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 patent landscape review of metabolomics data batch correction and normalization algorithms: filing trends since 2016, leading assignees, IPC composition and
Metabolomics batch correction and normalization covers the algorithms used to remove systematic technical variation between sample batches, instruments or runs before biological signal in metabolomic data can be trusted. The patent record here is small: 15 published families span 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with activity concentrated in a handful of years rather than spread evenly across the window. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent years in any trend line understate real filing activity.
The technology composition points to a computing-first field: bioinformatics (G16B) and AI-model computing (G06N) classes cover the large majority of records, while wet-lab classes such as bioreactors, microorganisms and fermentation appear on only a single record each. Filing activity is mostly made up of one assignee, with the other ranked companies each holding a small share, which suggests the space is still open to new entrants willing to stake out claims outside the leader's core methods.
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 5 of the 5 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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.
Filing volume and IPC composition for the 15 records in scope, drawn directly from the underlying dataset.
Filings ran from 1 in 2016 to a peak of 7 in 2020, the field's high-water mark so far. From 2021 to 2024, the most recent span that can be read as complete given publication lag, filings held flat at 1 to 1, a 0% change rather than a decline or a resurgence. 2025 and 2026 figures are still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown.
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) appears on 86.7% of the 15 records and G06N (AI-model computing) on 80.0%, confirming that most claims are written as computational methods. G16H (healthcare informatics) reaches 26.7%, G01N (material analysis) 13.3%, and four other classes spanning bioreactors, microorganisms, fermentation and enzyme-based measurement each sit at 6.7%, a single record apiece. Because records can carry multiple classes, these shares add up to more than 100% of the record total.
Shares are the percentage of the 15 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 metabolomics data batch correction normalization algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe filing describes systems and methods for evaluating a subject's clinical condition using modules built from feature values that associate with the presence, absence or stage of a phenotype. A first dataset acquired through one technical background, transcriptomic, proteomic or metabolomic, supplies feature values for at least one module, while a second training dataset acquired through a different technical background supplies feature values in the same form, allowing classifiers to be built and optimized across datasets collected under different conditions.Filed by Inflammatix, Inc.; published 2020-09-24.


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-outs from the dataset that matter more for a filing or freedom-to-operate decision than the raw counts alone.
The leading assignee accounts for 10 of the 15 records in scope, with the other four ranked companies holding far smaller shares. That is a thin field by count, not a crowded one, a single dominant filer rather than many competitors racing for the same claims.
After peaking at 7 filings in 2020, the field settled to 1 filing in both 2021 and 2024, a flat three-year span. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, 2025-2026 figures are still incomplete and should not be read as a downturn.
G16B and G06N together cover the large majority of the 15 records, while wet-lab-adjacent classes such as bioreactors, microorganisms and fermentation each appear on only one record. Anyone filing here is competing on algorithmic claim language, not laboratory process.
WIPO (PCT) receives the largest single share of filings at 4, followed by the United States at 3, with Australia and the EPO each at 2 and Canada and Israel at 1 apiece. That spread suggests applicants are still testing which jurisdictions matter rather than committing to one primary market.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to metabolomics data batch correction normalization algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
The dataset points to a small, computation-heavy field with one dominant filer and several under-claimed adjacent branches. These are the natural next steps for a team deciding where to file or where to challenge.
With one assignee holding two-thirds of the records in scope, a claim-by-claim read of its family is the fastest way to find out exactly what is blocked before drafting anything adjacent.
Explore the leader's portfolio in EurekaBioreactor, microorganism, fermentation and enzyme-measurement classes each carry only a single record. That is either genuine white space or an unexplored dead end, worth a focused search before assuming either.
Run a white-space search in EurekaBecause 2025-2026 filings are still working through the publication lag, the real trend since the 2020 peak will not be visible for another year or so. Set a monitoring cadence now rather than reacting later.
Set up monitoring in EurekaThe dataset in scope contains 15 published patent families matching batch correction and normalization work applied to metabolomic data, covering 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. That is a small field compared to broader bioinformatics categories, which is typical for a narrowly defined algorithmic niche. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the true count for the most recent one to two years will rise as more applications publish.
The assignee ranking returned for this dataset includes five companies, with the leading filer holding 10 of the 15 records in scope and the fifth-ranked company holding just 1. That means the field is mostly made up of a single assignee rather than spread evenly across several competitors. Anyone assessing freedom to operate should start with that leader's claim set before looking at the smaller filers.
The two dominant IPC subclasses are G16B, bioinformatics, appearing on 86.7% of the 15 records, and G06N, computing based on AI models, appearing on 80.0%. Healthcare informatics (G16H) and material analysis and testing (G01N) appear on smaller shares. Wet-lab-adjacent classes covering bioreactors, microorganisms, fermentation and enzyme-based measurement each appear on only one record, confirming this is primarily a computational rather than a laboratory-process field.
Filings peaked at 7 in 2020, the highest point in the dataset's coverage window. From 2021 to 2024, the most recent span that can be treated as complete, filings held flat at 1 per year, a 0% change rather than growth or decline. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because of publication lag, so it is too early to call the field slowing based on those years alone.
US20200303078A1, filed by Inflammatix, Inc. and published in September 2020, covers systems and methods for building and optimizing classifiers from multiple datasets, including transcriptomic, proteomic or metabolomic data collected under different technical backgrounds. It is a representative filing in this landscape because it shows batch-correction-adjacent claim language framed as cross-dataset classifier training rather than a standalone normalization algorithm. Reviewing its specific claim scope is necessary before assuming what it does or does not block for a given use case.
Go past this page: query the whole metabolomics data batch correction normalization algorithm 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:(metabolomic* AND ("batch correction" OR "batch effect") AND normaliz*)
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 86.7% 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 5 of the 5 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 5 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