https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/reference-genome-pangenome-graph-alignment-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off null · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Genomics & Bioinformatics

Reference genome pangenome graph alignment patents: who holds the claims and where the field is still open

A patent landscape review of reference genome pangenome graph alignment algorithms: 24 tracked families, filing trends since 2015, IPC classification spread

24
Published Records
EP
Leading Jurisdiction
8
Filers Listed (max 100)
2020
Peak Filing Year

  • One organisation holds 12 of the 24 tracked families, while the fifth-ranked assignee holds just 1, a sharp concentration at the top of an otherwise thin field.
  • Filing peaked in 2020 at 14 records and has since cooled to a partial 1 filing in 2026, though publication lag means recent years are always undercounted.
  • 91.7% of the 24 records classify under G16B bioinformatics, with adjacent hardware and storage classes each touching only 2 records, a sign of unclaimed adjacent ground.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Landscape Overview

What this landscape covers

This landscape tracks patent families whose title, abstract or claims match pangenome or genome graph combined with alignment, the class of method that builds a graph from a linear reference genome plus known genetic variation, then aligns sequencing reads against that graph instead of a single linear sequence. The dataset spans filings from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off and covers 24 patent families across 8 ranked assignees, with filing activity concentrated in Europe and the United States.

The field is small enough that individual filings matter: one organisation's 12-family portfolio sits ahead of a long tail of single-digit filers, and the technology classifies almost entirely as bioinformatics method rather than general computing or hardware. That combination, low volume, high classification concentration, one dominant filer, shapes where freedom-to-operate risk and open claim space both sit.

Filing distribution across 24 tracked families
  1. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD12
  2. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV5
  3. POLITECNICO DI MILANO4
  4. ZHEJIANG LAB1
  5. LEIGHTON1
  6. YANTAI UNIV1
  7. EKIM BARIS1
  8. CHIKHI RAYAN1

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 8 of the 8 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit). 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
Filing Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The 24 patent families in scope span 2015 through the partial 2026 filing year, with classification spread across the eight largest IPC subclasses that reveal where the claim activity concentrates and where it thins out.

Filing activity, 2019–2026

Filings rose from 2 in 2019 to a peak of 14 in 2020, then fell back; 2026 is a partial year with 1 filing so far and, given the roughly 18-month publication lag, its true count is understated.

Filing activity, 2019–202604811152201914202020212022202320242025120262022 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.

IPC subclass distribution

G16B (bioinformatics) covers 91.7% of the 24 records, confirming this is overwhelmingly classed as a bioinformatics method rather than a general computing or hardware invention; G06F and G01N trail well behind, and the remaining subclasses each touch only 2 records.

IPC subclass distributionG16B · Bioinformatics2291.7%G06F · Electric digital data processi…416.7%G01N · Material analysis & testing312.5%A24D · Cigars, cigarettes & filters28.3%B65D · Containers & packaging28.3%G03G · Electrography & electrophotogr…28.3%G11B · Information storage (magnetic/…28.3%H01M · Batteries, cells & fuel cells28.3%Other14.2%

Shares are the percentage of the 24 published records in scope. One published record 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 Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit). Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about reference genome pangenome graph alignment algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative Filing

A representative claim in this space

Representative Patent
US20240404642A12024-12-05

Genome graph analysis method, device and medium based on in-memory computing (US20240404642A1)

ZHEJIANG LAB

A method, a device and a medium for genome graph analysis based on in-memory computing. The method comprises the following steps: firstly, combining a linear reference genome with genetic variation to construct a genome graph; then, generating indexes for a plurality of vertices of the genome graph, and constructing an index table according to the generated indexes; then dividing the read length into a plurality of substrings with the length of k-mer, and querying the index table to obtain a seed position, generating a reference subgraph according to the seed position, and identifying a candidate mapping position according to the reference subgraph to filter a candidate mapping area; finally...Assignee: Zhejiang Lab · Published 2024-12-05. Abstract truncated as provided in the underlying filing record.

US20240404642A1, patent drawing 1US20240404642A1, patent drawing 2
View full filing in Eureka

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 Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit). 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 →
Signals

What the filing pattern signals

Three findings stand out from the 24 tracked families: where ownership concentrates, when the field peaked, and how narrowly the technology is classified.

Concentration
12 vs 1
leader vs fifth place

Ownership is top-heavy but the field is small

Across 8 ranked assignees, the leader holds 12 of the 24 total families while the fifth-ranked filer holds only 1. That is a steep drop-off rather than a gradual one, meaning most participants in this space have filed once or twice rather than building a portfolio.

8 assignees ranked, 24 families total
Timing
14 in 2020
peak filing year

Activity peaked in 2020, then cooled

Filings rose to 14 in the peak year of 2020 before falling back toward single digits, with only 1 filing recorded so far in the partial 2026 year. Given the roughly 18-month gap between filing and publication, the true 2025–2026 count is higher than currently visible.

2019: 2 filings → 2026 (partial): 1 filing
Classification
91.7%
of records classed G16B

Claims sit almost entirely in bioinformatics

22 of the 24 records carry a G16B bioinformatics classification, confirming this technology is claimed as a computational biology method rather than as general-purpose computing or hardware. G06F and G01N appear in a minority of records, usually layered on top of the bioinformatics classing rather than replacing it.

G16B 91.7% · G06F 16.7% · G01N 12.5%
Filing venue
6 / 6
EPO and US filings

Filing activity splits evenly between Europe and the US

The EPO and the United States each account for 6 of the tracked filings, with WIPO/PCT at 4 and India at 3, indicating applicants are pursuing parallel protection across the two largest markets rather than concentrating in one jurisdiction.

EPO 6 · US 6 · WIPO 4 · India 3
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 reference genome pangenome graph alignment 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 Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit). Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next Steps

Where to take this next

The figures above cover the shape of the field. Turning that into a filing or freedom-to-operate decision means reading the underlying claims directly.

Check freedom-to-operate against the leading portfolio

With one assignee holding 12 of the 24 tracked families, any new filing in this space should be checked against that portfolio's specific claim mechanisms before drafting.

Open claim comparison in Eureka

Track the under-claimed adjacent branches

Storage, compute-substrate and material-analysis classes each touch only 2 of the 24 records, worth monitoring for early movement before the space fills in.

Set up monitoring in 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 Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit). Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit). Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Reference Genome Pangenome Graph Alignment Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole reference genome pangenome graph alignment 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:(("pangenome" OR "genome graph") AND alignment)

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 91.7% 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 8 of the 8 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 8 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.