dosing control 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:(("insulin pump" OR "insulin delivery device") AND ("closed loop" OR "closed-loop") AND (algorithm OR control*))

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 (A61M) carries 64.7% 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 543 records and 136 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 (13 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 87 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 87 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, and the growth figure stops at 2021. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-26.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (214 of 543). 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.