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 reference genome pangenome graph alignment algorithms: 24 tracked families, filing trends since 2015, IPC classification spread
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.
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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
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.
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.
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) 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.
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%.
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 EurekaA 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.


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 →Three findings stand out from the 24 tracked families: where ownership concentrates, when the field peaked, and how narrowly the technology is classified.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaStorage, 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 EurekaThe tracked dataset contains 24 patent families published between 2015 and the 2026 data cut-off that match pangenome or genome-graph alignment claim language. This is a narrow, still-forming field rather than a crowded one: 8 assignees appear in the ranking, and the leader holds 12 of those families. Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the most recent year's count (1 filing in partial 2026) understates actual filing activity and should not be read as a slowdown.
The assignee ranking for this dataset covers 8 companies and research organisations, with one clear leader holding 12 of the 24 tracked families and the fifth-ranked filer holding just 1. That gap between the leader and the rest points to a field where one organisation has built a real claim portfolio while most other participants have filed once or twice. It is not a top-50 or top-100 list, it is the complete ranking the dataset returns, so the absolute numbers matter more than any relative share.
Traditional alignment maps sequencing reads to a single linear reference genome, which systematically misses variation not present in that one reference. Pangenome or genome-graph alignment instead builds a graph structure that folds in genetic variation across many individuals, then aligns reads against that graph rather than a single linear sequence. The patent evidence here shows this expressed as method claims covering graph construction, vertex indexing, k-mer-based seeding, and subgraph extension to identify candidate mapping regions, the representative filing in this dataset follows exactly that structure.
G16B (bioinformatics) is the most common classification, covering 91.7% of the 24 records in this dataset. G06F (electric digital data processing) and G01N (material analysis and testing) appear in a minority of records, at 16.7% and 12.5% respectively, usually alongside G16B rather than instead of it. A handful of other subclasses, covering storage, batteries, and packaging, each touch only 2 records, which likely reflects broader multi-purpose filings rather than dedicated alignment-algorithm claims.
Yes, based on the classification spread: several IPC subclasses adjacent to the core bioinformatics claims, covering information storage, power/battery management, and material analysis, appear in only 2 of the 24 records each, suggesting no filer has yet built a dedicated claim tying those substrates specifically to graph-alignment mechanics. With only 8 assignees ranked and a peak filing year of 2020 at 14 filings, the field also has not reached the filing density where every implementation variant is already covered. That combination of low volume and thin adjacent-class coverage is the practical definition of open claim space here.
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.
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.
This page